Full Committee Hearing: U.S. Military Posture and National Security Challenges in Europe

Chairman Mike Rogers (R-AL)SPEAKER_24

The committee will come to order. Today we continue our posture hearings with EUCOM. I want to thank the witnesses for being here, and General Cavoli, as this will be your last appearance before this committee, I want to thank you for your incredible service to our nation over a very long time. Thank you, sir. Today we gather with heavy hearts after the loss of four American service members in a tragic training accident in Lithuania. I want to thank our Lithuanian and Polish allies for their sparing no resource to recover the fallen. Now, let me open with something fundamental. Vladimir Putin is not our friend. He is an unreformed KGB agent who believes the collapse of the Soviet Union was, quote, "the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the century," close quote. His desire to reconstitute the Soviet Union drove him to attack Georgia in 2008, invade Crimea and the Donbas in 2014, and then launch a full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022. Those that blame NATO enlargement or suggest that Russia was somehow provoked into attacking Ukraine are wrong. The Ukrainian people have fought bravely over three years to defend their freedom, but I agree with President Trump, it is time to stop the bloodshed. President Biden never had a plan to end the war. By slow-rolling weapon deliveries and imposing loophole-ridden sanctions, he allowed the conflict to grind to a stalemate. President Trump has broken that deadlock. Ukraine has agreed to a ceasefire as a first step, showing their desire for peace. Russia, however, has refused to do the same and continues to slaughter innocent victims. Just last week, Russia bombed a playground, killing nine children. Murdering innocent Ukrainian children does not advance peace. President Trump was right to warn Putin that if he doesn't start negotiating in good faith, then the U.S. will ratchet up pressure and impose unprecedented sanctions. Because, as President Trump knows, Putin only respects strength, and he has acted accordingly. He sanctioned the Nord Stream 2, he withdrew from the INF Treaty after Russian violations, he sent additional U.S. troops to Poland, and he armed Ukraine with anti-tank missiles, not blankets. That's why Putin didn't invade Ukraine during President Trump's first term, and that's also why Putin must prove he's serious about peace, and soon. We cannot allow Russia to drag out these negotiations. Now, while I agree that China is our pacing threat, we must remain tough and unwavering in the face of Russia's enduring threat. Because the reality is Russia maintains the world's largest and most diverse nuclear arsenal, and despite suffering massive losses in Ukraine, the Russian army is now larger than it was before the war. The Russian military is also reconstituting faster than expected, and its industrial base is now on war footing and being supported, unfortunately, by China, North Korea, and Iran. Given these threats, I'm concerned by reports that some at DOD are considering not only giving up NATO command, but also significantly reducing our posture in Europe. I'm especially concerned that Congress has not been consulted. U.S. leadership in NATO is essential to ensure American forces, including our nuclear weapons, always remain under U.S. command, and cutting our presence in Europe now, especially on NATO's eastern flank, would only weaken leverage with Putin. Thanks to President Trump's leadership, our European NATO allies are finally getting serious about investing in the alliance's collective defense. For the first time, it appears Europe is willing to shoulder most of the burden, and that's how it should be. And it's not just Poland, Romania, Finland, and the Baltic states; allies across the alliance are ramping up their defense spending. But Europe's rearmament will take time. Putting back Pulling back prematurely would risk inviting further Russian aggression, potentially even against NATO. That's why I strongly support maintaining the current U.S. force posture in Europe at this time. I look forward to hearing from our witnesses on how the U.S. and our NATO allies can ensure credible deterrence against Russia. With that, I yield to my friend, the ranking member, for any opening statement he may have.

Ranking Member Adam Smith (D-WA)SPEAKER_26

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to echo your opening comments thanking General Cavoli for his leadership. Sad this will be your last time before us. You've done an amazing job in difficult times in Europe, and also recognizing and offering condolences for our lost service members in Lithuania. The chairman and I had the opportunity last year to visit our troops in Lithuania. It's an incredibly important effort, and it's a huge tragedy for the force. The obvious focus of this hearing with Europe is Ukraine, and I do want to offer a little bit of good news. Ukraine is holding the line against all odds, as they have for now over three years. We're in a real position to blunt Russia's momentum in Ukraine. It's a huge accomplishment, something that hasn't been talked about a lot. It is now more important than ever that we stick with Ukraine to stop Putin's invasion of Russia in its tracks and crucially force him to the table. I agree with the chairman. I even agree with the Trump administration. We need to find an end to this war. But you don't find an end to this war by undermining support for Ukraine and praising Putin in Russia. That empowers Putin for all the reasons that the chairman said. Putin has big ambitions in Europe. Those ambitions can be blunted if we are strong, if we deter him. But when Trump came into office, cut off intel support, cut off aid to Ukraine, berated Zelenskyy, wouldn't even admit that Russia started this war, while at the same time praising Putin and Russia, that opened the door wide for Vladimir Putin to walk right through. The pressure doesn't need to be on Zelenskyy and Ukraine. Trust me, I think most people on this committee have been to Ukraine at one time or another. There is plenty of pressure on Ukraine being brought by Russia every single day. The pressure needs to be put on Putin and Russia to force them to the table. And that is what this administration has refused to do to date. It is prolonging the war and empowering Russia, and that needs to change. Because the larger question for this hearing—and I agree with the chairman on the concerns about talk about downsizing in Europe and everything that goes into it—is does this administration believe in the fundamental principle that has made our country strong for the last 80 years? And that is the partnership and alliance in Europe. Sticking with Europe, sticking with the countries that believe in greater political and economic freedom is to the benefit of the United States of America. And those countries are the countries in Europe, our allies, the European Union. It's not Russia and it's not Putin. One of the most embarrassing things I've ever seen is when the Vice President went to Europe and instead of talking about Ukraine, he lectured Europe about freedom of speech, that that was the big problem with Europe. Well, to begin with, the idea that this administration cares at all about the freedom of speech is ridiculous. As we speak, they are purging the government of all manner of different words that they don't like. We had the great example of how pictures of the Enola Gay disappeared from the Department of Defense website because they had an algorithm that said the word gay was problematic. Now, that's kind of funny when you stop and think about what the Enola Gay means, but even that stupid mistake aside, why are we banning the word gay from discourse? Books are being banned across the Department of Defense. One, a biography of Jackie Robinson, because Lord knows we can't have people hearing about that. So the notion of someone from this administration lecturing anybody on free speech is offensive to anyone with an ounce of common sense, and it sure as hell should have been offensive to Europe. But let's remember, was there anything mentioned in that speech about how Russia treats free speech, about the fact that they have eliminated all free media, that they kill and jail their political opponents? Yes, we should stand for free speech. We should stand for economic and political freedom. But if we're going to do that, we should stand with Europe, not with Russia and Putin. And that is what's really at stake right now: Are we still willing to do that? And the question, Well, how have we benefited from this? Economically, we have seen the greatest increase of wealth of any nation in the history of the world in the last 80 years. Now, I will grant you that wealth has not been distributed as fairly as it should have been, but we have benefited economically. We've also benefited militarily. Our European partners have stood with us in every conflict that we have fought since World War II. After 9/11, they stood with us. I have worked very closely with our Special Operations Command, with everyone who's been fighting against al-Qaeda and ISIS and all of those terrorist groups. Our European partners are crucial to that. Meanwhile, Russia is partnering with Iran. They're partnering with North Korea. They're partnering with China. When I hear people in the administration say, Ah, we've got to pivot away from Europe because the Middle East, you know, Asia, that's what's important, Russia is in the middle of that, and this administration does not show that they understand this in the slightest. We need to stand up for our European partners. Now, yes, there are clear things. The dollars matter. It is good that Europe is stepping up, but they stepped up on Ukraine. The US is somewhere like 13th or 14th in terms of percentage of GDP that we have contributed to this from all of our partners. I personally think the main reason that they stood up was because Russia invaded Ukraine. Presidents have been pressuring them forever. That is what focused their mind, and that's good. Yes, we need to avoid getting into a war with Russia. Yes, we need peace in Ukraine. But you do not get there by belittling President Zelenskyy, by attacking Ukraine, by undermining support for Ukraine, and praising Vladimir Putin and Russia. So we need to stand up for the alliances that have stood so well for us for 80 years. And that, I think, is what this committee really needs to hear from our witnesses today, is how are we going to do that so that the vision that the chairman correctly outlined that Putin has for the world does not come to pass, that we deter him, we stop the war, and we protect economic and political freedom as we have done for a very long time. I look forward to the witnesses' testimony and to the questions, and I yield back.

Chairman Mike Rogers (R-AL)SPEAKER_24

I think we've made it very clear how we feel about this. I thank the ranking member. Now I'd like to introduce our witnesses. We have Ms. Katherine Thompson, performing the duties of Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs, and General Cavoli, who is commander of U.S. European Command. With that, Ms. Thompson, we'll start with you. You're recognized for 5 minutes for your opening statement.

Katherine ThompsonSPEAKER_07

Thank you, Chairman Rogers. Chairman Rogers, Ranking Member Smith, and distinguished members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today, and it is my honor to appear alongside EUCOM Commander General Cavoli. Before I begin my formal statement, I would like to take a moment as well to echo the the chairman and ranking member's comments to to honor the memory of the four American soldiers who died in Lithuania on March 26th while conducting tactical training. My prayers are certainly with them and their families. I would also like to thank the people and government of Lithuania, Poland, and Estonia, who provided exceptional support during the recovery operation. These nations showed our soldiers the highest level of respect during the dignified transfer back to the United States, and we thank them for those efforts. President Trump has directed the Department of Defense to reorient the United States defense strategy so that it puts America's interests first. In Europe, that means working with our interagency partners to bring an end to the war in Ukraine. It also means finding new ways to strengthen NATO so that the Alliance can be as effective in this century as it was in the last. To be sure, neither of these efforts will be easy, not for us and not for our allies. But taking these measures is essential. It is doable, and doing so will leave both the United States and our allies and partners better off. President Trump has spoken often and clearly about achieving lasting peace in Ukraine. This is vital to stop the bloodshed. It will also set Europe on a trajectory toward security and stability like the region has not seen for many years. This is not only good for Ukraine, but it is also good for our NATO allies. And, of course, it is most importantly good for Americans, who benefit from a stable and secure Europe. Already, the president's team is making progress in this regard. Under his leadership, both Russia and Ukraine have come to the negotiating table, and already we are seeing an initial ceasefire take hold. The contours of a lasting peace are coming into view. President Trump and Secretary Hegseth have stated clearly that the United States will not put boots on the ground in Ukraine. At the same time, they have made clear that Europeans must take the lead in supporting Ukraine's defense requirements in the years ahead, and our allies are taking steps to that effect. Last month, for instance, the United Kingdom hosted the Ukraine Defense Contact Group. The UK and France have also committed to lead additional efforts to ensure a lasting peace in Ukraine. As the president and secretary have said, far more will be required of them and other allies. But it is a promising start, and our allies deserve credit for taking these initial steps. Given the sensitive nature of ongoing negotiations, I will limit my remarks on this subject to this statement. I look forward to being able to share more as peace negotiations proceed. NATO played a central role in America's strategy throughout the Cold War. If not for the Alliance, it is not clear that the Cold War would have remained just that, cold. But then the Cold War ended, and as it did, our NATO allies forgot how important it was to invest in their defense. Instead, they grew accustomed to the peace that defined Europe at the height of the unipolar moment, and they divested of their militaries accordingly. But peace can never be taken for granted, and it must be maintained. And that requires all of us, allies and the United States alike, to do our part. Unfortunately, that has not been the case for too many of our NATO allies. In the east, some of our allies, as the ranking member pointed out, did not forget the necessity of investing in their defenses. Even today, allies like Poland and many of the Baltic nations already spend more on defense than the United States does as a percentage of GDP, and they are going even higher and are on track to reach President Trump's target of 5%. These are model allies, but they can only do so much on their own. Western and Central Europe are home to several of the world's largest and wealthiest economies. These allies are more than capable of raising powerful militaries. Tragically, however, they have chosen not to do so. Instead, for decades, they have shown themselves content to free ride, not just at the expense of American taxpayers, but at the expense of their fellow allies' security. President Trump has been clear this is not acceptable. As a matter of justice, Americans are tired of subsidizing Europeans' defenses and, by extension, their vast welfare states. But this is also a matter of prudence. Over the last four years, the international threat environment has grown far more dangerous, and we must all do our part to restore peace through strength. This is why Secretary Hegseth has reoriented DOD squarely on warfighting and lethality, and this is why he has called for a factory reset of the NATO alliance. As the secretary said at the gathering of the NATO defense ministers in February, it is time for our NATO allies to take primary responsibility for Europe's conventional defense, relying on the United States for critical but more limited support, including, of course, our extended nuclear deterrent. That means that our NATO allies must take the lead in providing Ukraine with the security assistance it needs going forward to achieve lasting peace. At the same time, they must generate, field, and sustain the forces required to deter aggression against the Alliance itself, including the seas around it, like the Red Sea. If our allies do these things, there is no question that NATO can be as effective in this century as it was in the last, and all of Europe can realize peace and stability for decades to come. But our allies will only be able to achieve these goals if they raise defense spending to 5% of their respective GDPs, as President Trump has emphasized. At the same time, our allies must focus these resources on where they are needed most, on Europe's defense, not on the Indo-Pacific, and not on the host of other missions that NATO has taken upon itself recently to to field in recent years and detract from the Alliance's proper focus on warfighting, lethality, and deterrence. President Trump has vowed to achieve peace through strength, and the Department of Defense will do its part. Now it is time for our NATO allies to do theirs, and in the process, set conditions for a lasting peace in Europe. Thank you.

Chairman Mike Rogers (R-AL)SPEAKER_24

Thank you, Ms. Thompson. General Cavoli, you are recognized.

GEN Christopher G. CavoliSPEAKER_16

Thank you, Chairman. Chairman Rogers, Ranking Member Smith, distinguished members of the committee, it's an honor to be here again today representing the men and women of U.S. European Command. It's an honor to be here with Sergeant Major Rob Abernethy, who's been with me the entire command term in EUCOM, and I'm glad to be sitting here next to the person performing the duties of Assistant Secretary of Defense Thompson. Thank you for your condolences for the soldiers we lost in Lithuania, ladies and gentlemen. Our heartfelt condolences go out to their families. They came from all over the United States, from Georgia to Michigan, all the way to Guam, and they represented the very best that we have to offer. They were off on a night mission to recover another vehicle. They were mechanics, and they were tragically lost in a bog. The people of Lithuania and the government of Lithuania responded to that in the most heartwarming and reassuring fashion. A week ago Sunday, I went to Lithuania to inspect the operation to try to recover the vehicle and the soldiers. The Minister of Defense of Lithuania was on that site every single day until those soldiers were recovered. There was a mass, a holy mass held by the Archbishop of Vilnius, who's a Lithuanian American from Chicago. There were 2,000 people at that church service, and the stated purpose of the mass was to pray for the families of the servicemen who were apparently lost. I was touched by it, and I think all Americans would have been touched by it. It's the spirit that undergirds the alliance that the chairman and the ranking member talked about. Before I begin, please let me thank this committee for all your support to our servicemen and -women and their mission. We continue to face historic times in the European theater. Russia's war in Ukraine, which is now in its fourth year, has revealed Russia to be a chronic threat, and in the coming years, it's going to be a growing threat, one that is willing to use military force to achieve geopolitical goals and is actively waging a campaign of destabilization across Europe and beyond. Further exacerbating this Russian threat are the deepening partnerships among our adversaries in Russia, Iran, the Chinese Communist Party, and the DPRK. These linkages increasingly pose a global risk. But U.S. EUCOM and the NATO Alliance have risen to the challenge. NATO deterrence has held. War has not spilled into NATO territory. With support from a broad international coalition, U.S. EUCOM led the charge in helping Ukraine. We established Security Assistance Group-Ukraine, which is now commanded by Lieutenant General Curtis Buzzard, and for 38 months of this war, SAG-U has delivered critical munitions, arms, and equipment from the U.S. and our allies. These efforts have been indispensable in enabling the Ukrainian Armed Forces and have empowered them to mount a courageous defense. And now NATO has taken up this task. NATO has established in record time an organization to take over much of SAG-U's mission. The threat of war also led the NATO Alliance to embark upon an historic campaign to fundamentally overhaul and modernize its military capabilities after years of underinvestment, too many years. Our allies are finally optimizing the Alliance for high-end warfighting. And within NATO, we now have the plans, the forces, the command and control, and we have the focus to meet that mission. And there's still much to do, but our allies are investing in defense at a rate we haven't seen since the Cold War, a 40 percent increase overall since February of 2022. So throughout this intense and challenging transformation of the Alliance's warfighting structures, the presence of U.S. EUCOM forces has been essential to the Alliance's modernization efforts. We've converged U.S. headquarters with NATO command structures, we've increased combined training and exercises, and we've been accelerating European modernization and readiness. So through U.S. leadership, we are laying the groundwork for European leadership and thus for more years of peace and prosperity for the United States. There is a long road ahead. Sustained vigilance and pressure will be required. We have done all this to protect vital U.S. interests. Our strengthened allies will increase our strength, and our deep relationships with them give us the access, the basing, and the intelligence to defend our country forward. The first line of defense of our homeland begins in EUCOM, where our naval forces prevent Russian submarines from breaking out into the Atlantic and threatening the United States. The ballistic missile defense of Israel begins in EUCOM, from ships positioned in the Eastern Mediterranean. And in EUCOM, it's our job safely to evacuate Americans from the Levant. We are America's force forward in the world. So ladies and gentlemen, this is my last annual testimony to you, as I'm closing 38 years of service. It's been the honor of a lifetime to serve with our brilliant members during these historic times, and I continue to be inspired by their commitment to our nation's forward defense. I thank you, our Congress, for your unwavering support of our servicemen and -women, to their well-being, and your support to their mission. America is the greatest country in the world, and it is, in large part, because our armed forces are the greatest in the world. I look forward to your questions.

Chairman Mike Rogers (R-AL)SPEAKER_24

I thank both the witnesses. I recognize myself for questions. General Cavoli, given Russia's armed forces are mobilized for long-term confrontation, what's your best military advice on whether or not DOD should maintain the current force posture in Europe for the foreseeable future?

GEN Christopher G. CavoliSPEAKER_16

Chairman, it's my advice to maintain that force posture as it is now. We have reviewed periodically since the— since in 2022 we originally surged forces forward, We have periodically reviewed the force structure at both the military level and the policy level, and I have consistently recommended throughout that period to maintain the forces we surged forward, and I would continue to do so now if asked, yeah.

Chairman Mike Rogers (R-AL)SPEAKER_24

Now, you referenced this in your opening statement, and I would like for you to reiterate it. How does the U.S. force posture in Europe contribute to the defense of our homeland as well as operations in CENTCOM and AFRICOM?

