Transcripts For CSPAN David Hale Testifies On Russia Before Senate Foreign Relations 20240713

Moscow utilizes Digital Technologies to target us and our democratic allies from within. It includes election meddling and influenced operations directed by the highest levels of the russian government the very heart of the western world. We provided significant foreign assistance in europe and eurasia, almost all of which supports building resilience to an increasing pressure on russian malign influence in accordance with the fine. The department has increased his support for the Global Engagement center through additional funding and tapping. We have degraded prudence costs. By imposing the administration a section 321 russiarelated individuals and entities in january 2017. These sanctions and related action serve as a warning to the russian government that we will not tolerate inactivity aimed at undermining or manipulating our 2020 election. I confronted Deputy Foreign minister on russian interference in our elections in july and have raise the matter with Russian Ambassador several times. We likewise have taken firm action against russias diplomatic presence. We closed four russian facilities when russia attacked u. K. Citizen with a military grade nerve agent, we closed russian facilities in seattle and expelled 48 russian intelligence officials from the russian embassy. Our diplomats and other regions including the middle east south america, africa were russias actions exacerbate instability and undermine u. S. Interest. In syria, Russian Military support to the assad regime has exacerbated the humanitarian crisis. In venezuela, were pressing russia to withdraw its diplomatic and military and economic support the former maduro regime. In africa, we have called out russias destabilizing policies including support for mercenaries. Russias serial disregard for its International Security and arms controlled commitment represents another significant challenge for our policy. The president has charged us to pursue a new era of arms control agreements. We know congress has a Critical Role to play providing the tools and resources to implement a russian strategy and we are committed to working with you in this regard. Mr. Chairman, thank you for inviting me today. I look forward to the questions of the committee. Thank you, ambassador. We have now have christopher ford. He has been delegated the authoritys and functions of the undersecretary for arms control and International Security. Dr. Ford previously served as senior director for weapons of mass destruction and cut proliferation at the National Security council. He began his Public Service in 1996 as assistant counsel for the intelligence Oversight Board and insert on several staffs and served as Principal Deputy assistant secretary the state Departments Bureau verification and compliance and u. S. Special representative for Nuclear Nonproliferation from 2008 to 2013 he was a senior fellow at the hudson institute. He is the author of three books and all the doctorate and a law degree. Dr. Ford, welcome. The floor is yours. Thank you. Remarks, undersecretary hale has summarized the broad sweep of our strategy to approach the challenge that russia presents us with today. In my own testimony i would like to address these questions from am. R respective where i i will abbreviate my remarks for oral delivery and request the full version be entered into the record. Thank you, sir. From the perspective of arms control and the ongoing challenges of managing our relationship and strategic sense with moscow, i think it is important to remember we come to all of these tasks out of a long background not just of tensions and problems, but also notable successes over time. The changes in the strategic environment that were occasions by the whining and end of the cold war made possible strategic arms reduction that has seen both countries their arsenals come down to small fractions of what they once were. I mention this because i think it is important to remember this background. It reminds us it is possible to make progress in reducing Nuclear Tensions in our standoff with moscow when the circumstances of the security environment are conducive to such movement. We hope to get back to such an environment. Our policies are designed to help make this possible as well as protect the security of the American People and that of our allies until that point. For now, however, the security environment is challenging. Russia is developing extraordinary new Nuclear Delivery systems for which there are no u. S. Counterparts and most of which seem likely to fall outside existing arms control frameworks. Russia also has a large arsenal of nonstrategic arsenal weapons. It is projected to expand this number of weapons considerably over the next decade. Most observers will be familiar with the Russian Ground launched postproduction and deployment of that system placed russia in material breach of the inf treaty in russia unwillingness to change course in that regard forced us into the unhappy position of having to withdraw from the treaty in the wake of those russian violations. But that missile is only one a broad range new Russian Ground, sea, and air based nuclear or dual capable systems. These systems have longer ranges and lower yields than before and theyre coming online in support of a Russian Nuclear doctrine and strategy that emphasizes and demonstrates periodically boat coercive and military uses of nuclear weaponry. We assess russia does remain in compliance with the new start obligations but its behavior in connection with most other armscontrol agreements and not merely the ear faded in a has nothing short of appalling. As nothingd inf short of appalling. There is also the problem of chemical weapons or russia condones and seeks to ensure impunity for continued violations of the Chemical Weapons Convention by its syrian client staples of further alarming russia has itself used chemical weapons in violation of the Chemical Weapons Convention by developing and using a socalled military grade nerve agent on the territory as the chairman indicated of a nato ally, the united kingdom, in 2018. Moscow is up to no good in new and emerging domains of actual or potential future conflict such as cyberspace and outer space. It has been developing capabilities in these respects and even as it is been trying to promote hollow and disingenuous proposals that went on address the challenges russia itself is working hard to create. This track record is a miserable one. I would are free to buy written statement for some of the details of how our responses are being directed. I would stress we are working to address these challenges on multiple fronts. They are robust and they are extensive. These efforts in the department of state are being approached increasingly and systematically is recording them into an integrated strategy for pushing back against russian mischief. The u. S. National Security Strategy makes clear it is our duty to take great competition seriously and we are doing so. If this resolution and focus in the face of National Security threats i think we very much need and can be our ticket to getting through this phase of geopolitical competition. We need to stay on course, maintaining our deterrent strategy, completing our own military modernization and reassure our allies not just of our capacity, but our enduring willingness to side with them against intimidation and aggression and keeping these initiatives on track while still seeking good faith negotiation to advanced shared interests where it is possible. I think we can stabilize and turn things around and that is what our policy is devoted to. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Im going to ask a question to start with and we will do a five minute round. Mr. Ford, give me your thoughts, if you would, i was one of the strong opponents of new start. Start has been in place as long as it has an we cant talk about in the setting the absolute compliance by the russians, but from a general standpoint, i think we can say theyre substantially more in compliance with the new start, the major weapons, than they ever were with the more intermediate weapons that were covered by the inf. Why the disparity . Why were they so far out of whack on inf and totally would ignore us as far as the pressing we did to get them to comply . Why the difference between the two treaties and the two agreements and the difference in the weaponry systems . Chairman, i would hesitate to get into mr. Putins head, but they clearly made a decision they felt they wanted to have the capabilities that the i never treaty did not allow them to have. They seem to have assumed we would remain compliant with the treaty even if we found out they were right in that regard. They were correct. We were scrupulously compliant for the entirety of our period in the treating. Something wey is are now working to try to address the challenge of meeting those russian threats with the development of new conventionally armed intermediate range systems such as the ground loans Chris Mitchell ground launched cruise missile. They assumed we would remain in compliance and they were correct for a while that they would be able to get away with not just testing by developing and deploying a treaty prohibited system and the hope we would not respond to it. Why they did not do Something Like that with new start is something i would not be in a position to hazard a guess about, but they dont seem to have decided they needed to. I would point out that russia is developing today and openly brags about the development of new strategic Delivery Systems, most of which it is difficult to imagine would ever be brought within the new start armscontrol framework. We have seen president putin rag about his developing of a new super heavy icbm, a development of a nuclear power, Nuclear Armed underwater drone. We are now all familiar with this sort of flying for noble disaster chernobyl disaster of their christmas all that had in the whiteality sea area just last august. There developing a whole range of systems including an air launch ballistic missile. Most of these are not likely to fall within new start and things russians are working very hard today. That is leaving aside the issue of the development of nonstrategic weapons. They already have a large arsenal and it is projected to grow dramatically over the next decade or so as well. These are things russia is already deciding to do and moving out upon outside the framework of current armscontrol, and that is something we need to make sure our policy is in a position to address. Thank you, dr. Ford. Hale, did russia interfere in the 2016 election in favor of donald trump . Could you put your microphone on, please . The Intelligence Community assessed Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 and our president ial election. Was the kremlin interference a hoax . No. Are you aware of any evidence ukraine interfered in the 2016 u. S. Election . I am not. Appreciate dr. Fiona hills , whomony before the house say that theory is a fictional narrative that is being perpetrated and propagated by the Russian Security services themselves. Do you have any reason to disagree with dr. Hill . I