GEN Christopher G. CavoliSPEAKER_16

Sir, thanks. Yeah, it's an important part of why we're there. First and foremost, Russian strategic forces. Russia continues to have very powerful strategic forces, thousands of nuclear weapons and the delivery methods to deliver those. Those are not pointed just anyplace. Those are there, they exist for America, and our defense against those strategic forces, whether in the air or undersea, begins in the European continent. For example, Russian submarines are mainly stationed with the Northern Fleet up in Murmansk, up in the area east of the northern Nordic countries. They come out of their harbors, and they go south between Greenland, Iceland, and the United Kingdom, the famous GIUK Gap. We have to bottle them up north of that gap. If they break out into the Atlantic, for a variety of reasons, it gets tougher to track them. And from those positions, they can hold the country at risk. So, our maritime efforts, which are greatly aided by the efforts of our allies—their maritime patrol aircraft, their anti-submarine helicopters, their destroyers—all of our efforts together, but built around America's exquisite capabilities, that's the first line of defense against Russian subs. If we look to the south, we participated in the defense of Israel early this year. U.S. Central Command led a brilliant campaign with the Israelis and some other allies to protect against Iranian attacks against Israel. The ballistic missile defense part of that comes off of EUCOM ships in the Eastern Mediterranean. The refuelers come out of EUCOM. The airspace control comes out of EUCOM. We do the same for AFRICOM and everybody else. It's really because of our proximity and our familiarity with the area. The bases that we have in Europe and the legal permissions we have with nations hosting us give us the ability to project power quickly in our interest, on behalf of our U.S. unilateral interests.

Chairman Mike Rogers (R-AL)SPEAKER_24

Thank you, General. Ms. Thompson, given everything you've just heard, does the department support maintaining its current posture of U.S. forces in Europe for the foreseeable future?

Katherine ThompsonSPEAKER_07

Thank you for the question, Mr. Chairman. The department right now is undergoing a Global Force Posture Review, and so we are taking into account not only the dynamics in EUCOM but in all of our theaters and evaluating that based on President Trump's stated interests, and sizing our force and our resources appropriately to that. No decisions have been made at this time as part of that Global Force Posture Review. It is ongoing.

Chairman Mike Rogers (R-AL)SPEAKER_24

I think that the ranking member and I have made it very clear in our previous correspondence to the department, and I think in this opening statements, you should be focused on maintaining the surge posture that we've had in Europe since the conflict was started by Russia for the foreseeable future. General Cavoli, you noted in your written statement that the inadequate U.S. defense production capacity and problems within foreign military sales systems are making it hard for Europe to buy U.S. weapons. What challenges does this pose to your command responsibilities

GEN Christopher G. CavoliSPEAKER_16

Thank you, Chairman. In my oral statement, in my opening statement, I talked about an historic transformation of Allied Command Operations, the operational force in NATO. So we've designed these plans to defend NATO territory, and from that we derive a force structure requirement, a description of what exactly forces and how many of them we need. So this is sort of the spending list, the shopping list, for defense spending in Europe now. Increasingly, nations are putting money up against that shopping list. 23 nations are spending above 2% right now. We're grateful for that, but there's got to be something in the store to buy. There is a lack of production capacity right now, and that's the first problem. The second problem

Chairman Mike Rogers (R-AL)SPEAKER_24

is— I'm sorry, my time's expired. I'm gonna have to yield to the ranking member. Thank

GEN Christopher G. CavoliSPEAKER_16

you, Chairman.

Ranking Member Adam Smith (D-WA)SPEAKER_26

Yeah, and to drive home that point, I'm with the chairman. Our production capacity is a major problem, even if we do spend more money. I think that the summary of what you just said, it's great you have the money, you have to have something to buy. And part of the challenge here, we don't have a budget yet from the president. I'm not going to be harshly critical of that. When you have your first term, we didn't get the budget from President Biden until mid-May, either. Once we see that budget, a lot of these questions will be in a better place. But General Cavoli, can you tell us what's going on in the war in Ukraine right now? We seem to have forgotten those details. It is still ongoing. Russia is still attacking. But how is Ukraine doing in terms of holding off those attacks in the east primarily?

GEN Christopher G. CavoliSPEAKER_16

Sure, Congressman. Starting on the ground, if I could take just a moment and sketch down an imaginary map, if we look in the northeastern part of the battlefield up near the Russian province of Kursk, that's the northern extent of the front line of troops. As you know, last summer, late last summer, Ukraine pushed into Russia there and established a salient of several hundred square kilometers in a sort of surprise move. They've continued to hold that. The Russians vowed to kick them out by the end of last September. The Ukrainians are still there. There are still a certain number of brigades. I could go into the details.

Ranking Member Adam Smith (D-WA)SPEAKER_26

But I guess in general, is it fair to—Russia has been throwing a lot of troops and taking a lot of casualties, particularly in the last month or two. Has that stalled across from Kharkiv down to Kherson, basically the front, or are there places where Russia is making progress?

GEN Christopher G. CavoliSPEAKER_16

So, Russia has stopped making progress in Kursk right now. They haven't been able to dislodge the Ukrainians. If we come all the way down the front along Chasiv Yar and the towns in Luhansk, if we go down to Pokrovsk in Donetsk, the Russians' attacks seem to have petered out. They've decreased in the last couple of weeks significantly in number, but the size and scope of the attacks seems to have petered out as well. The Ukrainians are in good positions. They're in good defensive positions. They've improved some of their readiness and manpower situation. They are, indeed, producing large numbers of Russian casualties. In a couple of minor places, the Ukrainians have actually gained some ground back. But I do not see the Ukrainians being in imminent danger of collapse. I do see the Russians struggling to make the kind of gains they were making last autumn.

Ranking Member Adam Smith (D-WA)SPEAKER_26

One, in your opening statement, Ms. Thompson, when you said that the ceasefire continues to hold, that there is no ceasefire. Let's just be clear about that. The war is very much ongoing. As the chairman noted, Russia just bombed Kyiv and killed a whole bunch of people. What do you mean the ceasefire is holding when the war goes on?

Katherine ThompsonSPEAKER_07

Thank you for the question, uh, Congressman. I can speak more to the specifics when we go into closed session. I'm happy to share more. I think But I would point to the progress that the administration has made.

Ranking Member Adam Smith (D-WA)SPEAKER_26

You would acknowledge the war is still going. There is no ceasefire at the moment.

Katherine ThompsonSPEAKER_07

So again, from the administration's perspective, what we would say is the goal is to get both sides to the table to have peace negotiations so that the war doesn't continue. That's priority number one. And I would point to the progress we've made on the energy infrastructure ceasefire. And again, happy to provide more color in closed session. But I would point to that as the starting point and, you know, conversations

Ranking Member Adam Smith (D-WA)SPEAKER_26

about that. Sure. As a general rule, to create the notion that there's some kind of ceasefire over there is wildly inaccurate and misleading. And one other question on the budget. You mentioned that we want Europe to get to 5% of GDP. The U.S., as I understand it, is right around 3% of GDP, and the budget hasn't come out yet. Is it the president's intention to try to get us to 5% of GDP? And just top-of-the-head math, that would mean a defense budget of somewhere around $1.5, $1.6 trillion. Does the administration intend to get to a 5% GDP number in the U.S.? And if not, how does that square with demanding that Europe do that?

Katherine ThompsonSPEAKER_07

Thank you for the the question, and I think I would point you to President Trump's framing of of the 5% comment first and foremost, which is that his view is that our European and Canadian allies should be at 5%, and and the expectation is not necessarily for a stronger U.S. commitment. The U.S. has already committed over $350 billion in in effort to the to the war effort in Ukraine. We've been at the top spender in NATO for the better part of at least a decade, and so the goal for from President Trump's perspective for the 5% target is to ensure that our our European and Canadian allies make up the deficit that has essentially existed for the better part of a decade.

Ranking Member Adam Smith (D-WA)SPEAKER_26

So no, we, we don't intend to try to get to 5% in the U.S.

Katherine ThompsonSPEAKER_07

On specifics for the budget, I would point you to, to the Comptroller, and, and budget decisions are not finalized, so I wouldn't want to speak to that and get ahead of the decision space there.

Ranking Member Adam Smith (D-WA)SPEAKER_26

I'm out of time. I yield back. Thank you.

Chairman Mike Rogers (R-AL)SPEAKER_24

I would point out that we are in NATO and everybody in NATO should get to 5%, just like President Trump said, including the United States. The gentleman from South Carolina is recognized.

Rep. Joe Wilson (R-SC)SPEAKER_32

Thank you both for being here, and amen, Mr. Chairman. And I'm just so grateful to have both of you serving. It's so reassuring to the American people. And as a veteran myself and as the father of four sons who have served overseas in the military, I want to offer condolences to your team on the loss of the four American service members who recently passed away with our allies in Lithuania: Staff Sergeant Troy Knutson-Collins, Staff Sergeant Jose Nunez, Staff Sergeant Edwin Franco, and Private First Class Dante Taitano. I especially identify—I spent many, many summers National Guard training at Fort Stewart, and I know the quality and the competence of the people serving there. Reading about how our European allies came together to help the recovery efforts is a strong demonstration of the efforts to stand side by side in times of need, and I'm grateful that our NATO allies are really coming forward, and I particularly appreciate, Madam Secretary, the President's efforts to encourage our allies to reach the 2%, and they are, but with his encouragement. And so it's so encouraging as we try to achieve peace through strength. And indeed, to me, it's so important because we're in a conflict we have not chosen, and that is dictators with rule of gun invading democracies with rule of law. It began February 24th, 2022, war criminal Putin invading Ukraine. Then on October 7th, puppets of Iran invaded Israel. It's such a clear connection of the dots, and both of them being backed up by the Chinese Communist Party. And then keeping that in mind with European Command, what we see, I believe, is war criminal Putin is making every effort to resurrect the failed Soviet Union. He really never left with Russian troops in Transnistria, Moldova. They were supposed to leave, but they did not, and so they occupy part of Moldova. Additionally, we know they rigged the elections in Belarus. Then there was the invading—invasion of Georgia and the annexation of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. And then you had the invasion of Ukraine with tens of thousands of people killed in 2014 and 2022. And then you had the rigging of the national elections, October 26th, in Georgia, where the effort was made to replace the very courageous President Salome Zourabichvili. And over and over again, we can see. And then we see, even more recently, the efforts to rig the elections of Romania, but fortunately they were not successful. General Cavoli, you mentioned in your presentation that war criminal Putin is on pace to replace all the combat materiel that was damaged or lost throughout its invasion of Ukraine. What are the implications that this new supply of munitions and combat vehicles is helping Russia modernize its military?

GEN Christopher G. CavoliSPEAKER_16

That's exactly what it's doing, sir. It's helping to modernize their military. They have very extensive modernization plans and expansion plans. The Russians about a year and a half ago announced an intention to grow their armed forces to 1.5 million, up from 900,000, a significant increase; to establish new commands, especially in the ground forces in northeastern part of Europe that is on the border of NATO with Finland and the Baltics. They're on the path to doing that. They're not going very quickly because they're devoting so much to the effort in Ukraine. We'll see how much effort they'll be able to put into it after the war. It depends largely how the war ends. But that modernization program is intended to go right back and challenge NATO on the borders of NATO.

Rep. Joe Wilson (R-SC)SPEAKER_32

And indeed, for the United States, uh, how important is it for us to produce conventional combat vehicles for future combat?

GEN Christopher G. CavoliSPEAKER_16

Oh, I believe, I believe, uh, combat vehicles and tanks maintain an important place on the battlefield, and our ability to produce them is going to have a lot to do with our ability to have a strong Army component to our joint force.

Rep. Joe Wilson (R-SC)SPEAKER_32

And General, I'm very encouraged that actually the Ukrainians have done so well in reducing the capabilities of war criminal Putin. When the dictator Bashar al-Assad of Syria was asking for assistance in November, it wasn't given, and he had to flee to Moscow. And so the people of Ukraine should be given credit that now there's a potential liberation for the people of Syria. And we already know the unintended consequence of what war criminal Putin did of having Finland and Sweden join NATO. So over and over again, it's so encouraging. A key point, too, is NATO now, NATO countries and the EU provide more aid and have provided more aid than the United States, but thank goodness for President Trump that he's there to provide peace through strength. Thank you.

Rep. Robert Wittman (R-VA)SPEAKER_12

I thank the gentleman from South Carolina. I will now recognize the gentleman from Connecticut, Mr. Courtney.

Rep. Joe Courtney (D-CT)SPEAKER_08

Thank you, Mr. Wittman. And thank you, General Cavoli, particularly for your heartfelt comments regarding the fallen and the also, again, the really sincere efforts by our allies to assist in every way possible. To me, in some ways, that speaks more loudly about the value of an alliance that's been around for so long and is founded on shared values and interests. In your narrative about the state of play with Ukraine right now, one aspect which I think sometimes gets overlooked a little bit in the U.S. is the fact that Ukraine has not just held the line in the Black Sea, it's actually pushed the Russian Navy to the furthest eastern end of the Black Sea. They've sank a third of the Black Sea Fleet, including its flagship Moskva, sank a Kilo submarine in Sevastopol. And again, I just In terms of the state of play right now, we saw sea-launched missile attacks over the weekend by Russia, which actually has not happened much since Ukraine, without a navy, has been able to push back the Russian fleet. Can you comment again in terms of just how extraordinary that achievement is without a navy, and also how whether or not the safe passage of grain shipments are now going to be at risk because Russia now seems to be sort of taking advantage of the lull?

GEN Christopher G. CavoliSPEAKER_16

Congressman,

SPEAKER_UNKNOWN

um,

GEN Christopher G. CavoliSPEAKER_16

Thanks for the opportunity to comment on one of the most amazing maritime feats in years. So you put your finger right on it. Not only did Ukraine roll back the presence of the Black Sea Fleet—they don't even have a navy—they have given us all a view of a future where unmanned surface vehicles, basically sea drones, have the potential to wage conflict at a large scale against a traditional manned navy, really remarkable. They have had some help from us, from our European allies, but I should stress that a great deal of their expertise is indigenous. It's grown with their own engineers, their own lessons learned. It's remarkable. They did clear out a passage lane for safe passage of grain ships from Odesa down to the Turkish Straits, and that has been what has been securing the free passage of grain. The Black Sea Grain Initiative is long defunct, so that's very encouraging. Russia did launch some surface-launched cruise missiles the other day. They have been doing that. They have the capability to do that all the way from the Caspian, if you want to know the truth. So it's not unusual for them to do that. They don't have a very good ability to hit moving targets with those missiles, though. So I think there's a lot of space where we can help the Ukrainians here to continue to protect.

Rep. Joe Courtney (D-CT)SPEAKER_08

Great, thank you. And to Mr. Smith point, the notion that, Ms. Thompson, the ceasefire is taking hold, the fact that, again, there were sea-launched attacks, maybe not on moving vessels, but they certainly hit cities in Ukraine over the weekend, that clearly shows that whatever holding the administration may think is happening, in fact, I would argue we're going in the reverse direction in terms of where we were before the negotiations in Riyadh. Mr. Chairman, there's an article in the April 7th, just yesterday's Kyiv Post, headline Russia Mocks Trump Ceasefire Deal with Sea-Launched Missile Attack on Ukrainian Cities. I ask that it be made part of the record.

Chairman Mike Rogers (R-AL)SPEAKER_24

Without objection.

Rep. Joe Courtney (D-CT)SPEAKER_08

Thank you. So, General Cavoli, you talked about the the value of the alliance in terms of tracking on Russian submarines. Again, I represent Groton, Connecticut, which we have 15 attack subs that are sort of part of that team sport that our NATO allies do to protect the homeland. And General Guillot talked about that last week. Again, quickly before I'm done, could you maybe just again describe how the NATO anti-submarine warfare effort, which is a team sport, really is so important?

GEN Christopher G. CavoliSPEAKER_16

Yes, absolutely. I'll do it in generalities, Congressman, because so much of undersea warfare is is is held pretty closely by nations, to include ours, of course. Yeah, so sub-hunting consists basically of submarine looking for submarine, maritime patrol aircraft using various means to look for submarines, and helicopters looking for submarines, and then surface vessels, usually destroyers or frigates, using their assets to look. And we combine all four of those dimensions to surge in specific areas that we, you know, that our intelligence helps us to figure out. We're not— we don't have the world's monopoly on all that equipment, and it's very exquisite equipment. We don't have as much of it as we wish we have. Our allies do, our Norwegian allies, our UK allies, the land space in Iceland where we base maritime patrol aircraft out of Keflavik, the refueling ships to keep our destroyers at sea, Danish frigates. All of this comes together and gets orchestrated.

Chairman Mike Rogers (R-AL)SPEAKER_24

gentleman's time's expired. Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Turner. Thank

Rep. Michael Turner (R-OH)SPEAKER_18

You, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, thank you for your great opening statement and your great articulation of the importance of our support for Ukraine, the importance of our support for NATO, the importance of NATO's integration into our own national security. I appreciate also the ranking member's statements. I appreciate the chairman's statement with Chairman Wicker concerning the importance of the Supreme Allied Commander's position. General Cavoli, thank you for your great service as Supreme Allied Commander and the work that you have done. General Cavoli, we have nuclear weapons in Europe, do we not?

GEN Christopher G. CavoliSPEAKER_16

Yes, we do. The, the number and the modification of them is classified, but their existence is

Rep. Michael Turner (R-OH)SPEAKER_18

not It is important that the United States has those nuclear weapons there, correct?

GEN Christopher G. CavoliSPEAKER_16

Yes, they fall under my command and control for that purpose, sir, as the commander of EUCOM.

Rep. Michael Turner (R-OH)SPEAKER_18

And so it is important that the United States have the position of Supreme Allied Commander, because we have nuclear weapons in Europe,

GEN Christopher G. CavoliSPEAKER_16

Sir, if those nuclear weapons were going to be offered to the alliance for nuclear deterrence or for nuclear operations, that would come under the command of the Supreme Allied Commander. The way we're currently set up, I as the commander of EUCOM own the weapons, and I hand them to myself as the Supreme Allied Commander. That's possible because I am the same person and I am American.

Rep. Michael Turner (R-OH)SPEAKER_18

So, I really appreciate that you just did that straight line for everyone, because the idiocy of the fact that there was any discussion about the aspects of relinquishing the demand, or even the rumor of relinquishing the demand, is just beyond me, because you both indicated that we have nuclear weapons in Europe, that it's important we have nuclear weapons in Europe, and that it's important that you have the command because you are an American and and they are under your command. So, beyond all the other aspects of its importance, which is important all of which are incredibly important to our national security, that alone ought to just end all of the debate. So thank you for making that with such unbelievable clarity. There have been individuals who have unbelievably also stated that they don't understand why we have bases in Germany to defend Germany. In your opening, you were describing that you don't go to work every day to defend Europe, that you're part of the overall arching aspects of the extended reach of the United States national and international security apparatus. Would you please give us some description, again, of the fact that the work that you do, that you're EUCOM, but you don't sit around every day and wait to see whether or not there's someone who's trying to invade Germany, that our bases in Germany actually, where there are Americans, are working every day on international security operations for the United States and on international security issues around the world?

GEN Christopher G. CavoliSPEAKER_16

Congressman, as the commander of U.S. European Command, I have U.S. missions. I take all of my instructions and my direction from the United States, from the Secretary of Defense, and I am there exclusively to pursue U.S. interests and to defend U.S. interests. Inasmuch as I'm located in Europe with that force, it's almost always in conjunction with allies, but I am doing it from a U.S. perspective for U.S. interests.

Rep. Michael Turner (R-OH)SPEAKER_18

But you were describing Israel. You do things in the Middle East. You do things all around the world. You're not just sitting there defending Europe.