do not. In february 2017, at a press conference with the Hungarian Prime Minister orban, president putin himself suggested ukraine interfered and the 2016 u. S. Election. Did he not . I dont recall it, but i dont doubt it. He said as we all know during the president ial campaign in the United States, the Ukrainian Government adopted a unilateral position in favor of one candidate. More than that, certain oligarchs with the approval of the Political Leadership funded this candidate or female candidate to be more precise. Has this been a regular russian propaganda point since then . That ite not followed has been a regular point, but i dont follow that on a daytoday basis. Would it be in putins interest to push such a narrative . Possibly. Possibly. Well, let me ask you, youre the undersecretary here, how is it that on something as critical as russia visavis the United States and our National Security interest, you would think it would only possibly be in foods interest to push a narrative. What would be the other possibilities . I will say yes to your question. Close to president putin make this point to President Trump when they met in helsinki last year in any other conversations . I dont know. That is a problem. Neither do we. It is a problem with the president needs along with putin even confiscates the notes of his interpreter. But it is curious ukrainian interference in the 2016 election does not appear to be in the position of senior diplomats like yourself or any intelligence official, yet this line makes it somehow into the president s talking points. Is our National Security made stronger or weaker when members of the administration or members of congress insist on repeating debunked russian lies . That does not serve our interest. Let me turn to sanctions. Does the administration have authority under section 232 to impose sanctions against russian pipelines . Thatdont know we have exact authority. Im not an expert when it comes to pipelines. Let me offer to you, the answer is yes. As one of the authors, the administration has the authority under section 232 have cats or to impose sanctions against, among other things, russian pipelines. Why does the administration not imposed sanctions on worst dream to . The president talked about this pipeline but the administration has lifted has not lifted a finger to prevent the construction. This committee passed northation to require stream to sanctions, likely included in the ndaa of a senator shaking, senator cruz, but every day that takes by is one more where another pipe is laid. You could act today. Have any idea why youve not acted in this regard . I will say we are opposed to the north stream to pipeline and we have made you oppose it . You have the power to do something. Our policy reason why you have not actively pursue this sanctionable authority you have under the law to be able to stop what the administration imposes . So far weve been trying to use other tools to stop the north stream to pipeline from Going Forward but working with our allies in the eu in particular in that regard. The most powerful opportunity would be to create a huge problem for the Companies Involved that would lay the pipeline knowing it would be sanctioned and that would be the most powerful tool. You have it and you have not used it. Then he asked the secretary ford, are ctsa sanctions mandatory . Pins on which section youre referring to, but i think if youre talking about 231, senator, that is a yes. What is the trigger for 231 sanctions . It is a determination by the secretary of state that a significant transaction has therred with someone on list of specified persons relating to the russian did turkey begin to take to deliver the s 400 system on july 12, 2019 . That sounds correct. They took possession. I believe so. Did turkey pay for the system . To my knowledge. Upks public reports anywhere to 2. 5 billion. Transaction took place, russia deliver the system and turkey paid for it. I believe that is correct. Does the presence have an impact on u. S. Acute interest . Cooks we believe it does. That is why we have been unwinding turkey from the participation doesnt challenge nato . That is why the secretaries have made clear the f35 and s 400 cannot coexist. You have sanctioned china for purchasing the s 400 from russia, which i applied, but you sanctioned china for the very exact system that is clearly a significant transaction but turkey, 100 and four days later, with delivery, payment, and just recently, tested it against an f16, which im sure major negotiations a helluva lot better to try to get to the conclusion you want and we still have not sanctioned them. So you send a global message that in fact we are not serious about uniformly enforcing the sanctions the Congress Passed 982 and are mandatory. And that is a challenge because other countries closely, well, turkey got a pass, why cant i . And the consequences of that undermine the very essence of one of the major sanctions against russia which is to undermine its military procurement sales throughout the world. This needs to be i appreciate the chairman soon having a markup to try to move forward, but when you dont ultimately pursue mandatory sanctions, then the discretion that you seek and other ministrations have sought, but the discretion you seek is very tough for some of us to accept because if you dont do it when you are mandatory to, how are we going to believe when you have discretionary wont consistently use the discretion . This is a problem. Thank you. You are quite right regarding the issue with turkey, nato ally, by law, but youre going to have the opportunity and we will all have the opportunity to speak this next week and help out the administration in that regard. We do intend to a markup next week on the turkey bill. With that, senator johnson . Let me follow up on that and give you the opportunity, what is the reluctance to impose a mandatory sanctions on a nato ally . Secretary pompeo has made clear he will comply or we will law. Y with the caatsa this is a process still underway. Ranking mender inking member menendez, we did sanctioned china. They took possession in january 2018 and it was approximately eight months later in september we issued our sanctioned determination with respect to the chinese procurement entity known as edd as well as its director. As the nature of these things go, that was a deliberative process we needed to work through in order to make sure we understood the implications and had done our homework with regard to the sanctions we did impose upon the chinese procurement entity. That is the precedent here. It took about eight months to do that, rather younger than 144 days. With respect to process, the process is still underway with respect to turkey, the process is still underway. Undersecretary hill, i want to talk about broadcast board of governors and the capability that has been appropriated before but has not been particularly used to try to circumvent the firewalls in and around the internet. Into countries like russia, china, iran. They have not use the appropriations and seem reluctant to do so. We have the confirmation harry sharing of the nominee to be director for governor, seems to be a little snag. Hopefully we can get that individual confirmed. Toit Administration Policy aggressively pursue those types of technologies that can circumvent the internet firewalls imposed a countries like russia and china and ran . Yes, it is. Can you expand . Why havent we done it . There seems to be a reluctance and spend more money of their broadcast board of governors, voice of america, those types of things, on broadcast programs as opposed to technology that opens up their Free Internet to repress citizens. I agree with the thrust of your concern. Unfortunately, that is not an area by direct responsibility so i will have to get back some answers for you on this. But that makes sense to you . Yes. Hopefully, this committee can his recommend confirmation to the senate as soon as possible. Mr. Hale, i would like to get your evaluation of russias current relationship with oley two minutes, so pick and choose i would like to understand chinas thinking or rushes thinking right now the relationship to china to iran and to turkey. I think in general, russian behavior is characterized by opportunism was that they look for opportunities in order to deflect attention to their internal problems and they use aggressive tactics to try to undermine u. S. Interest and those of our allies in the west. I think in that context and the context of great power competition, russia and china find some congruence is of interest. Both want to subvert our values and harm our economies, interfere with our democratic practices. I would put that in that context. There are differences of interest between china and russia but we need to watch closely what is happening between those two countries. Turkey, i would characterize it as opportunism. Turkey is seeking to promote its own interest in various ways at times incongruence with us and at times weve had to work out our differences. I think russia seeks to exploit those openings when they can. With iran, russia probably plays a less prominent role in iran today than in other periods of history. We continue to consult with russia on all of these topics. We would like to find areas where we can find commonalities of interest, but it has been difficult to do that. When it comes to iran iran north ukraine, libya, arms control issues, towns or terrorism, we do have dialogues to try to find common ground. Question, my original deliberative process is part of the concern that imposing those were going to basically push turkey right into the welcoming arms of russia . We are not interested in doing that but we want to make sure that turkey is anchored fully in nato as it is today trying in addition to the points of the assistant secretary made, we are in discussions with the turks on the disposition of the s 400 in a manner that will protect u. S. National security interests and counter russias malign influence. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank both of our witnesses and the chairman. Secretary, i want to follow up on the questions on the meddling in the elections by russia. You have indicated you have had conversations with the russians about the interference in the coming election. Administer ray, fbi director ray testified in july before the Senate Judiciary committee that russia absolutely intends on trying to interfere with our elections. So have we just didnt ineffective with our relationship with russia to prevent them from trying again in 2020 elections . Has diplomacy fail . Have the sanctions not been used effectively . Is the messaging of this administration not been effective . Or do you disagree with director wray . I agree that the russians are seeking to influence the 2020 elections. Of course, russian behavior is not just about influencing elections, they also use social media and other cyber tools to try to sow division on a whole host of issues. We have to have continual focus on this problem. Another concern is the deniability element, that the russians behind hide behind. Close your conversations with the russians you say you have conversations, but according to director