GEN Christopher G. CavoliSPEAKER_16

No, no, sir. If you look at the Mediterranean Sea, three very important Europe— uh U.S. combatant commands come together there. There's U.S. AFRICOM, Mike Langley. There's U.S. CENTCOM with Erik Kurilla. And there's EUCOM. And the intersection of the boundaries of those three organizations demands that we work together. In the event, EUCOM has the most bases and the most developed infrastructure to be able to support the other two. So, obviously, I spend more time supporting General Langley in Africa than he spends supporting me in Europe. This is as a result of the infrastructure, the bases, the forces we have located there, and very importantly, the government-to-government agreements we have that permit us to use non-U.S. territory to stage our operations.

Rep. Michael Turner (R-OH)SPEAKER_18

Mr. Chairman, thank you. That was very important, General. I appreciate that.

Chairman Mike Rogers (R-AL)SPEAKER_24

Thank you, gentlemen. Chair, and I recognize the gentleman from California, Mr. Garamendi.

Rep. John Garamendi (D-CA)SPEAKER_19

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for the clarity of your statement, as well as for the ranking member, Mr. Smith. General Cavoli, thank you for your service. You've been at this a long time, and the clarity of your testimony today is extraordinarily important to all of us about the role of EUCOM and the defense of Europe, also the defense of the United States. My question really goes to Ms. Thompson, and I would like to have clarity about the administration's belief or not that our NATO European partners are critical to US national security.

Katherine ThompsonSPEAKER_07

Thank you for the question, Congressman. I would point you to Secretary Hegseth's comments on his first trip overseas, which was to the NATO Defense Ministerial, and where he acknowledged that NATO is the most successful defense alliance in history, and that he made clear that we are not abandoning our European allies. In fact, our efforts and President Trump's efforts, particularly on the defense spending front, is meant to bring our European allies alongside us to develop a status—

Rep. John Garamendi (D-CA)SPEAKER_19

I got all that from your testimony, but my question was different. My question is, is or are the European allies critical to our national American security?

Katherine ThompsonSPEAKER_07

I would say a strong defense and deterrence in Europe is certainly in our national interest, particularly as the department has an aim to focus on homeland defense, and certainly as the chairman and ranking member recognized the looming threat of conflict with China in the Indo-Pacific. Having partners in Europe that as allies and partners are strong on defense and deterrence and are capable only helps further those interests for us.

Rep. John Garamendi (D-CA)SPEAKER_19

The lack of clarity in your answer is noted. However, it's also clear that the statements from the administration, including the secretary and the Vice President, would indicate that the administration does not value our NATO allies, calling them pathetic and other demeaning words, and also missing the monthly NATO meeting would indicate that perhaps the administration's view does not coincide with your roundabout statement. So the question is, does the US still value the partners that we have in Europe?

Katherine ThompsonSPEAKER_07

Thank you for the question, Congressman. And again, I would say, as the Secretary and the President have emphasized, we do value our partners in Europe to the extent that they're willing to step up and be strong allies and partners with us, and that means pulling their weight. And that's the tough message and the honest message that this administration has been delivering. And we believe it's important to be honest with our allies and that that only builds a stronger relationship for us and for our European allies and partners.

Rep. John Garamendi (D-CA)SPEAKER_19

Maybe that's not correct. Maybe it actually weakens our partnership when you demean, when you discourage, and when you place them in a lower value. Moving beyond that, I just note the self-inflicted wounds that the administration has put in place in Europe and the extraordinary additional burden that places on our military leadership trying to hold it together. I want to also thank the Mr. Turner for the clarity that he brought with regard to the command of NATO. General Cavoli, there are many facilities in Europe, some of them on the eastern side in Poland. Are there any plans to change the footprint of the U.S. military on the eastern flank?

GEN Christopher G. CavoliSPEAKER_16

Congressman, we move forces around frequently in Europe. Our air forces are hopping all around, our maritime forces are, even our ground forces move from place to place. But the principal locations where we have forces right now, that's where they are, and that's where I'm planning to keep them. Very generous, some of the countries on the eastern flank. Poland, $3.2 billion in infrastructure to provide housing for our servicemen who are rotating through there. Lithuania has built a city for an armored battalion. I think that got at your question, sir. If not, please let me know.

Rep. John Garamendi (D-CA)SPEAKER_19

I will in the classified. Thank you. Yield back. Thank

GEN Christopher G. CavoliSPEAKER_16

you.

Chairman Mike Rogers (R-AL)SPEAKER_24

gentleman's time has expired. Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. DesJarlais.

Rep. Scott DesJarlais (R-TN)SPEAKER_01

Thank you, Chairman. I'd like to get through a couple questions with General Cavoli, or Cavoli, I'm sorry. General, last month the Defense Innovation Unit announced that EUCOM and INDOPACOM would be the first to receive new generative artificial intelligence capabilities under the Thunderforge initiative for operational planning and decision support. From the command-level perspective, how do you envision this technology enhancing EUCOM's capabilities Abilities ?

GEN Christopher G. CavoliSPEAKER_16

Oh, it's going to be fantastic if it, uh, if it works out the way it's supposed to, Congressman. It's a, um, it's a, an ability to use artificial intelligence to do complex models and then to run scenarios in it. So effectively, to do this sort of wargaming that used to involve a bunch of, you know, a bunch of majors hunkered over a map in the middle of the night arguing back and forth, we'll be able to automate that and thousands and thousands of iterations. It'll really help clarify some of our planning.

Rep. Scott DesJarlais (R-TN)SPEAKER_01

What kind of guardrails are you putting in place to ensure that it augments rather than replaces human judgment, especially in high-stakes or escalatory scenarios?

GEN Christopher G. CavoliSPEAKER_16

Well, I expect my subordinate officers to come to me with the decisions and the recommendations, not the computer. Yeah, no, it's going to be an integral part of our staff process, the way we do do them now. It could conceivably help to replace some manpower, but in the beginning it's designed to enable manpower.

Rep. Scott DesJarlais (R-TN)SPEAKER_01

Okay and General Cavoli, I appreciate you raising the alarm about the roughly dozen European ports near or co-located with logistic hubs that have significant Chinese investments. I think this is a critical issue that doesn't get the attention it deserves in Washington. What's your assessment of the risk this poses in a crisis? And when you bring these concerns directly to our allies, are they receptive to your concerns?

GEN Christopher G. CavoliSPEAKER_16

Um, yeah, the concerns are obvious, sir. You know, we, we could lose access at a critical time to a port. In our exercise program, we're very careful and very deliberate to exercise a wide variety of different port facilities so that we understand the way they work and, and their ownership and everything, and so that we exercise our rights to use them. When we talk to our allies about them, they almost always immediately respond if we have concerns about the ownership. In some cases that we could talk about in closed session, allied governments have intervened and stopped a tender because it was going to, uh, put a critical piece of infrastructure potentially into the wrong hands.

Rep. Scott DesJarlais (R-TN)SPEAKER_01

And you also pointed to CCP-linked 5G infrastructure across parts of Europe as an area of concern. Beyond diplomacy, what tools do we have, either bilaterally or through NATO, to mitigate the surveillance and influence risk this poses?

GEN Christopher G. CavoliSPEAKER_16

Um, beyond diplomacy, sir, I, I think I'd do best to answer that in closed session.

Rep. Scott DesJarlais (R-TN)SPEAKER_01

Yes, sir. I yield back.

Chairman Mike Rogers (R-AL)SPEAKER_24

Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Moulton.

Rep. Seth Moulton (D-MA)SPEAKER_03

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Russia has launched 1,460 guided aerial bombs, 670 attack drones, and more than 30 missiles in the last week, killing at least 21 civilians, including 9 children. Ms. Thompson, do you think that that means we've seen an initial ceasefire take hold, to quote you?

Katherine ThompsonSPEAKER_07

Thank you for the question, Congressman. I would point out that this is an ongoing peace negotiation process. We are at the beginning stages. I'm

Rep. Seth Moulton (D-MA)SPEAKER_03

asking if you think that that qualifies as a ceasefire taking hold.

Katherine ThompsonSPEAKER_07

Again, I would— I'm happy to provide additional color on what— Yes or

Rep. Seth Moulton (D-MA)SPEAKER_03

no, does that mean a ceasefire has taken hold?

Katherine ThompsonSPEAKER_07

I am happy to provide more clarity on this situation.

Rep. Seth Moulton (D-MA)SPEAKER_03

You're unwilling to answer the question. You should answer questions when you come here, Ms. Thompson. Ms. Thompson, you said that the Pentagon is undergoing a worldwide force posture review based on President Trump's stated interests. We know a lot of things happen in this administration based on the whims of the president, which tend to change day-to-day. Do you think a force posture review should be based on the president's stated interests or on sound military advice?

Katherine ThompsonSPEAKER_07

So first and foremost, our global posture review is informed by the president's national security priorities, and then subsequently on our interim national defense strategy guidance, and then ultimately what will be this administration's national defense

Rep. Seth Moulton (D-MA)SPEAKER_03

strategy. The national defense strategy is secondary to what the president wants.

Katherine ThompsonSPEAKER_07

Again, I would say that— Thanks,

Rep. Seth Moulton (D-MA)SPEAKER_03

Ms. Thompson, you said that President Trump will restore peace through strength and, quote, "we must all do our part to restore peace through strength." Does it show strength to blame Zelenskyy for starting this war?

Katherine ThompsonSPEAKER_07

I think the goal from President Trump is to bring both sides to the table, both Russia and Ukraine,

Rep. Seth Moulton (D-MA)SPEAKER_03

Does it show strength to describe Russian President Vladimir Putin, a war criminal, as a genius, as savvy for his invasion of Ukraine?

Katherine ThompsonSPEAKER_07

Congressman, given the sensitive nature of negotiations, again, I don't want to provide any additional color. I'm

Rep. Seth Moulton (D-MA)SPEAKER_03

Just asking if you think it shows strength to praise Putin over our own intelligence agencies, to say that we trust Putin more than the CIA. Does that show strength?

Katherine ThompsonSPEAKER_07

Congressman, I would point to our overarching goal, and certainly President Trump's— I'm just

Rep. Seth Moulton (D-MA)SPEAKER_03

asking if it shows strength. I get the overarching goals. You can point to whatever you want. I'm asking you to answer the question. Does it show strength to call Zelenskyy an incompetent dictator while praising Putin as a, quote, strong leader?

Katherine ThompsonSPEAKER_07

I think what shows strength is President Trump's ability to get both sides to the table, which is a facet that he's already achieved and what this administration continues to prioritize.

Rep. Seth Moulton (D-MA)SPEAKER_03

That's nice that you think that shows strength, but what I'm asking is does it show strength to say Zelenskyy started the war, that he's an incompetent dictator, and that Putin is a strong leader? Do you think that that statement shows strength? Yes or no, Ms. Thompson?

Katherine ThompsonSPEAKER_07

Congressman, for further questions on specifics on what President Trump has or hasn't said and the implications of that, I would point you to the to the White House. I represent the Department of Defense, and how

Rep. Seth Moulton (D-MA)SPEAKER_03

you represent the Department of Defense. Great. So do you think it shows strength to disclose top secret targeting information to our enemies? Hours before pilots are going to fly over enemy targets on a platform known to be targeted by our biggest adversaries. Do you think that shows strength,

Katherine ThompsonSPEAKER_07

Congressman? Again, I— those are, uh, discussions that I'm not privy to. And so,

Rep. Seth Moulton (D-MA)SPEAKER_03

no, no, you don't need to be privy to the discussions. I'm just asking you if you think it shows strength to disclose top-secret information.

Katherine ThompsonSPEAKER_07

I think what shows strength on the, the topic that we're here to discuss, which is force posture in Europe.

Rep. Seth Moulton (D-MA)SPEAKER_03

I'm not asking about that. I'm asking about whether we should disclose top secret information. You represent the Department of Defense. Are you going to hold the troops under the command of DOD accountable to keeping classified information safe? Or do you think it shows strength to tell our troops that it's okay to disclose top secret information, that they will not be held accountable if that happens?

Katherine ThompsonSPEAKER_07

Congressman, I can only speak for myself, and I personally practice all of the information security protocols of the department, and it is the expectation of the department in this position to do so. And I certainly do.

Rep. Seth Moulton (D-MA)SPEAKER_03

And do you hold yourself accountable for that?

Katherine ThompsonSPEAKER_07

Personally, hold myself accountable for compliance with information security? Absolutely.

Rep. Seth Moulton (D-MA)SPEAKER_03

Well, that's a far cry from what we're seeing from the Secretary of Defense, who said that accountability is back, but has refused to hold himself accountable. General Cavoli, how many Lithuanians showed up for the mass to celebrate the lives of our service members?

GEN Christopher G. CavoliSPEAKER_16

Congressman, I couldn't give you an exact number. I don't know what the police counted, but it's the national cathedral. It's in the main square. Several

Rep. Seth Moulton (D-MA)SPEAKER_03

hundred, close to 1,000. What is

GEN Christopher G. CavoliSPEAKER_16

it? Certainly over 1,000.

Rep. Seth Moulton (D-MA)SPEAKER_03

We only have one president who spent $26 million on taxpayer-funded golf vacations in the first 69 days since his inauguration, and yet he couldn't leave a Saudi golf tournament to show up for the dignified transfer of those soldiers' remains. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.

Chairman Mike Rogers (R-AL)SPEAKER_24

The gentleman yields back. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Nebraska, Mr. Bacon.

Rep. Don Bacon (R-NE)SPEAKER_17

Thank you both for being here. I appreciate you both, and I applaud your service, General Cavoli, and congratulate you. I served in Europe. I was commander at Ramstein, deputy commander, Third Air Force. I know the importance of NATO. It's been the bedrock or the foundation of our security for seven decades. And I know the threat that Russia poses. I studied it my whole career. So my first question is for Ms. Thompson. I have significant concerns about our approach to relations with Russia. I do not like how we are treating Russia with kid gloves, like they're our friend, and often we use very harsh words towards our allies in Europe and Ukraine in particular. Does this administration see Russia as a potential partner in things such as resolving tensions in the Middle East? I'm just trying to get to motives.

Katherine ThompsonSPEAKER_07

Congressman, what I would say is, is as the Interim National Defense Strategy guidance points out, Russia, Iran, North Korea, China still pose great threats, and we live in an extremely dangerous security environment. And so, I would acknowledge that up front just to get to the crux of your question. What I would say is the goal for President Trump in peace negotiations is obviously to bring both sides to the table, and to do that, we have to make sure that both scales are balanced to get both parties in a room and talking. And so, what I would say from what you're seeing from the administration is that, at the end of the day, the goal is to get both sides to the table and keep both sides at the table so that we can get to the overall objective that I think we all share, which is an enduring peace in Ukraine.

Rep. Don Bacon (R-NE)SPEAKER_17

Does this administration believe that improved bilateral, including economic, relations between the US and Russia is worth pursuing once peace in Ukraine has been achieved?

Katherine ThompsonSPEAKER_07

Sir, unfortunately, I can't speak to those dynamics. I would direct you to the State Department for any sort of follow-on diplomatic elements that would come after this. The Department of Defense is squarely focused on supporting President Trump's efforts to reach an enduring peace.

Rep. Don Bacon (R-NE)SPEAKER_17

I just wish we had clear moral clarity when it comes to Russia and Ukraine. Who's the good guy? Who's the bad guy? Who's the invader? Who's the victim? And who's committing the war crimes? And I applaud the efforts for peace, but we can't whitewash Russia's behavior to get them to the table. I think they— we all see that the— what they're doing, and we should be very clear about it. My next question is to General Cavoli. I'm deeply concerned about the security situation in Eastern Europe with the ongoing invasion of Ukraine by war criminal Putin. I believe that if he is not stopped in Ukraine, he'll continue to turn his attention towards other former Soviet states, like Moldova, or going next to the Baltic nations: Latvia, Estonia, and Lithuania. Will the US maintain its presence in these countries to ensure that Russia is deterred from further aggression?

GEN Christopher G. CavoliSPEAKER_16

Sir, clearly that will be a policy decision that will be made as time, time goes on. Um, we're in a good position right now.

Rep. Don Bacon (R-NE)SPEAKER_17

Is it correct that the department's considering pulling out two rotational brigades out of Europe?

GEN Christopher G. CavoliSPEAKER_16

Sir, as I said earlier, you know, there's a constant review of this all the time. Um, usually the dynamic is services are asking to recover some forces. They have readiness concerns, modernizations concerns, um, uh, so those discussions continue. Right, right now, I think

Rep. Don Bacon (R-NE)SPEAKER_17

It'd be a grave mistake to pull forces out of Europe right now. This is the time to deter Russia, and I think withdrawing forces is a sign of weakness and it lowers our deterrence. One more follow-up question with you, General Cavoli. While I agree with the administration that focusing on China as our top threat is essential, I worry that we must not take our eye off of Russia and Europe. I believe adamantly that Putin will take any sign of U.S. weakness in Europe as a chance to continue his campaign of aggression in former Soviet territories. What is the overall U.S. military posture in Europe going forward?

GEN Christopher G. CavoliSPEAKER_16

The overall posture for the U.S. military will be to accomplish the objectives that we talked about a few minutes ago in my opening statement and in some of my responses to questions there: first and foremost, to defend the United States of America forward; second, to arrange for and to support U.S. operations in other combatant commands and throughout Europe; and then, of course, to fight and deter as part of NATO, to deter Russia. So we participate in NATO's deterrent strategy. We're a vital part of that. I expect that to continue going forward.

Rep. Don Bacon (R-NE)SPEAKER_17

Could you, in my last remaining seconds, just talk about the importance of the Baltic States? Having the Baltic Security Caucus chairman, and they're right on the front lines.

GEN Christopher G. CavoliSPEAKER_16

Yeah, they are right on the front lines. They are absolutely one of the places that the Russian Federation has focused their attention on, their preliminary attention, setting up a narrative of disputed territories and things like that, passport diplomacy with Russian-language people, subversion campaigns and sabotage campaigns, all of those things. So, they are certainly on the front line. They know it. They respond. They all spend over 2%. Estonia is over 3%. They've all devoted a huge fraction of their national power.

Chairman Mike Rogers (R-AL)SPEAKER_24

Gentleman's time's expired. Chair now recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr. Carbajal.

Rep. Salud Carbajal (D-CA)SPEAKER_23

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to the witnesses for being here today. General Cavoli, thank you for your service. You're going to be missed. I hope you continue to serve in a way that continues to contribute, as you have done for so many decades, to our country. I wish you the best in your next chapter, and thank you so much for being here. I think the Russian threat and even the Chinese threat, to a degree, are so far removed from us here in the United States that it's hard for the people here to understand the reality or the severity. I have traveled to several NATO countries, including the Baltics, and let me tell you, the threat is real and it is at top of mind for people there. General Cavoli, were you once an infantryman?

GEN Christopher G. CavoliSPEAKER_16

I don't think you really ever stop being one, sir, but when, when I became a general, they took away my branch insignia. Yes, I was an infantry officer.

Rep. Salud Carbajal (D-CA)SPEAKER_23

As a Marine, I can relate. Do you speak Russian?

GEN Christopher G. CavoliSPEAKER_16

I do.

Rep. Salud Carbajal (D-CA)SPEAKER_23

Have you worked with Russians in your career?