ray, we have not been successful in stopping them from trying to interfere in 2020 come as a eased as of july this year. Ive been in frequent engagement with the Russian Ambassador my counterpart to expose the formation we have they demonstrates russian interference to warn them of the potential consequences if they repeat that performance in 2020 that is our strategy. Are we taking any other steps to interference . s step we also have a government approach to defend and deter our nation from this kind of interference. You mentioned misinformation. Congressbudget, appropriated 625 million to counter russias influence fund. Can you tell us how effective that was used in trying to counter the propaganda that youre talking about . I dont have measurable data with me today, but we are very pleased to have that kind of support so we can on a global basis work with our allies and directly to counter russias propaganda. They are not just trying to influence our elections, they have been trying to influence elections all along their border, within the eu particularly those countries relatively new democracies. The administration held up the use of that money for a period of time, additional congressional pressure was exerted, bipartisan, to utilize that money youre saying it was helpful. Is there a strategy in this administration to seek Additional Resources and order to counter russias propaganda influence . Yes. For example, the Global Engagement Centers Budget last year for the first two years was 30 million. We were we are asking for 76. 5 million. Congress gave you 600 Million Dollars that you did not ask for did not end stop spend, at least initially. From where i said, that kind of support is very helpful. I want to get to the chairmans point about strategy. Our Foreign Policy is best when it is wrapped within the values of america, what we stand for. We talked about sanctions working, being strategic. The amendment those specifically involved in human rights violations, the inh anniversary of his death november. We know russia has upped its activity against ngos, against those defenders of human rights. Imprisoning the people who dissent with putin. What is our strategy to make sure they know they have the support of america and what theyre trying to do in reforming their own country . Do we have a strategy to up the game against russia in regards to these imprisonments. Thing west powerful can do is speak out and we do so. I hope we will have an ambassador and moscow and im grateful for the work of this committee to move that nomination board because the people on the ground in russia are hardworking and hardpressed team at the embassy in moscow, the first line for speaking out a meeting with an engaging are you where theres been a bipartisan letter sent by that the members of this committee and authored by senator rubio myself suggesting you look at the sanctions in regard yes, im aware of that. What is the status of that . I would have to look into it. We have not responded yet, but we intend to. The letter was sent in july so it is been a while. The people protesting are still being imprisoned. I appreciate your words. Actions speak louder than words. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you. Senator romney . I applied the fact the president looked at china and said, look, we have been a sleep of the switch for too long. I think theres a lot more to be done in developing a strategy that pushes back against china, i applied the fact we finally recognize we have not been aware of or recognized the malevolent intent. I wonder whether the same is occurring today with regard to russia on the part of the administration. I say that because what you have described is a series of actions by russia that are really extraordinarily alarming. Theyre investing aggressively in the middle east with military africa, andn north latin america, supporting some of the worlds worst actors. They are violating or did. Iolate the inf mr. Ford, you indicated they are about to make a massive investment in increasing the number of new very missiles of intermediate range. They are making or have made a major investment, upgraded their nuclear arsenal, developing new technologies, new weaponry. Of course, the invasions of georgia and ukraine. They are interfering in elections around the world, particularly here in the United States. I wonder, what is there ambition . What is their strategy . What are they hoping to achieve . Why are they doing these things, a country that has a declining population, a weak Industrial Base cover ought to be focusing domestically, given our perspectives, there would be trying to find ways to help their people to improve their economy but instead there investing massively in weapon systems, interference around the world. What is their objective . From the standpoint of our state department, what is russias strategy . What is their objective . I will let either of you or both responded that. I can start, sir. Thank you for the question. I agree with so much of what you said about russian behavior. That is why we have to impose cost. We appreciate the support of senate and helping us get the legislation right so we can do that. As part of a broader strategy with intelligence pieces, Law Enforcement pieces, financial pieces, and military elements as well. You ask about the motivations. Russia seems to be striking out in order to distract attention from its internal problems. Russia seems to want to dominate states around it as some kind of a buffer. And then look for opportunities in order to try to demonstrate that america is weak so they seek openings and places where there are conflicts and states may not be as strong as they could be. Those are tactics. I recognize those tactics. But what is there ambition . Is it to reestablish the russian empire . Superpower one a par with the United States . Are they looking to invade other neighbors . Are they looking to grab population from other former soviet states to rebuild their population and become more of an industrial power, economic power . What are they hoping to accomplish . I think they want to restore their self image and global image is a superpower. Mr. Ford . I certainly dont disagree with that at all. I think it is quite significant the National Security strategy of this administration expressly calls out both china and russia as revisionist powers who are engaged in a great competition with the u. S. , that it is our obligation as stewards of the National Security interest of the American People to pursue and make sure we protect those interests. You are right in a ship and china policy, senator. I think the same thing can be done about russia that our National Security strategy and all we have been doing since its issuance i think speaks to. It turns out unfortunately the end of the cold war did not usher in a benign security environment in which we got to relax and worry about other things. It turns out during the great period in which we took a somewhat complacent approach, moscow and beijing were working very hard at their own strategies to build their themence, as we described to take a revisionist approach to the Current System of global order. It is now our challenge to make up for that time and adopt policies that will help stabilize a deteriorating security environment try to turn that around so we can find a stable and safe and mutually prosperous way to coexist with them after putting all of these actings back in line. I would suggest the goal of having a collaborative coexistence with russia is not something that they are pursuing. And they have very different intent. And we need to be very clear right about what their intent is and make sure we develop a conference of strategy as opposed to ad hoc sanctions here and there against individuals or various actions they take. A dramatichave strategy, go back to the canon strategy and the cold war im not suggesting we go back to the develop abut developer strategy that gets them on course. Their continuing an activity that is extraordinarily maligned and that gives me great concern. Senator murphy . Thank you to both of you for your tremendous Public Service. There is no way to unwind our policy toward russia with our policy toward ukraine. We are going have plenty of opportunity in the house and senate to litigate what our policy has been in the past toward ukraine. I thought it might be appropriate to level set just clarify what our policy is currently toward ukraine. Ambassador hale, just a few quick questions. Is it currently our policy with respect to ukraine to request investigations into an entity called crowdstrike . No. Is it currently our policy toward ukraine to request investigations into the connection between the former Vice President s family and a Company Called burisma . Not that im aware of. Is Rudy Giuliani involved today in any diplomatic conversations with ukraine . Not that im aware of, sir. I think it is important to acknowledge those facts because part of the defense of the president s actions will be that those request were in fact appropriate. Theink it is relevant since uncovering of those demands have been made they are no longer part of official u. S. Policy query, whether or not if those actions were appropriate, they would have been dropped after these investigations began. , one of theopic sort of ways to talk about our competition with russia is through a prism of what is called asymmetric warfare. They have capabilities that we dont have. It has always struck me that is a choice. It is not an inevitability. There are some things theyre willing to do that we are not willing to do from a moral standpoint, from a standpoint of conscience. But there are capabilities they have that we choose not to utilize. In particular, the way in which they use their Energy Resources to bully nations around them and win friends and influence adversaries. We have chosen not to use our Energy Resources in the same way, but there are appropriate means by which we could provide more direct assistance to countries in and around russias periphery to make them energy independent. A bunch of us, senator johnson, senator rubio, myself, and others have a piece of legislation that was set up a billiondollar financing to helpty capacity finance Energy Independence projects in and around the russia periphery. It strikes me as a way to sort of close this gap that exists without having our private sector comedies to throw their weight around in a way that is completely integrated with your security interest. Do you agree there are ways in which we could increase the support that we give countries around russia to try to end this asymmetry that exists today and with a leverage their Energy Resources and we leverage hours . Yes, i agree very much with the thrust of your comments. Part of that is making sure our allies have alternate sources of energy. That is been a major thrust of our strategy because we dont want germany and others in europe to be even more dependent on Russian Energy sources. I myself have had multiple conversations in my travels in ukraine and belarus and Eastern Europe on this team. The private sector would have to be, hopefully, prominent partner in that enterprise. That, theght add to undersecretary is