GEN Christopher G. CavoliSPEAKER_16

Yes, sir.

Rep. Salud Carbajal (D-CA)SPEAKER_23

You are also coming up on 40 years of distinguished career service in the Army, which during that time included director of Russia on the Joint Staff, and you are a foreign area officer with a concentration on Eurasia. Based on this experience, what is your assessment of the threat that Russia poses to the homeland and NATO?

GEN Christopher G. CavoliSPEAKER_16

Sir, there could be a long and complicated answer to that question, but instead I'll just go back to my opening statement. Russia is a chronic threat to the United States and will be a growing threat in the future.

Rep. Salud Carbajal (D-CA)SPEAKER_23

Thank you. Ms. Thompson, based on the situation that General Cavoli has described, does it seem appropriate to try to reduce our force posture and presence in Europe at this time?

Katherine ThompsonSPEAKER_07

Congressman, thank you for the question, and I would just reiterate that we're in the process of a global posture review and no decisions have been made in any theater. What I will say as well is that, of course, as part of this global force posture review, we are taking into account competing requirements, as you highlighted correctly, the threats not only posed by Russia in the EUCOM AOR, but also by China in the Pacific, and then certainly concerns in our own SOUTHCOM AOR on homeland defense and NORTHCOM as well.

Rep. Salud Carbajal (D-CA)SPEAKER_23

We all want this war to end, but it must end on Ukraine's terms.

SPEAKER_UNKNOWN

Um,

Rep. Salud Carbajal (D-CA)SPEAKER_23

members of the administration, including the Secretary of Defense, have suggested Ukraine should give up hope of reclaiming all territory seized by Russia. How can that be achieved when this president continues to play neutral facilitator, but not really, because he keeps praising Russia, he keeps putting down Ukraine, he keeps aligning himself with Russia? Even the tariffs that we're dealing with don't include Russia. How can we trust this president?

Katherine ThompsonSPEAKER_07

Thank you for the question, Congressman. I'll I'll address the first part of the question. I would direct on the the economic piece, I would direct those questions to the White House and to State and Commerce for the specifics on that, because I don't want to speak for them on the tariff implications particularly. But on on DOD lanes in particular, right, our lane, our goal is to bring is to help support the president in his efforts to bring both sides to the table, keep them at the table, and reach a lasting peace. That requires work on both sides of the scale, both with Ukraine Ukraine and Russia, and it requires balance, as you point out. And that's the efforts that we're working toward right now. And the Department of Defense is poised to support both of those efforts, including continuing to support Ukraine where it will affect those negotiations as well.

Rep. Salud Carbajal (D-CA)SPEAKER_23

Ms. Thompson, you keep providing answers that are just canned and don't really answer many of the questions that have been asked by our colleagues today. So quite frankly, I'm just not going to waste my time. I wish I was as lucky as you when I was starting in my career with not as much experience to be elevated to such a significant post, where you are now performing the duties of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs, Office of the Secretary of Defense. I wish I were so lucky. Mr. Chair, I yield back.

Chairman Mike Rogers (R-AL)SPEAKER_24

gentleman yields back. Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Luttrell.

Rep. Morgan Luttrell (R-TX)SPEAKER_27

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. General Cavoli, 38 years. Are you moving on to another post, or are they putting you out to graze?

GEN Christopher G. CavoliSPEAKER_16

Um, I, I, I'm retiring, sir. Thank you.

Rep. Morgan Luttrell (R-TX)SPEAKER_27

Well, i'm going to give you— you're never going to remember what I'm about to say to you, but one day you're going to look up and you're going to say, I remember somebody saying something to me one time. After, after 38 years of service, you've been wearing that armor for a very long time, all right? And when you step away from this post and you're introduced outside these walls to the civilian world once again, there is a black hole, a deep, dark black hole that you haven't seen since you were in— since you started your service. Okay? And I've read your portfolio and you're one of the most impressive individuals I've, I've ever had a chance to sit in front of. But this thing is very real. Okay? And when and if this happens to you, because the window of opportunity is about 5 years. I've been out for 10 years and I think I was in it for about 5 years, and I've talked to my veteran brothers and sisters, and they all have the same problems. Because once you start your next journey, nobody's going to show up on time. Nobody's going to complete their work like they're supposed to. Nobody's going to answer you like you think they should. It's just going to be different, and you're going to look up and you're going to realize you're the anomaly, and that's okay. Don't ever hesitate to reach out to your brothers and sisters that you served with and just have those conversations, because what you've done is exceptional. And when you turn the page for the next chapter of your life, you will be starting over, and that will be very challenging. But as a leader, as someone that has gone through so much, the next chapter is just one step forward Till the day the good Lord calls you home. Okay. And this may or may not make sense to you. I can assure you, if you're talking to some— whatever you do, don't run for politics. Okay? Just don't ever think about running for Congress or don't stay away from this place. Okay? I promise you, if you do, just hear me out on this one. I wanted to say that to you and thank you for— I mean, I don't know if they're going to give you an award for 38 years. I consider you like an overachiever. Um, but good, good luck, fair winds and following seas. My questions are for a classified setting, sir. Thank you.

Chairman Mike Rogers (R-AL)SPEAKER_24

Gentleman yields back. Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Keating.

Rep. William Keating (D-MA)SPEAKER_34

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As a Gold Star family member myself, I associate myself with the remarks of the chair, the ranking member, and particularly Mr. Wilson, who mentioned by name those soldiers that were lost, who represented our country well, as well as their homes of Illinois, California, Guam, and michigan. General Cavoli, in your experience, if there are four servicemen missing under those circumstances, wouldn't the commander-in-chief be notified within 24 hours?

GEN Christopher G. CavoliSPEAKER_16

You know, sir, I don't want to sound evasive in any way, but I don't know. We report echelon to echelon, and my job is to—

Rep. William Keating (D-MA)SPEAKER_34

So that would be reported up from you, certainly. In from.

GEN Christopher G. CavoliSPEAKER_16

Certainly, as reported through staff channels. And, and typically,

Rep. William Keating (D-MA)SPEAKER_34

Yeah, I just found it remarkable that over 24 hours later, the President of the United States, when questioned, didn't know anything about this. So I wonder about the communication, at least at your level. It went up the ladder, so it's good to know that. And it's good to know, too, I saw those films from Lithuania of the people in the streets, even outside the cathedral, little boys crying. And I believe there were reports, too—I don't know, you were there. Wasn't the president of Lithuania there, too?

GEN Christopher G. CavoliSPEAKER_16

He was present for the, for the procession, for the dignified transfer.

Rep. William Keating (D-MA)SPEAKER_34

Thank you, Ms. Thompson. You said we should step up and match. I mean, the European allies, they should step up and match our example, match what we're doing. Was our president— did he partake in any of those services?

Katherine ThompsonSPEAKER_07

Congressman, thank you for the question. I unfortunately can't comment on that because You don't know I don't speak for the White House.

Rep. William Keating (D-MA)SPEAKER_34

No, no, but people know. Do you read the newspapers? Do you listen to commentary? Where was the president during the services?

Katherine ThompsonSPEAKER_07

I'm not aware of the president.

Rep. William Keating (D-MA)SPEAKER_34

Really? Someone in the Defense Department where the Secretary of Defense was supposedly tasked for that job. The president flew over that on his way to a Saudi golf tournament at his, one of his golf courses. You didn't know that,

Katherine ThompsonSPEAKER_07

sir, I only— You didn't know

Rep. William Keating (D-MA)SPEAKER_34

that,

Katherine ThompsonSPEAKER_07

sir? I only knew that the Secretary of Defense had planned to attend and that, well, I

Rep. William Keating (D-MA)SPEAKER_34

guess we're really siloing information then if you weren't aware of that. General Cavoli, you mentioned about the importance, and I couldn't agree more, and it's more important now. If we don't understand it in Ukraine, we'll never understand it, of the deep relationship that we have with our European allies in particular. And there was a lot of talk with the recent Houthi attack, but wasn't it true that in prior attacks that the UK and other allies participated in attacks against the Houthis as well? So there was alliances there. We were working with allies in prior attacks.

GEN Christopher G. CavoliSPEAKER_16

I believe so, Congressman. I'd have to defer to General Kurilla on that for the exact details, but I am aware that there was a

Rep. William Keating (D-MA)SPEAKER_34

UK in particular, fighters were there.

GEN Christopher G. CavoliSPEAKER_16

Yeah, I can't give you numbers of the exact countries.

Rep. William Keating (D-MA)SPEAKER_34

No, but they were there helping us, showing that deep relationship. And I can only question the deep relationship with the Signal chat breach of intelligence that occurred. Here's, you know, this deep relationship from Stephen Miller, who was on that chat. Whyever he was there, I have no idea, but he was there, and he said, We need to extract some economic gain for doing this. Vice President Vance said, I just hate bailing out the Europeans again. Ms. Thompson, your boss, Secretary Hegseth, said, I fully share your loathing of European freeloading. It's pathetic. Do you think that speaks to a deep relationship, Ms. Thompson?

Katherine ThompsonSPEAKER_07

Congressman, thank you for the question. I think the sentiment that you're describing speaks to a frustration that the American people hold for the deficit, as President Trump—

Rep. William Keating (D-MA)SPEAKER_34

In fact, you used the word freeloading in your testimony this morning.

Katherine ThompsonSPEAKER_07

I said freerider. Just—

Rep. William Keating (D-MA)SPEAKER_34

free riders. I'm sorry. Thank you for correcting me. You're right. So even though General Cavoli said that there's been a 40% increase just in the last few years, and it's in pace to meet their requirements in Europe, but free riding, that's your term, is that correct, that you used this morning?

Katherine ThompsonSPEAKER_07

Yes, and the description from

Rep. William Keating (D-MA)SPEAKER_34

No, I'm speaking for your testimony. Now, do you think free riding of our allies, do you think that that over 1,000 international allies, including European allies, were killed in the US-led war on terrorism in 9/11, the only time Article 5 has been utilized? So the deaths of over 1,000 servicemen and -women from our allies, that's free riding to you? That's free riding,

Katherine ThompsonSPEAKER_07

Congressman, my remarks and certainly those echoed by the administration are speaking in the context of the NATO problem set and the No, this was —

Rep. William Keating (D-MA)SPEAKER_34

NATO allies.

Chairman Mike Rogers (R-AL)SPEAKER_24

The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. McGuire.

Rep. John McGuire (R-VA)SPEAKER_11

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to start by also offering my condolences and prayers to the four soldiers lost in Lithuania. That would be Staff Sergeant Dunez, Staff Sergeant Franco, PFC Teitano, and Sergeant Knutson. And I'd also like to say thank you to our witnesses for being here today. We really appreciate it. And I very much want to thank and appreciate the Trump administration, President Trump, Secretary Hegseth, and Ms. Thompson. You're doing a wonderful job today. Your efforts to keep our American people safe at home and abroad, we very much appreciate what you're doing. And everyone knows we wouldn't have a country without our military. So General Cavoli, I couldn't say it better than my Navy brother Luttrell, is we really appreciate your service. But your efforts, Ms. Thompson, are working. Morale is up. I've been to the southern border. I've visited military bases. Recruitment is up. We are getting these divisive ideologies in the military. And as a veteran, if somebody saved your life on the battlefield, you wouldn't care if they were pink or blue, male or female, Democrat, Republican, independent. We're all on the same team. And for special operations forces, we're always behind enemy lines. We're always outnumbered, and we always win, because if we don't win, we don't come home. And so these divisive ideologies that have plagued our military, I am so glad that we're focusing more on the job, and that is making our military lethal again. I very much agree with President Trump and the chairman, and that is it is time to end hostilities in Europe with Ukraine and Russia. I very much agree with the chairman as well. I'd like to see all members of NATO do 5%. I know that's a big ask, but we have to have peace through strength. And I'm going to start with Ms. Thompson and General Cavoli. I have a few questions and like to get your yes-or-no response. Since President Trump assumed office in January of this year, have our European allies and partners increased their defense spending or shown actionable plans to do so?

GEN Christopher G. CavoliSPEAKER_16

Yes.

Katherine ThompsonSPEAKER_07

Yes.

Rep. John McGuire (R-VA)SPEAKER_11

Thank you. Um, General Cavoli, can you please provide some examples of how they've done that?

GEN Christopher G. CavoliSPEAKER_16

Spain today announced that they're going up to 2.3% of GDP. That's a big lift in Spain, where defense spending was not very favored for a long time, and where there was a for a very long time a very weak coalition government. That's just today's example, Congressman. We could go on and on. Denmark has recently announced plans to go to 3.2% of GDP and to spend €2 additional billion on Arctic security. Those are just two examples in the past couple of couple of days, weeks.

Rep. John McGuire (R-VA)SPEAKER_11

Thank you. Would the strides these allies are making be sufficient enough to meet the implementation requirements of their regional plans under NATO?

GEN Christopher G. CavoliSPEAKER_16

Not yet. They will be. They, so there's a long process called the NATO Defense Planning Process, Congressman. That's where we take the forces the force structure requirement of the plans and assign it out to nations to build for. That's been concluded. All nations have accepted all their capabilities targets. And now it's time to build, and this is where we come to the question of industrial capacity.

Rep. John McGuire (R-VA)SPEAKER_11

Certainly, and I remember you guys mentioning that capacity, we've got to have something to buy. And that's something that this committee and our chairman fully supports, and we've had many discussions on that. Let's see, General Cavoli, we've already touched on this, but if you could clarify. Some of our allies on NATO's eastern flank have demonstrated their commitment to President Trump's call to increase their GDP spending on defense and improve capabilities, including Poland and the Baltic States. Poland itself has increased its interest in American defense products. Do you believe the current FMS system in the Pentagon operates efficiently enough to ensure that U.S. defense equipment reaches foreign buyers on time?

GEN Christopher G. CavoliSPEAKER_16

No, sir, we have a lot of work to do in that regard.

Rep. John McGuire (R-VA)SPEAKER_11

Thanks. General Cavoli, one last thing. Last week, Defense News published an article highlighting President Putin's announcement of the new Perm nuclear submarine of the Yasen-M class. The article also highlighted some of the issues being faced by the Russian industrial base, not unlike our own. General Cavoli, can you provide a brief overview of the current state of the Russian undersea capability in your area of responsibility?

GEN Christopher G. CavoliSPEAKER_16

Could I do that in closed session, please?

Rep. John McGuire (R-VA)SPEAKER_11

Sure.

GEN Christopher G. CavoliSPEAKER_16

Thanks.

Rep. John McGuire (R-VA)SPEAKER_11

And then if you could, and this may be closed session as well, but how's the United States compare to Russia in terms of its undersea capabilities?

GEN Christopher G. CavoliSPEAKER_16

I am very confident in the United States Navy, sir, but we can go into details in closed session.

Rep. John McGuire (R-VA)SPEAKER_11

I appreciate your testimony today, and I yield back.

Chairman Mike Rogers (R-AL)SPEAKER_24

The gentleman yields back. The chair now recognizes the gentlelady from Pennsylvania, Ms. Houlahan.

Rep. Chrissy Houlahan (D-PA)SPEAKER_30

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you all for being here today. And Ms. Thompson, I wanted to start with you. We are here to talk about the European theater. We're here to talk about our commitments to Europe and the NATO allies. I wanted to raise concerns about remarks that we have recently experienced over the last three days in terms of the tariffs that are going to be levied across the entire world, including, of course, many of our allies in Europe. Senator Rubio recently argued that these tariffs would not meaningfully affect European defense budgets or NATO's cohesion, and he suggested that the tariffs would be justified without undermining readiness of our allies. I worry very much that based on your opening testimony, asking our NATO allies to spend more, build more, that tariffs cannot possibly not affect readiness. Can you please expound with me on your perspective from the DOD on how might the imposition of significant tariffs impact our European allies and their ability to meet NATO defense spending requirements as levied by this administration?

Katherine ThompsonSPEAKER_07

Thank you for the question, Congresswoman, and it's an important dynamic that you bring up, so I appreciate you highlighting it. What I would say from the Department of Defense's purview and lane, because I don't want to speak for the broader implications of tariffs on diplomatic relationships or their effects because that's more in Commerce, Treasury lane, but what I would say from the department's perspective is what we want to make sure is that any levers we're pulling don't impede our objective, as the Secretary has stated in his first visit to NATO, which is a strong transatlantic industrial base on both sides of the Atlantic. That includes bolstering not only our own production, our own defense industrial base, but also Europeans investing in theirs. And we want to ensure that they're certainly able to do so in their comparative advantage.

Rep. Chrissy Houlahan (D-PA)SPEAKER_30

So I'm going to stop because I don't think that you can differentiate between the Defense Department and Commerce in this sense. This is absolutely the industrial base. The defense industrial base is directly connected to commerce, and our commerce is directly connected to that of our allies and our friends. And I think that we can't possibly believe that our actions on the national level to impose very, very high tariffs and levies upon our allies could not affect their readiness and their ability to produce and manufacture and even buy from the United States those weapon systems amongst other things. I'm really frustrated, to be honest, with your testimony, which has consistently been evasive and consistently tried to say that it's not within your lane to comment on things. And I guess I went back to try to understand your position and your tenure, and I've got to be honest, it appears as though you've been in this job a very short amount of time, and it appears as though you've been here a very, very short amount of time. And so I would ask the administration why you're the person that they asked us to talk to about these issues, because it just doesn't seem as though you have the knowledge to be able to answer the questions. I will echo my colleagues' frustration that I don't want to waste my time on these questions. General Cavoli, I'm so, so sorry about the soldiers that we lost in Lithuania. I am very, very sorry, particularly for the soldiers themselves and their families, but I'm also particularly saddened. That is the partner nation with Pennsylvania, and so I take it very, very seriously that we have an amazing alliance with the Lithuanians and worry very, very much that our men and women, Pennsylvanians, will be in harm's way, possibly, if we don't find the way to peace and we don't find the way to address Putin's aggression, not just with Ukraine, but his intents with the rest of the European continent, I believe. I also do want to thank you so much for your service, sir, and I really do hope that you have opportunities to enjoy the remainder of whatever life brings you. I'm very, very grateful to you. With that, I yield back.

Chairman Mike Rogers (R-AL)SPEAKER_24

Chair now recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Harrigan.

Rep. Pat Harrigan (R-NC)SPEAKER_04

Mr. Chairman, thank you, and to both of our witnesses, thanks for your testimony today. And General Cavoli, I never thought I'd say this, but I absolutely echo the comments of my two Navy SEAL colleagues here in expressing well wishes for your retirement. General Cavoli, I've got a couple questions for you today. One of the things that you testified about is that this really is an industrial war and that we're behind in industry. Is that correct?

GEN Christopher G. CavoliSPEAKER_16

Um, this is an industrial-scale war, sir. It's using a lot of old-fashioned equipment that requires heavy industry. And when we look at our own ability, um, yeah, we, we need the ability to produce more weaponry more quickly.

Rep. Pat Harrigan (R-NC)SPEAKER_04

And would, would you also agree that this is a technologically different conflict as well?

GEN Christopher G. CavoliSPEAKER_16

Yeah, it is, sir. There's a very interesting mix of legacy equipment and high-tech, and it really seems that the side that's able to combine those 2 advantageously and then out-adapt the other side's countermeasures and counter-countermeasures, that side gains the advantage for, for an enduring period.

Rep. Pat Harrigan (R-NC)SPEAKER_04

Is it your understanding that 80% of the Russian soldiers who are being killed in the Ukrainian conflict are being killed by FPV drones?

GEN Christopher G. CavoliSPEAKER_16

Yes, I have seen those figures, sir. I think it's probably pretty hard for us to make sure we're accurate on those, given, you know, given our ability to be there and count and everything. But it's certainly well over half, and, and it's certainly a large number And it's a number that has increased steadily over the course of the conflict.

Rep. Pat Harrigan (R-NC)SPEAKER_04

And I would say that these low-cost, high-impact systems are fundamentally rewriting the rules of the battlefield. Would you agree with that statement?

GEN Christopher G. CavoliSPEAKER_16

Yeah, the equipment, Congressman, that is software-defined, where a greater part of its capability is defined by its software, those are super easy and super inexpensive to modify and adapt. And so you can take a piece of hardware, and by manipulating the software, you can stay ahead of the enemy's countermeasures. It's a remarkable thing we're witnessing on both sides. The Ukrainians have proven especially adept at putting engineers down at the lowest level, observing what the soldiers do with the equipment, making modifications, and putting it right back in the fight. It's a big advance.

Rep. Pat Harrigan (R-NC)SPEAKER_04

Thanks for that. And just generally, when I walk into this room, I don't walk into this room as a Republican. I hope my Democratic colleagues don't walk in here as Democrats. I know sometimes we all do, but I walk in here as an American. And I think however we feel about the Ukrainian conflict, particularly as a former special operator, that I think it would be unwise to not learn the lessons of this conflict. And one of the concerns that I have, particularly as we've talked about our defense industrial base being behind, the difference between high-cost, exquisite capabilities and low-cost, ubiquitous capabilities, and the capacity to actually build those capabilities, one of the concerns that I have, given the fact that 80% of Russian soldiers are being killed by FPV drones, is that we have little to nonexistent capability in our country to produce these drones. Would you agree with that statement?

GEN Christopher G. CavoliSPEAKER_16

Well, we do have some capability, sir. I know a lot of people are working on it. I think as as it goes to the U.S. military, I'd I'd refer you respectfully to General George, the Chief of Staff of the Army, who's working very hard to distribute smaller drones at the lowest level and to proliferate them across formations. He's got a program that he calls Transformation in Contact, where he uses brigades that are deployed either into the Pacific or into Europe to accelerate his distribution and his deployment of these drones. I know that he needs some some changes in the way funding works, but I'd leave it to him, sir, on that.

Rep. Pat Harrigan (R-NC)SPEAKER_04

And I think I'm aware of these, but I think we're talking about thousands quantity. And am I correct in saying Ukraine will produce approximately 4 million FPV drones this year?

GEN Christopher G. CavoliSPEAKER_16

Yeah, that's right, sir.

Rep. Pat Harrigan (R-NC)SPEAKER_04

So we are very far behind that level of production capability for something that is achieving decisive impacts on today's battlefield,

GEN Christopher G. CavoliSPEAKER_16

right? They are, they are producing drones like most countries produce ammunition, um, in, in massive quantities for expenditure.

Rep. Pat Harrigan (R-NC)SPEAKER_04

Should we be doing the same thing in the United States of America?

GEN Christopher G. CavoliSPEAKER_16

I, I believe we should be doing that, and I believe we are increasingly going to be doing that. I just— it's not my responsibility to speak about those programmatics, sir.

Rep. Pat Harrigan (R-NC)SPEAKER_04

Thank you, General. Chairman,

Chairman Mike Rogers (R-AL)SPEAKER_24

thank the gentleman. Excellent line of questions. Gentlelady from California, Ms. Jacobs.

Rep. Sara Jacobs (D-CA)SPEAKER_31

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Thompson, do you believe the European Union was formed to hurt America?

Katherine ThompsonSPEAKER_07

I do not.

Rep. Sara Jacobs (D-CA)SPEAKER_31

Okay, I ask because the president publicly said yesterday that the European Union was formed in order to screw the United States and even floated the idea of using military force to take Greenland from Denmark, a NATO ally, because we, quote, "need it for national security." Those kinds of statements suggest a U.S. stance that our European allies and institutions are adversaries or fair game for coercion. In your view, do such positions reflect a coherent U.S. strategy toward Europe?

Katherine ThompsonSPEAKER_07

Thank you for the question, Congressman. What I would say is, as far as our approach to our allies and partners, is one first and foremost of honesty. We want to be honest with our partners, and we also want to be honest about the fact that they need to step up. And that's what I was emphasizing in my testimony when I referenced the administration's priority to bring European allies to—European and Canadian allies within NATO to 5%, and we've already seen great strides in that process, and then also have our European allies lead out, particularly on the future of security assistance to Ukraine. And I would also underscore that Denmark and our bilateral relationship with Denmark is certainly a part of that equation. And we want to have a robust security relationship there, particularly for the reasons that you identify as far as Greenland being critical to homeland defense. And we would share that view.

Rep. Sara Jacobs (D-CA)SPEAKER_31

Okay, great. Well, it's good to know that our approach is about honesty. I guess I'm glad the president publicly, honestly said what he thinks about our European allies. Ms. Thompson, are you aware that Europe pays for 84% of NATO's infrastructure at US bases and that Poland is spending over $300 million annually to support US troops directly?

Katherine ThompsonSPEAKER_07

I am certainly aware of Europe's contributions to NATO for at least on the defense side. I know there's different streams of funding for defense contributions or for NATO contributions on the state side as well.

Rep. Sara Jacobs (D-CA)SPEAKER_31

Okay. And so how do you square that with calling them free riders?

Katherine ThompsonSPEAKER_07

So I think the comment the commentary that I made, and then certainly that the administration has made, really stems from this chronic underspending of being under the 2% threshold. The Wales pledge in 2014 was made in a security environment that was arguably a lot more secure than the security environment that we face today, certainly from the US the adversaries that the US is facing. And I think from that perspective, there's rightly placed frustration in wanting our European allies to not only meet the spending commitment that they made in 2014, but also live up to the overarching Article 3 pledge of contributing to the collective security of the alliance, which includes defense spending. And I would also argue that the security environment that we face today, as bipartisan officials have recognized across administrations, 2% as a threshold for spending is no longer sufficient to meet the demands of the security environment, which is exactly why President Trump has set the target he set. And it's really, really encouraging, I have to say, for many of our allies to now be over the 2% threshold. We want to see those timelines get pulled to the left even further and to see them make further progress. And I would also just take the opportunity to highlight the Eastern allies who are on track to meet 5% very, very soon.

Rep. Sara Jacobs (D-CA)SPEAKER_31

Thank you. And General Cavoli, from a military standpoint, what is the impact on our operations and partnerships when our allies hear American leaders suggest that the EU was formed to screw us, or to entertain ideas of invading an ally's territory, or for calling them free riders when they are contributing a lot to supporting our troops? How does this affect trust and cohesion among our allies that we depend on for our collective security?

GEN Christopher G. CavoliSPEAKER_16

Ma'am, thanks for the question. Clearly it strays well, well out of my lane, but I, I talk to all of the chiefs of defense in, in Europe all the time, and our military-to-military relationships remain quite strong and, and are very solid, ma'am.

Rep. Sara Jacobs (D-CA)SPEAKER_31

Have President Trump's comments come up in any of your conversations with other military leaders?

GEN Christopher G. CavoliSPEAKER_16

Rarely.

Rep. Sara Jacobs (D-CA)SPEAKER_31

But have they, in the context of Europe and this being formed to screw them or what the president is trying to do in Greenland?

GEN Christopher G. CavoliSPEAKER_16

Ma'am, it's rare enough that I'm, I'm searching to, to, to be sure to give you a complete and honest answer. I, I can't remember an, an instance of that off the top of my head. Um, you know, military guys, we, we really try to stay carefully to the military construct and to the military lane, um, because, because it's not our job in any of the nations in NATO. Um, so, so I can't think of an example off the top of my head. If I do think of one, I'll be sure to tell you.

Rep. Sara Jacobs (D-CA)SPEAKER_31

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.

Chairman Mike Rogers (R-AL)SPEAKER_24

Thank the gentlelady, Chair. And I recognize the gentleman from Indiana, Mr. Messmer.

Rep. Mark Messmer (R-IN)SPEAKER_13

Thank you, Chairman. General Cavoli, in dealing with U.S. missile defense and President Trump's Golden Dome executive order, what may not be known is that Europe already has a U.S.-provided Golden Dome in the form of the Aegis Ashore sites in Russia— in Romania and Poland. These missile defense systems have performed well in the Middle East, but the Aegis air defense functionality in Europe is not activated due to regional political concerns. Given the willingness of Russia to deploy novel hypersonic weapons in Ukraine, is it your best military advice that we activate these air defense capabilities to counter that threat?

GEN Christopher G. CavoliSPEAKER_16

Sir, I have, as the Supreme Allied Commander, made that recommendation to the North Atlantic Council.

Rep. Mark Messmer (R-IN)SPEAKER_13

Thank you. Also, can you explain how the missile defense architecture that we've invested in Europe could protect the U.S. homeland?

GEN Christopher G. CavoliSPEAKER_16

Oh sure, some of the radars involved provide some of the very first warnings. Um, and, uh, and there's quite a bit more, but I think I'd be more comfortable discussing it in a closed session, sir.

Rep. Mark Messmer (R-IN)SPEAKER_13

Fair enough. Okay. Given the increase of the drone threats to critical infrastructure, military bases in Europe, how is EUCOM planning to integrate directed energy technologies into its counter-drone defense?

GEN Christopher G. CavoliSPEAKER_16

First of all, we're eager to do that, Congressman, because A lot of the other kinetic solutions are pretty problematic to use, you know, in congested areas and bases that are in congested areas. We're planning to use a layered defense and a full suite of different capabilities, some of them electromagnetic interference, some of them directed energy, as you said, some of them just kinetic projectiles. It's important to remember that we've got to do that in close connection to to civil authorities from the host nation, and each nation has different regulations for spectrum management, for the release of weapons and things like that. So we work through this daily. It's a pretty big initiative.

Rep. Mark Messmer (R-IN)SPEAKER_13

Would that be a more cost-effective countermeasure to, to, uh, some of the million-dollar missiles that we used to shoot down?

GEN Christopher G. CavoliSPEAKER_16

DE? Yeah. Yes, sir. I mean, I, I think everybody's looking for that new way to shoot down aerial objects that doesn't require us to launch multi-million dollar missiles at a $1,000 drone type of thing.

Rep. Mark Messmer (R-IN)SPEAKER_13

Very good. In my district in Southwest Indiana, General Cavoli, at the at the Crane Army Ammunition Activity mission, where nearly 25% of the DOD's conventional munitions are stored, a large amount of the equipment and munitions stored there has been withdrawn via the Presidential Drawdown Authority and sent to Ukraine. How important is it from a combat commander's perspective that we modernize and restock these munitions storage facilities?

GEN Christopher G. CavoliSPEAKER_16

Our stockage levels are extremely important to a combat commander, sir, and to the extent that they're depleted by operations or by donations to another country such as Ukraine, they need to be replenished. There is a program to do that, well well funded previously by the Congress, and it's an important thing for us to for us to consider.

Rep. Mark Messmer (R-IN)SPEAKER_13

Okay, thank you. Also, General Cavoli, spectrum is a valuable, finite resource that's used by the DOD. There are some in Congress who want to require the DOD to vacate its spectrum allocations. Could you speak to what the impact would be on EUCOM if the DOD was forced to vacate the spectrum allocations, and what would be the effects on missile defense?

GEN Christopher G. CavoliSPEAKER_16

Uh, yes, sir. Um, so I think most of the discussion is around the S-band, and, um, we use that. Um, I could go in, in a little bit more detail in classified session, although I'm, you know, not exactly an electrical engineer, but I, but I could talk to you more about it in classified session. It would affect missile defense and air defense.

Rep. Mark Messmer (R-IN)SPEAKER_13

That would, that would affect the potential for defending, defending our country in Europe and, and continental U.S. as well.

SPEAKER_UNKNOWN

Okay,

Rep. Mark Messmer (R-IN)SPEAKER_13

that's right. Yeah, um, very good. I'll yield back the rest of my time. Thank you.

Chairman Mike Rogers (R-AL)SPEAKER_24

Gentleman yields back. Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Crow.

Rep. Jason Crow (D-CO)SPEAKER_29

Thank you, Chairman, and thank you, both of you, for being in here today. I wanted to join my colleagues in expressing deep sympathies for the families of those service members who we lost in Lithuania, and General Cavoli, thank you for responding very rapidly and working with our allies to make sure that we had recovery operations going. And I also want to join my colleagues in thanking you for your incredible service during your tenure. You met challenges throughout Europe that we haven't seen since World War II. You did so with extreme competence, diligence, and discipline, and that was seen by many folks on the Hill as well as our allies, and we are very grateful for your leadership. Turning to Ukraine, in the initial stages of the war, the Ukrainians were able to destroy a very large percentage of the conventional land forces of Russia. Is that is that accurate?

GEN Christopher G. CavoliSPEAKER_16

Yes, sir.

Rep. Jason Crow (D-CO)SPEAKER_29

Over half by most estimations.

GEN Christopher G. CavoliSPEAKER_16

Right. We'd have to think of it as a as a rolling figure because they were growing at the same time as they were losing. But yeah, those are those are about the kind of numbers we're looking at, about almost 4,000 tanks, Russian tanks, destroyed by Ukraine in this.

Rep. Jason Crow (D-CO)SPEAKER_29

But since that time, Russia has, with surprising speed, been able to recapitalize and rebuild both its industrial base, but also its conventional forces and replace a lot of that equipment and personnel. Is that accurate?

GEN Christopher G. CavoliSPEAKER_16

Absolutely.

Rep. Jason Crow (D-CO)SPEAKER_29

How would you characterize China's involvement in that recapitalization, both the industrial component as well as the military component?

GEN Christopher G. CavoliSPEAKER_16

We could talk a lot more about this in closed session, sir, and perhaps we'll have the opportunity to. But there has been contributions. Some of them have been indirect by absorbing much of Russian-sanctioned oil exports and gas exports. They have been able to continue to provide funds that have enabled Russia to continue to build their military. Some have been more direct. Some have been through commercial ventures that may or may not be supported by the Chinese Communist Party. And beyond that, I think I'd be safest to talk to you about it in closed session.

Rep. Jason Crow (D-CO)SPEAKER_29

So, and we'll convene in closed session, but both directly and indirectly, economically and to some degree militarily, China has chosen sides here.

GEN Christopher G. CavoliSPEAKER_16

Oh, certainly. Um, you know, I think there's, there, there's an important side note Congressman, sometimes I've been asked, well, they're only giving them moral support. And I typically respond, but that's, that's the most pernicious type of support.

Rep. Jason Crow (D-CO)SPEAKER_29

But it's more than moral support, would you say?

GEN Christopher G. CavoliSPEAKER_16

And it is.

Rep. Jason Crow (D-CO)SPEAKER_29

Yes. Okay. So they have, they have determined that it's in their interest to support Russia in this conflict?

GEN Christopher G. CavoliSPEAKER_16

It would appear so.

Rep. Jason Crow (D-CO)SPEAKER_29

Okay. Ms. Thompson, this administration has taken a hard line on China in a number of big ways, trying to reestablish and balance that relationship. Would you agree that China has chosen sides in the Russia-Ukraine conflict?

Katherine ThompsonSPEAKER_07

Thank you for the question, Congressman. Yes, with the caveat, right, that you highlighted, which I think is actually really, really important in that it aligns with their interests. Insofar as perpetuating this conflict or other conflicts aligns with their interests, I think that's where we will see the adversary alignment. And that's why it's so important from the context of this administration, right, to get the work streams correct so that the U.S. can focus on deterrence in the Indo-Pacific, avoiding conflict there, while our European allies really step

Rep. Jason Crow (D-CO)SPEAKER_29

the Chinese have determined it's in their interest to support Russia, both directly and indirectly?

Katherine ThompsonSPEAKER_07

I would echo General Cavoli's comments. It appears so.

Rep. Jason Crow (D-CO)SPEAKER_29

Okay. So given that, would you agree that it's in our interest to support Ukraine if China has determined it's in their interest to support Russia?

Katherine ThompsonSPEAKER_07

I would I would perhaps take it a step further, Congressman, depending on how you look at it, which is I think that's the impetus for for trying to get to peace in Ukraine so that we don't continue to to burgeon that relationship or continue to allow the interest to overlap, particularly given the situation. And I know I don't speak for INDOPACOM, but particularly given what— you're

Rep. Jason Crow (D-CO)SPEAKER_29

not willing to say, though, it's in our interest to ensure Ukraine is successful in this conflict.

Katherine ThompsonSPEAKER_07

From my— from our vantage point within the administration, I think that's the— that's why the prioritization imperative is placed on peace.

Rep. Jason Crow (D-CO)SPEAKER_29

The lack of ability to say that it's America's interest for Ukraine to prevail in this continues to be staggering to me, because our adversaries, our competitors have been very clear about the sides that they have chosen here and who they think is in their best interest to prevail militarily. And yet, we are unwilling to do that. And there's a lot of talk about peace through strength, but if you're not willing to actually say the thing, if you're not willing to actually call it out and take sides, I don't see how we can be strong in that regard. So, I will continue to urge, along with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, that the administration is very clear in its rhetoric about who we will support here. I yield back.

Chairman Mike Rogers (R-AL)SPEAKER_24

Gentleman yields back. Chair now recognizes another Coloradan, Mr. Crank.

Rep. Jeff Crank (R-CO)SPEAKER_25

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it. General Cavoli, thank you for being here. Most Americans probably aren't aware that some of the first shots in the Russian invasion of Ukraine were in space when Russia knocked out a satellite network providing communication support to Ukraine. And according to a recent report, Russia is fielding new anti-satellite weapons, expanding on-orbit counterspace capabilities, and training in military space elements to combat the United States. According to General Whiting, Commander of US Space Command, quote, "winning the space fight is foundational to defending the nation," unquote. Can you provide an update of the role that on-orbit warfare is playing in your theater?

GEN Christopher G. CavoliSPEAKER_16

Sure, Congressman, with the caveat that I think, as you know, it's really hard to talk about space operations and capabilities in open session.

SPEAKER_UNKNOWN

Sure.

GEN Christopher G. CavoliSPEAKER_16

So if you'd like to talk about it a little bit more in closed session, we could. I would also refer you to General Whiting and to General Saltzman, who are genuine experts in this question. I'm a customer. I'm a consumer of their efforts. Yes, our space capabilities are absolutely essential to the way we do operations. Our adversary space capabilities are absolutely essential to the way they do operations, and they understand how important space is to us. So it is very much a contested environment, a contested capability, and I'd be delighted to talk more about it in a closed session, sir.

Rep. Jeff Crank (R-CO)SPEAKER_25

In your opinion, are Russia and China's space-based capabilities stronger, weaker, or the same compared to the start of the war in Ukraine?

GEN Christopher G. CavoliSPEAKER_16

They grow constantly. They are both working very hard to improve their capabilities and to expand their capacity, and they have been doing that with the war in Ukraine, and I imagine they would have without the war in Ukraine as well.

Rep. Jeff Crank (R-CO)SPEAKER_25

Okay, and then finally, in your testimony, you highlighted how EUCOM partners with Cyber Command to, quote, "deter advanced persistent threats," unquote. Can you describe where those threats come from and what they're targeting?

GEN Christopher G. CavoliSPEAKER_16

Yeah, there are non-governmental threats, sir, right? Criminal activity, ransomware, and things like that, um, that have national security implications, and so they matter to us. We help our allies with the defending against those. There are also straight state-based threats, and, uh, Each one of our main adversaries, that group of 4 that I named in my opening statement, each one of those is quite active in the cybersphere.

Rep. Jeff Crank (R-CO)SPEAKER_25

How can Congress help strengthen your hand in those fights?

GEN Christopher G. CavoliSPEAKER_16

Sir, by supporting U.S. Cyber Command. All of their subordinate organizations have relationships with the combatant commands. 16th U.S. Air Force is my cyber component for EUCOM. That makes a big difference when you support Cyber Command. Also when you support the National Security Agency, because that work is so closely tied to cyber work.

Rep. Jeff Crank (R-CO)SPEAKER_25

Thank you. I'd like to thank both of our witnesses for coming today, but for your, for your service to our country and for all that you do to keep us safe. Thank you. And I yield back, Mr. Chairman.

Rep. James Moylan (R-GU)SPEAKER_22

Gentleman yields. Chair now recognizes Mr. Ryan from New York.

Rep. Patrick Ryan (D-NY)SPEAKER_28

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you both for being here. General Cavoli, I want to add to the well-deserved praise and recognition. Couldn't imagine a more critical time for your leadership and could not imagine a better leader, and the whole country is thankful to you. And I think just want to, on behalf of my constituents in particular, thank you. Your leadership not only as EUCOM commander but as SACEUR has been indispensable, and as I'm sure everyone in this room knows, that position has a deep historical significance, starting with General and ultimately President Eisenhower as our first Supreme Allied Commander. In a way that is truly staggering to all of us, including, the Chair has weighed in on this, as has the ranking member and many others, the plan that was floated in March to restructure combatant commands and give up U.S. command of that role, I think, would be a massive step backwards. You've talked a little bit about in front of the Senate last week. One of my colleagues from the other side of the aisle, Mr. Bacon, has said, quote, "It signals a weakening commitment to NATO, and I think it's wrong." Former SACEUR Admiral Stavridis said, for the United States to give up the role of Supreme Allied Commander of NATO would be seen in Europe as a significant signal of walking away from the alliance. Can you speak a little bit about, given your unique view into that role, how would Russia and Putin specifically view us backing away from that role?

GEN Christopher G. CavoliSPEAKER_16

Thanks, Congressman. First of all, thanks for pointing out the role General Eisenhower had as the first SACEUR. You might imagine his likeness, his photographs, busts of him are all over the headquarters. There's one sitting behind my desk that looks over my shoulder checking my homework every day. So, if you want to feel a little bit of pressure ever, just take a job that Ike had. Big shoes to fill, indeed. Yeah, everybody relies on SACEUR. Our allies want American leadership. Our allies would like to have an American as SACEUR. From our perspective, we gain quite a bit of influence from it, right? I have a very loud voice inside Europe as a result of my position, and I think those are to our advantage. Of course, what the United States decides to do is always going to be a policy matter, and there are other considerations that our civilian leaders will take into consideration as they think about these things. What do the Russians see? I think that of all the nations in the alliance, the Russians have the most respect for the strength of the U.S. military. They respect all the militaries, and especially the collective military, but we are the military that stands out as something for them to worry about. And so, an officer who has the ability to command U.S. forces probably is a bigger problem for them than not.

Rep. Patrick Ryan (D-NY)SPEAKER_28

I can only imagine truly what General and former President Eisenhower would think about us even considering walking away from that position. I think it's embarrassing and pathetic, which leads me to my follow-up question for you, Ms. Thompson. Given your opening, albeit very short and heavy on buzzwords, posture statement where you use the term factory reset, which I have no idea what that means in the context of something so critical and nuanced as what we're talking about, but given that, I wanted to ask you what you mean by that. And specifically, in January of this year, actually January 2025, Senator Mike Lee called explicitly for the United States to leave NATO. Is that correct?

Katherine ThompsonSPEAKER_07

Again, I, I represent—

Rep. Patrick Ryan (D-NY)SPEAKER_28

would you know since you were his national security adviser up through January?

Katherine ThompsonSPEAKER_07

I left on January 20th, 2025, so if it was after that, that was not something that I would have seen.

Rep. Patrick Ryan (D-NY)SPEAKER_28

Well, do you think we should leave NATO, then?

Katherine ThompsonSPEAKER_07

Again, I represent the Department of Defense. I can only speak on behalf of the Department of Defense, and Secretary Hegseth has been very clear we are not stepping away.

Rep. Patrick Ryan (D-NY)SPEAKER_28

So, what does he mean then on behalf of the Department of Defense by factory reset? Is it us walking away from the leadership of NATO, and you heard some of the consequences of that? Is it us abandoning NATO? At a minimum, if we're going to make such a major change—I know you're doing your posture review, but I think we owe the American people transparency around something that would be so impactful to our security.

Katherine ThompsonSPEAKER_07

So, first and foremost, on the SACEUR question, if the question is, is the department considering that change, my definitive answer is no. Second part, on factory reset, the Secretary in his remarks to the North Atlantic Council and to the Ukraine Defense Contact Group was very clear that by factory reset, what we mean is returning the focus of the alliance to defense and deterrence of Europe, to the core mission, and to be frank, to Eisenhower's original mission set and call for the alliance, which is conventional defense and deterrence in Europe. Certainly, that's what we are expecting of our European allies, with the US as the nuclear strategic deterrent backstop as well. But factory reset really does mean returning to the core, fundamental mission of the alliance, which is defense and deterrence.

Chairman Mike Rogers (R-AL)SPEAKER_24

Gentleman's time's expired. Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Arizona, Mr. Hamadeh.

Rep. Abraham Hamadeh (R-AZ)SPEAKER_14

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to our panel for coming today. The conflict in Ukraine is the convergence of tensions not only with Russia, but also Iran, North Korea, and China as well. Now, we have an America First mandate to first protect the homeland and to use the strength to deter war. That's a mission that the Biden administration failed to achieve. Now we are divided across the Asian, European, and Middle Eastern theaters, and we face tough choices. There simply aren't enough brave young men and women, sons and daughters, to be everywhere all at once. Now, America First doesn't mean America alone, and yet a continent divided by Chinese and Russian economic penetration cannot stand. Now, we must seize the chance to realign our NATO commitments, defense manufacturing, and our trade policies to find new ways to make Europe's economy a denied environment for those plotting harm against America and its allies. Now, my first question is to you, Secretary Thompson. Now, we're directing immense resources to onshore defense industrial base here, and, as you know, all the semiconductor industry as well that President Trump has really advocated in his first term, also in his second term already. And what I'm concerned about right now is at the same time, China threatens our momentum by trying to purchase some of the most advanced machines that are coming out of the Netherlands that are capable of producing these chips. Now, how does Chinese infiltration of European supply chains threaten our security here at home?

Katherine ThompsonSPEAKER_07

Congressman, it's a great question, and I think you bring up a very important dynamic. And this is something that we do continue to encourage our European allies to focus on, which is the economic security considerations, particularly as we look to strengthen the transatlantic industrial base on both sides of the Atlantic. This is a major consideration that would affect our ability to co-produce, co-develop, etc., with our European allies. And we want to be able to do that. But those conditions certainly on the front on China do impact our ability to do that. And so it's a consideration that we will continue to raise with them and encourage them to address so that we can develop together.

Rep. Abraham Hamadeh (R-AZ)SPEAKER_14

Sure. But is it just conversations right now?

Katherine ThompsonSPEAKER_07

That's all I can report on at this time. Um, I, I'm sure my, my colleagues in Acquisition and Sustainment would have more to say on the, the tangible operational side because they deal with the, the technical exchanges. And so I would defer respectfully to, to them and their leadership and their expertise on that.

Rep. Abraham Hamadeh (R-AZ)SPEAKER_14

Very good. I have full confidence in the Trump administration to protect our key defense industrial base as well as our chip manufacturing that feeds so much into it. And, General, thank you for your lifelong service, and I know it's going to continue afterwards, especially when you become a veteran, but I appreciate all of what you've done to our country. And my question to you is regarding Europe. Is Europe doing enough to control or to help the situation contain what's going on with the Houthis in Yemen?

GEN Christopher G. CavoliSPEAKER_16

So, the EU has a mission called Aspides, which has ships in the Gulf to protect commercial shipping, sir. Obviously, the United States has felt the need to do the same alongside it together. It's hard for me to say if it's enough. I'd refer to General Kurilla, who follows that much more closely.

Rep. Abraham Hamadeh (R-AZ)SPEAKER_14

Sure. But we also know that the Russians have been helping the Houthis as well. Is that correct?

GEN Christopher G. CavoliSPEAKER_16

I'd like to answer that in closed session, please, sir.

Rep. Abraham Hamadeh (R-AZ)SPEAKER_14

No worries. And how much of the Iranian, Houthi, and Chinese threats to Europe, how much can that affect the United States?

GEN Christopher G. CavoliSPEAKER_16

I guess indirectly, massively. Directly, probably it— we don't have that much shipping, I don't think, that comes through the Suez. However, our warships transit that all the time. So it would affect our ability to conduct military operations for sure. I'm not sure— I'm not an economist. I couldn't comment on how big the impact would be on us economically or something.

Rep. Abraham Hamadeh (R-AZ)SPEAKER_14

Thank you, Chairman. I yield back.

Chairman Mike Rogers (R-AL)SPEAKER_24

Gentleman yields back. Chair now recognizes gentlelady from New Jersey, Ms. Sherrill.

Rep. Mikie Sherrill (D-NJ)SPEAKER_05

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good afternoon, and I want to thank our witnesses for being here today. General Cavoli, you said in your opening statement that Russia is in the process of significantly rebuilding its military by recruiting more soldiers, building more vehicles, and creating more munitions than we've seen before. So if the war in Ukraine were to end today, do you believe that the Russian military would continue to represent a significant threat to the U.S., Ukraine, and our European allies in the coming years?

GEN Christopher G. CavoliSPEAKER_16

Yes, ma'am. It would take them a little bit of time to reorient their conventional force and reposition it, but not that much time. And and then they could pose a conventional threat. Very important for me to add, however, that they have never stopped having their strategic capabilities, their nuclear submarines, their long-range aviation, their cyber, their space. All of that is is alive and well and largely unaffected by the war in Ukraine.

Rep. Mikie Sherrill (D-NJ)SPEAKER_05

Thank you. And if Russia was able to retain and control significant portions of Ukrainian territory once the war ends, do you believe Russia would consider that a victory and consider launching a similar invasion of Ukraine or another European country in the future?

GEN Christopher G. CavoliSPEAKER_16

It's hard for me to predict the future, ma'am, but I think it's very safe for all of us to say that wouldn't prevent them from doing it in the future. It would certainly leave the door open for them.

SPEAKER_UNKNOWN

Yeah.

Rep. Mikie Sherrill (D-NJ)SPEAKER_05

Thank you. And as the Trump administration chooses to abandon Ukraine and let Russia rebuild its military, they're also considering cutting the U.S. military presence in Europe. So General Cavoli, how would cutting U.S. forces from EUCOM impact your ability to respond to a crisis or potential conflict with Russia?

GEN Christopher G. CavoliSPEAKER_16

Ma'am, it would reduce— it would increase the amount of time it took to respond. It depends, of course, on what forces were hypothetically to be removed. It depends on what kind of action were required to counter Russia. But clearly, moving things to the other side of the Atlantic increases the time-space challenge. Other than that, I don't want to be evasive, but it's really a very situation-dependent question.

Rep. Mikie Sherrill (D-NJ)SPEAKER_05

And would removing, I guess to be more clear, our brigade combat team from Poland or having our forces station in Germany or Italy slow your response to a Russian assault on our Eastern European allies?

GEN Christopher G. CavoliSPEAKER_16

Yes, I've consistently testified to that.

Rep. Mikie Sherrill (D-NJ)SPEAKER_05

Thank you. So as we move forward, can you just talk a little bit to, as you mentioned, about what you think the key strategic aspects are of Russia's of Russia's military?

GEN Christopher G. CavoliSPEAKER_16

So in, in, uh, the broadest sense, ma'am,

Rep. Mikie Sherrill (D-NJ)SPEAKER_05

that provide the biggest threat to the United States?

GEN Christopher G. CavoliSPEAKER_16

Yeah, their nuclear arsenal.

Rep. Mikie Sherrill (D-NJ)SPEAKER_05

What about their cyber capabilities?

GEN Christopher G. CavoliSPEAKER_16

I believe their nuclear arsenal poses a bigger threat. Their cyber capabilities are more likely to be used, but in most cases wouldn't have the catastrophic effect that the nuclear threat would have. But of course, that again depends on what nuclear weapons we're talking about, what cyberattacks. But in general, I would say the the nuclear capabilities, and then I would say the space and cyber sort sort of on a level. But conventionally, their strategic advantage continues to be mass that they can put in direct proximity to NATO forces that challenges us to respond in time across the spaces required. So basically they can put a force into place that would cause us to have to react in a timely fashion, and that time-space problem is really the essence of conventional deterrence on the continent.

Rep. Mikie Sherrill (D-NJ)SPEAKER_05

And given the recent conflict in Ukraine, what will be the hardest for Russia to rebuild in the aftermath of that?

GEN Christopher G. CavoliSPEAKER_16

I'd like to answer that in closed session because it goes into some technical stuff. What I can say is I don't think it's that hard to rebuild their mass. They have manpower available. They demonstrate the willingness to conscript it, and it doesn't take that long to reconstitute the size of their old force or even to increase it. Um, they still have equipment in storage that they could pull out and, and renovate, and they have increased their ability to produce legacy hardware— tanks and armored personnel carriers and things like that. Um, so there are some things that are easy. The things that are hard, it'd be better to answer in closed session, ma'am.

Rep. Mikie Sherrill (D-NJ)SPEAKER_05

Thank you, and I yield back.

Rep. James Moylan (R-GU)SPEAKER_22

Chair, and I recognize the gentleman from Guam, Mr. Moylan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And as my colleagues did, I also would like to start in recognizing the four soldiers that were lost on March 25th in Lithuania, mentioning their names: Staff Sergeant Troy Nuxoll Collins of Battle Creek, Michigan; Staff Sergeant Jose Duenas of Joliet, Illinois; Staff Sergeant Edwin Franco of Glendale, California; and Private First Class Dante Taitano, a son of Guam. These brave men were lost too soon in a tragic accident, and our hearts and thoughts and prayers go out to their families and loved ones during this challenging time. And I ask for my colleagues in the audience to please have a moment of silence. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And for my first question, General Cavoli, last year we had a discussion, and I thank you for that. And I truly appreciate, sir, your service. And I understand what you're going through with the EUCOM, and you're doing a fantastic job, sir. And previously, we talked about how the U.S. territories in the Pacific will seek their protection with Article 5. But that's not the case, and would not. But however, Article 4 gives the authority for consultation and non-obligated support. I just want to know on your what the situation now we have with EUCOM situation, our strategic situation, are our allies, sir, still willing to support us in the Pacific? And with your experience through this situation, how can we better coordinate with Euro-partners on security cooperation and international organizations and regional security in Pacific and Asia? General,

GEN Christopher G. CavoliSPEAKER_16

Thanks, Congressman. First, thanks for your kind words about about our servicemen. Yeah, so many of our European allies have direct security interests in the Indo-Pacific. France has possessions there, the UK, so they have direct interest, and they do have military presences abroad there to help those out. They also do stage exercises in order to make sure they maintain the defense of their of their territories. They also work very closely with the Department of Defense and with U.S. INDOPACOM to coordinate occasional presence. A UK aircraft carrier is about to start a global mission. They are going to go through the Indo-Pacific. They are going to do so in close coordination with with Admiral Paparo. So this gives us additional capacity out there as they come and go, and they continue to do that. However, the the alliance is focused on the defense of the alliance territory as defined, as you pointed out, in Article 6. That does not prevent them from operating outside my AOR. SACEUR's AOR does not include the United States. But the only time the alliance has declared Article 5 in its history was the morning after 9/11 when they declared that it was an attack on all of us and sent NATO AWACS planes to help our Operation Noble Eagle to defend our skies in the aftermath of those 2001 terrorist attacks.

Rep. James Moylan (R-GU)SPEAKER_22

Thank you, General. And also, with the expansion of the ballistic missile system we have in EUCOM, I'm wondering, especially with the Aegis Ashore and and the sites in Romania and Poland, the golden dome that we're looking at, what is this experience and these lessons learned that we can reflect to help us in the INDOPACOM area?

GEN Christopher G. CavoliSPEAKER_16

So at an unclassified level, we're able to collect an awful lot of information about adversary rockets and missiles during the course of the conflict in Ukraine. A lot of that is given to us by our Ukrainian colleagues. We gave them radars to defend themselves. They give us back invaluable data that we're able to study. So that's only one example, sir.

Rep. James Moylan (R-GU)SPEAKER_22

Thank you, General. Ms. Thompson, just one quickly. We've just got a few seconds. Appreciate what SecDef is doing, and he went to EUCOM for a specific reason. Where did he go next?

Katherine ThompsonSPEAKER_07

I believe he went to the Indo-Pacific.

Rep. James Moylan (R-GU)SPEAKER_22

That's right. I got to visit him there. Who was the last SecDef that came to the Indo-Pacific, to Guam, before our current Secretary of Defense?

Katherine ThompsonSPEAKER_07

I actually don't know off the top of my head, but I know it has to have been 10 years at least.

Rep. James Moylan (R-GU)SPEAKER_22

At least. It was Rumsfeld.

Katherine ThompsonSPEAKER_07

Oh,

Rep. James Moylan (R-GU)SPEAKER_22

that's right. I'm glad the interest of the United States for our Secretary of Defense is going from not just from, from the West Coast to the East Coast, but from the Atlantic to the Pacific. So I thank you. Thank you for your testimony, General. Sir, thank

Chairman Mike Rogers (R-AL)SPEAKER_24

gentleman's time has expired. Chair now recognize the gentleman from California, Mr cisneros.

Rep. Gilbert Cisneros (D-CA)SPEAKER_00

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I also want to give my prayers and sympathies to the families of the service members who lost their lives. And, General Cavoli, thank you for your years of service as you kind of approach the end of a fantastic career that you've had. So thank you, sir, for everything. So when I was Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, I had a meeting with one of my counterparts from Latvia who was really concerned about how they could build up their reserves, to the point they were worried about the Russians and the possibility of them coming there, that they were actually drilling elementary school children, preparing military drill, ensuring that they're learning that in elementary school to get them ready as they they matured and got older. Obviously, I think all the Baltic states—Lithuania, Estonia, Latvia—they're all very concerned about the Russians, and the invasion into Ukraine probably did not ease their tensions. But how are we preparing our Baltic allies, getting them ready for the possible threat of a Russian invasion? And really, maybe this might be more for the there, but for the classified briefing, but what is the possible threat later on if the Russians are successful in Ukraine that they will continue their aggression on other former Soviet states?

GEN Christopher G. CavoliSPEAKER_16

Thank you, sir. So, we help them in a variety of ways. First, how does NATO help them? NATO's new defense plans give a structure for them to plan and to nest their national defense plans inside. So those plans go together with the NATO plans, and this really helps a defense planner clarify a whole bunch of things about how much of what he needs where, etc., etc. Second, the command structures that have been outlined and the relationships that have been outlined as a result of the plans, or inside the plans, gives them permanent relationships for units to build readiness with and headquarters to build procedures with. So that's one big advantage that helps them a great deal. Bilaterally, we work very closely with those allies because they're so intent on buying American stuff. So it's one thing to buy a HIMARS, it's another thing to know how to use it—that's pretty simple—but it's another thing entirely to know how to integrate that capability into your warfighting methodology. And so, for example, I've got a battery of HIMARS, American HIMARS, in Estonia that's been working for well over a year and a half with them on how exactly they're going to incorporate their long-range fires into their operational methodology after this. I just received a letter from the Chief of Defense of Lithuania, who's interested in having a similar program, some sort of a HIMARS academy. I could go on and on. On a third level, we also do special security assistance initiatives. So there's the Baltic Air and Missile Defense Initiative, there's the Baltic State Security Initiative, and those are focused appropriations for us to be able to help them buy the American stuff that matters to us, focused on air and missile defense and domain awareness in the air right now, of course, because that's the most important thing. I guess I could go for hours. There are some classified things we do as well, Congressman.

Rep. Gilbert Cisneros (D-CA)SPEAKER_00

All right. Ms. Thompson, can we still be confident that if we're going to keep troops in Europe there and keep supporting NATO, that the United States will step up if in fact Russia does invade the Baltic States?

Katherine ThompsonSPEAKER_07

Thank you for the the question, Congressman. On the first piece, I would I would just emphasize again, we're in the midst of a global posture review, so certainly we're taking these priorities and these considerations into our analysis as we as we conduct that. And then I would also emphasize the Secretary was very clear that we remain committed to NATO, and that includes all facets of the treaty, and so I would say yes. And I would also just add perhaps a a bit of color to what General Cavoli was talking about specifically with the Baltics, and and just emphasize that we we have been so appreciative in this administration so far of how our Baltic friends acutely understand the threat perception. And we hope that and we have encouraged our Baltic friends to communicate that threat perception to the Western and and Central European powers as well as we try to encourage the alliance as a whole to focus on defense spending.

Rep. Gilbert Cisneros (D-CA)SPEAKER_00

All right, and then I've got 30 seconds, but so very quickly, General Cavoli, you and your counterparts, INDOPACOM, AFRICOM, are always, I don't want to say at odds, but always fighting for assets to kind of come into your areas of your command and areas of operation there, responsibility. How are we kind of working through that to get to this point there, to kind of ensure that we're not asking for too much, but you're getting what you need?

GEN Christopher G. CavoliSPEAKER_16

Sure. So our job is to articulate our requirements based on the task we're given, sir, and the Secretary of Defense, with the advice of the chairman, allocates the resources. There's another step though, right? Erik Kurilla and I have known each other our whole lives. We can communicate. There are things that I can do to help alleviate some of his challenges and vice versa. Mike Langley's headquarters is right next door to my headquarters in Stuttgart. We talk back and forth. And

Chairman Mike Rogers (R-AL)SPEAKER_24

Gentleman's time's expired. Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Kansas, Mr. Schmidt.

Rep. Derek Schmidt (R-KS)SPEAKER_33

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I'd like to add my condolences as well to those expressed by my colleagues to the family who have loved ones and friends of the lost soldiers. And General Cavoli, from the home state of the first Supreme Allied Commander, General Eisenhower, I'd like to extend our congratulations and gratitude to you for your service and would just note that we have had an unbroken line of American leadership at the top of NATO from its inception, and I, for one, expect and hope that's going to continue into the foreseeable future. But we are engaged in a—I'll call it a public rethinking of America's role in the world. Everybody in this room certainly spends their lives, their careers, their talents focused on this at a granular and strategic level every day. But because we've been effective at that for so long, many Americans have not had to engage in those discussions out and about, and their support is critical as we make the decisions that move us ahead. So with that in mind, General, I'd like to ask a couple of questions that are intended to to inform the public discussion, not only the particularized discussion. Can you talk for a bit about the level of importance, the nature of importance of continuing to have a heavy ground presence on the European continent in terms of our security planning going forward, whether it's armor, infantry, or otherwise?

GEN Christopher G. CavoliSPEAKER_16

Sure, sir. So the Alliance, we collectively require a heavy ground presence. That is specifically to be able to overcome that singular Russian advantage of being able to put its forces on our borders as an Alliance before the initiation of hostilities. That causes a time-space problem for us in terms of reinforcing. So the positioning of this large force has to be appropriate to the situation, right, to the level of threat. Whether that ground force comes from America or someplace else is really— SACEUR doesn't care as long as it functions. There are some capabilities that the U.S. is very careful to make sure we continue to contribute because they're exquisite and in some cases unique, and we understand that, and those will have to be there all the time otherwise. So the really— the question is, what is the preponderance of U.S. versus other nations' heavy ground force that is committed? And that's something we balance all the time. And that's something that will change as our European allies pick up the capabilities targets we've just assigned them in the NATO Defence Planning Process and commit the money that they've devoted in a profitable, in a productive acquisition program to get the stuff they need.

Rep. Derek Schmidt (R-KS)SPEAKER_33

Thank you, General. And at risk of sounding like I'm reading from the history books, I'm old enough to remember Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait, and if my memory is correct, it was our ability to rapidly move the VII Corps from Europe to the Middle East that allowed us to launch Desert Storm with the rapidity that we did. Can you speak a little bit, your point about whether they are American heavy ground forces or European allies in Europe, how does having American heavy ground forces predeployed in the European theater affect our planning and our ability to respond to American interests in the Middle East or in other proximate areas outside of Europe immediately?

GEN Christopher G. CavoliSPEAKER_16

It's fundamental to it, to to it, sir. There are there are three principal components of it's important to us: access, basing, and overflight. So our ability to base our forces someplace, and to have the ability to access those forces to deploy them, and then to have the agreements to overfly nations, all of those things happen, they're usually based on pretty deep relationships. If you want it to be there when you need it, it's got to be, you have to have prepared for that moment. So that, those three things—assets, basing, and overflight—are are really a shorthand way of saying that gives us the ability to put forces forward in readiness waiting to be deployed. Now, to what extent do we need to do that? That's that's largely a policy question, but that is the strictly military advantage of having forces forward for our own purposes. We do deploy them all the time. We've been, leaning toward and then backing off of noncombatant evacuation operations throughout the Mediterranean area for for a couple of years. We provide forces on short notice to General Kurilla to be able to use in Central Command. I I could go on, but I I I think I've— I hope I've answered your

Chairman Mike Rogers (R-AL)SPEAKER_24

gentleman's time has expired. Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from New Hampshire, Ms. Goodlander.

Rep. Maggie Goodlander (D-NH)SPEAKER_02

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to begin by joining my colleagues in expressing my heartbreak over the loss of our four fallen service members and my sincere condolences to their families. I also want to join in expressing my gratitude to you, General, for your long and faithful service to our country. We don't agree always in Congress. We often disagree these days. But one thing I want to say at the outset is we've heard a lot of noise, but we've actually heard a lot of agreement in this hearing from across this dais, agreement on basic principles and commitments that I think are worth reiterating because people from Warsaw to the Kremlin should hear it loud and clear. Does the United States of America have a national security interest, General, in the survival and the strength of the NATO alliance?

GEN Christopher G. CavoliSPEAKER_16

I believe it does.

Rep. Maggie Goodlander (D-NH)SPEAKER_02

And Ms. Thompson?

Katherine ThompsonSPEAKER_07

Yes, ma'am.

Rep. Maggie Goodlander (D-NH)SPEAKER_02

And what about the survival and strength of our European allies, including Ukraine?

GEN Christopher G. CavoliSPEAKER_16

Yes.

Katherine ThompsonSPEAKER_07

Yes.

Rep. Maggie Goodlander (D-NH)SPEAKER_02

Thank you. I think it's important that we reiterate these basic principles. And General, could you elaborate on what is the nature of that national security interest that we have in the NATO alliance and in the survival and strength of Ukraine?

GEN Christopher G. CavoliSPEAKER_16

Yes, ma'am, absolutely. So a lot of the interests are a lot of the benefits are are rooted common interests, common values, common histories, things like that. I'm not going to go into those just because that that that's subjective, debatable, and and people have different opinions on it. As a military matter, some of the most advanced militaries in the world are in the NATO alliance, and some of the militaries in the world that we can be surest will work with us and are militarily interoperable with our forces are in the NATO alliance. It's surprising when you go outside of Europe how much the absence of something like NATO, the structures, the interoperability, is noticed immediately.

Rep. Maggie Goodlander (D-NH)SPEAKER_02

Thank you, General. This may be more for a closed setting, but you shared with us in your written testimony and several times today that Russia's war in Ukraine is the most visible sign of Moscow's great power ambitions. So I want to give you an opportunity to tell us a little bit more about how you think about Vladimir Putin's ambitions. What would satisfy Vladimir Putin? Would taking the eastern half of Ukraine satisfy his ambitions, or would it embolden him?

GEN Christopher G. CavoliSPEAKER_16

Well, I think if we go back and look at the history of his tenure as as the president of Russia, you can follow his ambitions. They're pretty consistent, but they expand. Clearly, he's not yet been satisfied with the amount of Ukraine that he's taken over because he's continuing to try to fight forward. How the conflict ends may disprove that. We don't know yet. But he certainly he certainly is interested in controlling the nations that are in his immediate neighborhood by whatever means necessary. And we've seen that demonstrated consistently over time. Could he stop tomorrow? We don't know.

Rep. Maggie Goodlander (D-NH)SPEAKER_02

General, you testified to the importance of our intelligence cooperation with our European allies and with Ukraine. You said that our ability to gather intelligence is enabled by enduring relationships that cannot develop episodically and that must be sustained. As someone who comes from the intelligence world, thank you for recognizing the important role that our intelligence cooperation plays. Is pausing our intelligence cooperation with European allies a good thing for America's national security?

GEN Christopher G. CavoliSPEAKER_16

No, we want continuous sharing of intelligence. We normally do it, as you know, ma'am, on a bilateral basis. We have very strong agreements with the nations in the alliance about bilateral intel sharing, and we're very grateful for it.

Rep. Maggie Goodlander (D-NH)SPEAKER_02

Was the pause last month in our intelligence cooperation and sharing with Ukraine helpful or harmful to America's interests in your area of operation, in your region?

GEN Christopher G. CavoliSPEAKER_16

That one I have to answer in closed session, ma'am, because I just have to answer that one in closed session.

Rep. Maggie Goodlander (D-NH)SPEAKER_02

Thank you, General. With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.

Chairman Mike Rogers (R-AL)SPEAKER_24

yields back. The chair now recognizes gentlelady from Maryland, Ms. Elfreth.

Rep. Sarah Elfreth (D-MD)SPEAKER_06

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And General, I too echo my deep condolences for the lives lost and service members and their families, and echo my colleagues' congratulations and thanks. As the daughter of an entryman, he only retired as an SFC, but I greatly appreciate your 38 years of commitment to this nation's security. It doesn't go unnoticed from this committee, so thank you very much.

GEN Christopher G. CavoliSPEAKER_16

Not to correct you, ma'am, but there's no such thing as only an FSC.

Rep. Sarah Elfreth (D-MD)SPEAKER_06

I think my MLA might agree with you. So I want to dig in, General. You mentioned the contributions of our allies in your command, in EUCOM, such as Poland, as to the security of Europe and the subsequent security of this nation. You also mentioned Denmark as recently increasing its financial contributions here, but also critically expanding its patrol of the Arctic. Can you please just briefly expand on the importance of that particular allyship with Denmark?

GEN Christopher G. CavoliSPEAKER_16

Sure. Yeah. Denmark, ma'am, is one of our one of our strongest allies. The bilateral relationship from the Danish perspective is far and away their their most important bilateral security relationship. I've I've known the Prime Minister of Denmark for quite a while, and she she would initiate any conversation with that comment. They have been very reliable allies. They've got a high-tech military, not a big one, but it's high-tech. They have extremely competent special forces and naval special forces, and they contribute those liberally to the operations under my command as the Supreme Allied Commander. So, yeah, very, very strong ally. We love all our allies, but I would say that Denmark's a very strong one.

Rep. Sarah Elfreth (D-MD)SPEAKER_06

You don't have favorites, but I appreciate that. Ms. Thompson, reflecting on that, wouldn't you agree that the president's threats to possibly utilize military force to seize Greenland, a territory of Denmark, could only threaten that key allyship and, again, our shared ability to address the threats, particularly from Russia, in the Arctic?

Katherine ThompsonSPEAKER_07

Thank you, Congresswoman. What I would say is I would focus on the bilateral relationship piece that General Cavoli hit on. I think that there's a lot of cooperation here, including on Greenland in particular, on the landmass particularly. We already have space capabilities there, and I think that there's opportunities. And the Secretary, in his pull-aside with the Danish Minister of Defense, had a really positive conversation about where we could take the bilateral defense relationship. So I think there's room for growth and positivity there.

Rep. Sarah Elfreth (D-MD)SPEAKER_06

Okay. General, you've shared that Russia poses a chronic and growing threat and that they are focused on a, quote, campaign of destabilization across your command. You also spoke about the intersection of how you work with the other combatant commands, particularly around the Mediterranean. I want to switch our conversation to yet another domain, that being of cyber. And can you help us better understand the cyber wars that Russia is waging against Ukraine, our allies in NATO, your command in Europe? And can you speak to your collaboration with Cyber Command, which is headquartered just a stone's throw from my district?

GEN Christopher G. CavoliSPEAKER_16

Yes, ma'am. I think the simplest way to get at this question is to describe roughly the two buckets into which—in which we can consider Russian cyber operations to fall, right? Some of them are about the content. It's information operations. It's influence operations. It's the campaigns to spread their version of information around Europe and the world. Those are very, very active. Those don't necessarily involve cyber work, but can be injected through cyber vectors. But it can be as simple as a television channel. On the other hand, there's also the technical cyber work that they do, which is designed to penetrate our networks, to get into systems, to produce effects. Sometimes it's to take information, and sometimes it's to leave us problems. And they do a lot. I depend very, very heavily on U.S. Cyber Command through 16th Air Force in order to be able to combat those things and to help our allies combat them.

Rep. Sarah Elfreth (D-MD)SPEAKER_06

Thank you very much. And Ms. Thompson, wouldn't you agree that the continuity of leadership and expertise for any command, but particularly when it comes to combating cyber war, is essential to the security of EUCOM and our national security? Just yes or no.

Katherine ThompsonSPEAKER_07

Yes.

Rep. Sarah Elfreth (D-MD)SPEAKER_06

Okay. I'd contend that the recent firing of a four-star general, commander of U.S. Cyber Command and National Security Agency Director General Timothy Haugh, with no succession plan in place and no word of his replacement, poses a significant threat to EUCOM, Ukraine, NATO, and our homeland. Can you please speak, Ms. Thompson, briefly to the Secretary's timeline in announcing the replacement for CYBERCOM?

Katherine ThompsonSPEAKER_07

Thank you, Congresswoman, for the question. I have to say I'm not privy to those decisions, and it's outside of my jurisdiction in International Security Affairs. What I would say is, obviously, CYBERCOM, as you've pointed out, is essential to not only the EUCOM AOR, but also homeland defense, which is a major priority. So, I would just leave it there. Thank you.

Rep. Sarah Elfreth (D-MD)SPEAKER_06

I would contend this is an astonishing volatile— volatility and lack continuity. It's like posing a real threat, unnecessary threat to our national security. Thank you, Mr.

Chairman Mike Rogers (R-AL)SPEAKER_24

Chair now recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr. Tran.

Rep. Derek Tran (D-CA)SPEAKER_10

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I, too, am very saddened by the loss of our soldiers, and I send my condolences to their family. General, I salute and thank you for your years of service. Thank you so much, and appreciate you both being here to testify today. Tariffs have been in the news a lot lately, with President Trump levying tariffs against our allies and adversaries alike. Like many people, I am deeply concerned about how these attacks will impact our military and diplomatic partnerships with our closest allies and partners. Ms. Thompson, with the Trump administration's imposition of tariffs on EU goods, which I expect could disrupt global supply chains critical to American defense manufacturing, how is EUCOM preparing for possible delays, for cost increases in defense equipment sourced from europe?

Katherine ThompsonSPEAKER_07

Thank you for the question, Congressman. I'll start by saying, and again, I want to say this very respectfully, I'm not trying to be evasive, it's just the effects of tariffs specifically on the diplomatic relationship side or on the economic side are a little bit outside of my jurisdiction. What I would say from the defense perspective is we are acutely focused on making sure that we can have a strong transatlantic industrial base on both sides of the Atlantic, which includes reforms on both sides of the Atlantic. We certainly want the European Union to be open to continuing to partner with the United States as the defense relationship goes. And both of us, both the European Union and ourselves, have reforms that we need to make to ensure that the economic environment in the defense industrial base context is certainly robust enough that we can make successful investments together.

Rep. Derek Tran (D-CA)SPEAKER_10

Right. But you do recognize that these strains will cause, uh, an effect on our industrial base? Yes.

Katherine ThompsonSPEAKER_07

It's something that we will be looking at and taking into consideration as we pursue the defense industrial base effort in particular. All

Rep. Derek Tran (D-CA)SPEAKER_10

General, what measure is EUCOM taking to address potential strains in defense collaboration and ensure joint operational effectiveness?

GEN Christopher G. CavoliSPEAKER_16

So we just continue with our exercise programs, we continue with our consultations with our allies, we continue to work very closely. EUCOM continues to work very closely with NATO, with the Allied Command Operations, and we move forward just in a straight military fashion, sir.

Rep. Derek Tran (D-CA)SPEAKER_10

And as European nations aim to enhance their defense industries and reduce dependency on U.S. arms, how does EUCOM assess the potential impact on NATO's collective defense posture?

GEN Christopher G. CavoliSPEAKER_16

Well, we first we need our allies to rearm in general. If they rearm with stuff, we want them to rearm with equipment that works with ours. In many cases, the easiest way to do that is to buy U.S. So during the course of this conflict, Congressman, the the orders, the value of foreign military sales orders, that is our allies' orders to buy American equipment, have increased by 600%. There right now are 4,000 sales cases worth $265 billion that European nations are lined up to buy from the United States' arms manufacturers. As the allied commander, I encourage that, right? I want more capability and capacity as fast as we can get it.

Rep. Derek Tran (D-CA)SPEAKER_10

Have you seen any impacts of the recent tariffs impacting the 600% increase in those sales?

GEN Christopher G. CavoliSPEAKER_16

Sir, I have not. I have been here, uh, for the last week and a half, uh, testifying to the Senate, and now here.

Rep. Derek Tran (D-CA)SPEAKER_10

The deepening strategic partnership among China, Russia, Iran, North Korea pose an increasing challenge for the United States and its allies in Europe. I'm particularly concerned by Russian and Chinese economic and military partnership causing strain on individual European countries within the NATO alliance. General, how is EUCOM working with European partners to deter or expose CCP efforts to fragment NATO cohesion through strategic investments?

GEN Christopher G. CavoliSPEAKER_16

Sure, sir. The first way is through intel sharing, right? We have a number of different We have many, many bilateral intel channels, but we also have a few lesser-known multilateral intel sharing fora, and in those we talk about these things. The Department of Defense EUCOM also works closely with our State Department colleagues in missions throughout the alliance, because they really have the lead in helping our allies avoid malign Chinese investments. Finally, as I mentioned to a member earlier, our exercise program specifically uses infrastructure that we want to be sure of the reliability of. So we vary what we do and where we do it, so that we're always testing the reliability of our infrastructure. And when we find a problem, we talk to our host nation about it right away.

Rep. Derek Tran (D-CA)SPEAKER_10

Thank you, General. Thank you, Ms. Thompson. Chairman, I yield back.

Chairman Mike Rogers (R-AL)SPEAKER_24

Gentleman yields back. Chair now recognizes Mr. Bell of Missouri.

Rep. Wesley Bell (D-MO)SPEAKER_09

Thank you, Mr. Chair and the ranking member. Ms. Thompson, General Cavoli, thank you for being here. And also, General, I want to add to the chorus of thanking you for 38 years of service. I would be remiss if I did not express my deepest condolences to the families of the four service members who tragically lost their life serving our nation in Lithuania. But again, thank you for your service. And on behalf of my district in the St. Louis region, we want to thank you. And since you've got a little time, if you ever want to come out, we're known for beer. You can have that now, right? We're known for that and Cardinals game. So while our European allies have been working to increase their defense spending to meet the 2% NATO defense spending target, the administration's recent decision to impose tariffs on nearly every NATO country and allied partner could undermine these efforts and potentially slow our collective progress. General Cavoli, how do you foresee these tariffs impacting the defense spending of our European allies?

GEN Christopher G. CavoliSPEAKER_16

You know, I don't know, Congressman. Sir, in an economic sense, I'm not an economist, so I can't walk through the trail of how it'll work. I do know that our allies are determined to increase their defense capability and capacity no matter where they buy things from or no matter how they get it. That is nearly a universal sentiment in the alliance right now, and to spend more than 2%. 2% as you go around, you hear a lot of that.

Rep. Wesley Bell (D-MO)SPEAKER_09

And are these countries now less likely to meet the 2% target due to these tariffs? And will this hurt our European allies, including the Baltic states, who outspend the U.S. as a percentage of GDP?

GEN Christopher G. CavoliSPEAKER_16

Uh, sir, if, if they're unable to access our market or if they have to pay more than expected for, for equipment. Certainly that's going to, going to affect how much capacity they can build, how quickly. I don't know how the tariffs will exactly do that though.

Rep. Wesley Bell (D-MO)SPEAKER_09

In the past six months, Russian and Chinese ships have been implicated in sabotaging undersea cables. This comes as no surprise given Russia's ongoing efforts to target Ukrainian power cables, telecom links, and gas pipelines since its invasion of Ukraine in 2022. General, how is European Command addressing the threat of sabotage or disruption of undersea cables in European waters, and what steps are being taken to mitigate the risks posed by state actors, particularly Russia and China?

GEN Christopher G. CavoliSPEAKER_16

So, European Command, sir, first, as with some of the other responses, shares intelligence when we get intelligence on this to support our allies as they defend their own infrastructure. We also defend our own U.S. critical infrastructure that's overseas. Interestingly, the biggest collective defenses of critical national infrastructure don't involve the U.S. hardly at all. So last year, I started an operation called Baltic Sentry where we brought together under NATO command voluntarily donated ships and crews, as well as coastal defense radars from the Baltic allies—the allies in the Baltics and the Nordics—and we sewed those together into a single operation that surveils and increases our understanding of what's going on on the surface and below the surface of the Baltic Sea. For the longest time, there were no U.S. ships involved in that. There are no U.S. ships involved in it today. I think I have 40 Marines who temporarily helped with a couple of radars, and I think they may have departed already. So this is an example of our allies taking that upon themselves, as they should, and happily.

Rep. Wesley Bell (D-MO)SPEAKER_09

And let me— if I could get one more question in. General, can you discuss the implications if the administration withdraws U.S. troops from Syria? How might this affect our counterterrorism efforts in the Eastern Mediterranean?

GEN Christopher G. CavoliSPEAKER_16

So it would mainly, from my perspective, affect our ability to collect intelligence, and I have to leave that at that in open session, sir. I concern myself very much with the Russian presence in the Eastern Mediterranean. That has been greatly weakened. The

Chairman Mike Rogers (R-AL)SPEAKER_24

gentleman's time has expired. Chair now recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr. Whitesides. Thank

Rep. Wesley Bell (D-MO)SPEAKER_09

you, General.

Rep. George Whitesides (D-CA)SPEAKER_15

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you both for being here at this pivotal time for U.S. interests in Europe. Obviously, this is a time of immense change in your AOR—the shifting U.S. posture, the continuing war in Ukraine, not to mention the recent additions to the NATO Alliance. It's clear to many of us on this committee that continued strong support for Ukraine is not only vital to U.S. security interests, but to the continued strength and vitality of our alliances and partnership in Europe. General Cavoli, in the years since Putin's unprovoked invasion, I've been heartened to see that former Soviet states who had previously been deferential to Russia were beginning to push back on Putin's bullying tactics. Obviously, the U.S. posture towards Ukraine has changed a great deal in the last 3 months. In your opinion, how would a U.S. withdrawal from global leadership in support of Ukraine impact these smaller nations' ability to demonstrate independence from Russia? Specifically, in your opinion, will it have an impact on the democracy movement in Belarus?

GEN Christopher G. CavoliSPEAKER_16

Congressman, it's a great and important question. A lot of answering it would go well outside of my wheelhouse. I will say that all nations are watching very closely what the U.S. does any place all the time. We're such a mover on the global stage that everybody's constantly observing and calculating against that. That's especially true in those states that have the opportunity to get out from under Russia's shadow. Armenia would be an excellent example of that. So they're watching closely.

Rep. George Whitesides (D-CA)SPEAKER_15

Thank you, sir. On a similar note, I wanted to ask you about the following subject. So, Putin's regime is constantly engaged in egregious cybercrime and offensive cyber operations against us, our allies, against companies, infrastructure, you name it, which is why I was very distressed to hear that this administration initiated a pause on offensive cyber operations against Russia. I'm honestly at a loss to understand how giving Putin's cybercriminals a free pass serves our national security or economic interests. General, does a cessation of offensive cyber operations, either temporarily or ongoingly, against Russia create any risk for our troops and operations in Europe?

GEN Christopher G. CavoliSPEAKER_16

Uh, sir, any details would have to be spoken about in, in closed session, of course. Um, the cessation that you're talking about did not pose risk to my troops. Uh, if, if they had, I would have made that clear immediately.

Rep. George Whitesides (D-CA)SPEAKER_15

Thank you, sir. I just want to say on behalf of, you know, Congress and the nation, we're so grateful for your service, and you are what makes America great. So thank you so much. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman Mike Rogers (R-AL)SPEAKER_24

Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Louisiana, Mr. Higgins.

Rep. Clay Higgins (R-LA)SPEAKER_20

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. General, thank you so much for being here, sir, and your tremendous service to our country. I'm an old Army guy, enlisted. I wanted to be Navy, but my ASVAB scores were too high. So I appreciate your service, and it just can't be—it can't be overstated the debt that our country has to you, your family, so many decades of sacrifice. Thank you, sir.

GEN Christopher G. CavoliSPEAKER_16

Thank you, sir. Since you're a former enlisted member of the service, I should point out that Sergeant Major Abernathy, sitting right behind me, is leaving after many years of service this year as well, and we thank him for it.

Rep. Clay Higgins (R-LA)SPEAKER_20

Well, NCOs are always quite certain that if the officers don't show up, eventually somebody will notice, but if the NCOs don't show up, well, the Army's in trouble.

SPEAKER_UNKNOWN

So

Rep. Clay Higgins (R-LA)SPEAKER_20

General, Ukraine, I'd just like to chat with you about Ukraine. And if you could, for America and for some members of this committee that need clarity, could you describe from your from your perspective, which is quite unique in experience, what does victory look like? Can you can you share with us what how you would envision victory? Should we continue to invest American treasure and and to seek some resolution of the of the the Ukrainian war and and Russian invasion of Ukraine? Clearly, we seek some definition of victory. Could you possibly share that?

GEN Christopher G. CavoliSPEAKER_16

Absolutely, Congressman. And without getting into the realm of policy, which Ms. Thompson is obviously much, much better prepared to talk about than I, I think you have to start by saying victory for whom, right, and whose victory? What does a good outcome for the United States look like is is is one part of that.

Rep. Clay Higgins (R-LA)SPEAKER_20

Okay.

GEN Christopher G. CavoliSPEAKER_16

What does a good outcome for Ukraine look like? When you think about Ukraine, you can think about it in increments. The first step to winning is not losing, right? So Ukraine has to defeat Russia's efforts to continue to take their territory. Then after that, you have a national question. How much of it do we want to take back? And what is the cost-benefit analysis of what it will take to take that back? And I think the Ukrainians calculate that every day and plan against that every day. So it's a complicated question, but I think an important part of it is we have to ask ourselves what are the benefits for us in the various outcomes?

Rep. Clay Higgins (R-LA)SPEAKER_20

So to the gentleman's point, and thank you for sharing your perspective there, in this setting, you're limited in how you can respond, I'm quite sure, but it's important for America to observe that we do seek resolution of this of this war. And and this Congress and this committee in particular has carries quite a heavy burden on, you know, making responsible decisions on behalf of the American people that we represent. So defining victory to to some of us at this point has has become as clear as just a cessation of war, the cessation of of the of the killing. And and for for some of us, it was difficult to envision any scenario where Ukraine defeats Russia. This it seems to be a fantastic projection of the wildest imaginations of what potentials could be. So sustaining the war it would be sustaining the killing of of Ukrainian men and women and the destruction of Ukrainian territories. And it seems to us that Russia can can bear the brunt of this conflict for for quite a long time. And I would ask the good lady's perspective of give us a window on ending this thing, and how can we look forward to some some sustained peace in in in a way that Ukraine could could measure some prevail.

Katherine ThompsonSPEAKER_07

Thank you, Congressman. And I can certainly provide additional color to this in our closed session from a policy perspective. But President Trump, as you've rightly hit on, his goal is to end it as soon as possible. And that's why we're undergoing the peace process that's currently in discussion. And I would say, again, the goal is to end that peace process in an enduring fashion so that we're not at this table again in the short, medium, or long-term period of time.

Rep. Clay Higgins (R-LA)SPEAKER_20

Thank you, ma'am. Chairman, my time has expired.

Chairman Mike Rogers (R-AL)SPEAKER_24

The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Vindman.

Rep. Eugene Vindman (D-VA)SPEAKER_35

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First, I want to pass on my condolences to you, the entire EUCOM family, and the families of the fallen four Dogface Soldiers from 3rd ID. That's a tremendous loss. Next, I want to say, as a retired Army officer myself, I want to congratulate you on your upcoming retirement and recommend avoiding electoral politics if you want peace and quiet. Right now, our adversaries are challenging the United States' interests around the globe, and Russia's continued illegal war in Ukraine is far from over. In your written testimony, you focused on the chronic threat that Russia poses to the United States and the importance of land deterrence. And it's been a really persistent threat for decades now, in one iteration or another, from the Soviet Union to the present. General Cavoli, how many troops do we need in Europe to deter Russia at its current end strength?

GEN Christopher G. CavoliSPEAKER_16

Sir, our current capacity is deterring Russia right now. Of course, the answer to that question always depends on where Russia goes in the future, right? How do they configure themselves? Where do they place themselves? What are their intentions? For what we're doing right now, it's obviously working, but they're quite occupied elsewhere. I would point out, I wouldn't measure it also strictly by end strength, the numbers of human beings. It really comes down to what capabilities are we able to bring to bear, how quickly, and how does that nest in to the alliance's efforts, which are evolving and increasing. So over time, I would expect our contribution to drop. It's going to take some time, however.

Rep. Eugene Vindman (D-VA)SPEAKER_35

So I want to address the issue that my colleague from Louisiana just discussed. And kind of part of what victory looks like is a free and sovereign and secure Ukraine, right? And so so far that has come at no cost in American lives as far as uniformed service members, although there have been obviously many volunteers that have gone over and felt the need was great and sacrificed tremendously. In the context of of my definition and kind of how you see victory, is victory for Ukraine possible?

SPEAKER_UNKNOWN

Uh,

GEN Christopher G. CavoliSPEAKER_16

Congressman, not losing is definitely possible, and I think that's the first step.

Rep. Eugene Vindman (D-VA)SPEAKER_35

So if we're talking about a free, secure, sovereign Ukraine, the actions that we've taken so far, they've not lost yet, but how do we take it to the next level? If we want to get a meaningful peace that provides for a free, sovereign, secure Ukraine, what do we need to do in addition to what we've done so far?

GEN Christopher G. CavoliSPEAKER_16

Well, uh, I, I think there's a military contribution to that, sir, of course. But I think that, um, the principal questions would probably be outside of my, outside of my lane. I'm

Rep. Eugene Vindman (D-VA)SPEAKER_35

talking in your, in your purview. And, and briefly, obviously, do we need to provide them more stuff?

GEN Christopher G. CavoliSPEAKER_16

We, we need to continue to provide them the defensive mechanisms to prevent the heinous attacks that we

Rep. Eugene Vindman (D-VA)SPEAKER_35

provide. More intelligence,

GEN Christopher G. CavoliSPEAKER_16

uh, intelligence, air defense weapon systems, and then artillery systems and, and ammunition. Those are always the important things that they need.

Rep. Eugene Vindman (D-VA)SPEAKER_35

those will pressure Russia to come to the negotiating table in a more balanced fashion to achieve the victory that I described, which is a free, secure, and sovereign Ukraine?

GEN Christopher G. CavoliSPEAKER_16

Those, those could be a contributor to that effort.

Rep. Eugene Vindman (D-VA)SPEAKER_35

Okay. I want to transition a little bit and talk about You mentioned your relationships going back decades with your counterparts in different COCOMs, General Kurilla for instance. There are other relationships that, for instance, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. I'm sure you've known him, you worked with him, you closely coordinate with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, with the functional combatant commanders like CYBERCOM, with the senior advisor to NATO. Those folks have all been fired in the last couple of months. Is that Is that correct?

GEN Christopher G. CavoliSPEAKER_16

Yes, sir.

Rep. Eugene Vindman (D-VA)SPEAKER_35

Yeah. And so have you ever seen this type of sort of um, chaos or, or, um, sort of lack of, of coordination in your 38 years? Have you ever had to deal with that kind of shuffling of, of personnel that are your counterparts that help enable your mission?

GEN Christopher G. CavoliSPEAKER_16

Um, I, I have had to deal with, with, uh, uh, shufflings and things like that before. Yes, sir.

Chairman Mike Rogers (R-AL)SPEAKER_24

Gentleman's time has expired. Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. McCormick.

Rep. Richard McCormick (R-GA)SPEAKER_21

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good to see you again, General. It's been a couple years now we've known each other, and I've seen you around the world, several different places. I know you're going to miss dealing with crayon-eating Marines and, and better-looking uniforms, I might add, better commercials. But with that said, it's interesting the first time I ever saw you at a hearing, I asked you a very specific question about, can we win in Ukraine? You said— you didn't even hesitate. You said, Absolutely. And I agree with you. And for those people who are doubters, I make the case, first of all, that we have— between us and Europe, we have a $50 trillion economy versus 2. Versus 2. We control sanctions. We control the economy. We control energy production. And we can undermine Russia in so many ways economically, not even to mention militarily. Germany has a $5 trillion economy versus 2 trillion for Russia. There should be no competition here. But the problem is when we went to Command and Staff, when we went to go to War College, when we do all our advanced training, we always learn how to execute a war full-throated, not half-assed, not going partial measures and then drawing it out like we have every war since Korea, in my opinion. We did this with Iraq. We did it with Afghanistan. We continued to draw it out. We went half measures, and it went way too long. And I feel like we're doing the same thing here instead of just saying, All in. End this thing within one year, it's over. That's Clausewitzian warfare. Now, of course, we take nukes off the table. I understand the deterrence there. But do you think we still, a year after we had our first conver— a couple years after we had our first conversation, do you still think that what I just said is viable and has application in this process to ending this war?

GEN Christopher G. CavoliSPEAKER_16

I do, sir. The role of assistance to Ukraine, the pace of assistance to Ukraine, the magnitude of it has an outsized impact in this war.

Rep. Richard McCormick (R-GA)SPEAKER_21

So, Ms. Thompson, I just say, if if I can give you feedback to the president, these are two military guys who've been in this business for a long time, and actually there's a whole lot more than that. We can end this war in many ways. I love what the president's doing to put pressure on Russia to end this, but he's in the power seat. He's the most powerful man in the in the world with sanctions, with energy production, the things he's doing, also with with the development of our businesses there, which Russia would have a hard time attacking if we're there. But also the fact that the president has been very strict in saying, hey, I got the bigger button, I have the bigger military, I have more economic power than anybody in the universe. We can end this. The president is the big man in the room, and I would love to see him put pressure on Putin because he has that leverage. Getting back more to tactics and away from strategy, we have new munitions. We have the the glide bombs. We have wire-guided munitions now, very similar to what the TOW is, but they have loitering capacity with the the the new drones. What are we doing to both develop that and also to counter that in technologies? Obviously you're not going to talk about anything classified, but do you feel like we're moving at pace for our newly developed weapon systems?

GEN Christopher G. CavoliSPEAKER_16

Yeah, Congressman, a general never feels like we're moving at an adequate pace when it comes to development of new weapon systems, especially in conflict. We continue to help our Ukrainian partners in their development of this stuff, but they have really they've become the world experts in one-way drones, and they are very, very good at it. They're also very good at countering it and and and and are doing that. Our ability to learn from them is an important is an important thing. A few minutes ago, a member asked about lessons learned and how we're incorporating those. One of one of the if you can find a silver lining in this tragic, dark cloud of this war, we are learning an awful lot about the future of warfare and about Russia's capabilities as well.

Rep. Richard McCormick (R-GA)SPEAKER_21

I think they'll have great applications to Taiwan and the straits as well when we're talking about legacy systems versus the newer technologies that are going to impact the battlefield. I'm almost out of time, but I want to take this time, as you're nearing retirement, just to say that no matter what happens, no matter how bad your uniform looks compared to the Marines or anything like that, you have one thing that you can always hang your hat on, and you have the coolest title ever, Supreme Allied Commander. Nobody can take that from you for the rest of your life. God bless you. Semper Fidelis. Good luck in your next career.

GEN Christopher G. CavoliSPEAKER_16

Thank you, sir.

Rep. Richard McCormick (R-GA)SPEAKER_21

With that, I yield, sir.

Chairman Mike Rogers (R-AL)SPEAKER_24

Gentleman yields. We will now conclude this open session and take up the closed session in Room 2212 at 10 minutes after 1:00. We're adjourned.