quite right and youre right about the importance of manipulated Energy Relationships in russias Strategic Policy and one thing we are also doing to try to meet this challenge is through not just promoting any particular type of Energy Alternative but also focusing upon Civil Nuclear cooperation. We are working hard in my corner of the state department to promote improved relationships with partners and friends around the world in order to help provide them with alternatives in the form of carbonfree Nuclear Energy from u. S. Suppliers, which serves are known for liberation interest and our strategic interest. In promoting those things and finding alternatives to russian relationships and chinese relationships, which often come with very elaborate and too good to be true death bondage sort of financing terms, at least im not from layer with your particular bill, but in principle, being able to offer more Funding Options to our partners would be helpful. My continued hope is we get this go before the committee as soon as possible. My time is up. Senator portman . Thank you. Let me start by thanking both of you for your service. Andto our native cincinnati , like me, i will start with you because you are from cincinnati. Crane with ukraine, in 2014, went to see what was going on. Incredible. A country that was dominate by russia and chose to take a different direction to encourage economic and political freedom, joining with us and the e. U. We needed to stand by them and to a certain extent we did but for the first couple of years we refused to give them the assistance they needed to defend themselves against the russian aggression. I have seen where 3000 ukrainian soldiers have been killed. It is a hot conflict. I dont care what people say. They needed the opportunity at least to try to defend themselves. They were not asking for u. S. Troops, but asking for help. 20172018, 2019, the trumpet administration did that. I think that should be noted. It was a bipartisan effort up here on the hill starting in 2014 and appreciate you raised that in your written testimony. My question for you is, where do we go from here . One, i think it is important we reestablish the fact we are indeed allies of ukraine and that we want to help them. As this administration has done without precedent, we have been helpful to them. But what do they need now . Talk a little about anti aircraft weaponry . How can we be more helpful . Would add not only am i a cincinnatian, i grew up in district. Even better. Who did you vote for . [laughter] that doesnt get me past the question, does it . Im not in a position to speak to the specific operational needs. We have gone to enormous trouble as you correctly point out to help them in a very difficult situation russian aggression is put them in. I believe we have given something on the order of 1. 6 billion or so in various state and dod assistance for their armed forces that does include the javelin antitank systems. I believe there are more javelins in the pipeline. I think congress has been notified of an additional move in that respect. Im not in a position to speak precisely to what they need next but i can certainly one thing took in to the committee, if you could give us a list of what has been provided because theres been some information that think has not been accurate. If you could come in talking to the appropriate people, give us a sense of what is needed. Secretary hale, and talking about ukraine, as you know, president zelensky has chosen to take the initiative in terms of a peaceful settlement of what is going on in the eastern border of ukraine. In crimea. There is a meeting of the socalled normandy format which is france, germany, russia, not up in paris shortly coming next week, as i understand it. What is the u. S. Government position on his initiative to try to resolve the issues on the eastern border in ukraine . Support him. Y secretary of state put out a statement i think last night in this regard. Im looking forward to the normandy meeting. We think he has done some considerable steps that have helped move toward a resolution and the problems. Weve seen a reinforced truce. The war is still hot. Weve seen an exchange of prisoners, which is welcome. The russians return a vessel they had taken from the straits last year. They prepared a bridge, pedestrian bridge that is important for local communications. We strongly support this. We definitely back president and the people of ukraine in this regard. Should we be part of the vote . I is an historical dont have an answer. We are very closely lashed up with the germans and the french in this regard. We also talked to the u. K. Present during this process. There are discussions about trying to expand it. We will keep you posted. I would hope that could happen. You mentioned earlier in response to question from senator cardin that your supportive. You look at your proposal, you are saying youre looking for additional funding. I think that is important. I know senator murphy agrees. We have worked on this over the years to ensure we have the ability to push back on the disinformation, the propaganda. Could you tell us a little bit about it . You have a new leader. I have met with her several times. I think she is taking the center and the right direction. What kind of capabilities do we need that we dont have and why are you asking for additional funding . Thank you for the vote of support for gabrielle. We are impressed by her leadership. I understand it provides a coronation role. While 75 million is a lot of money, theres even more were even more resources across our government come across our agencies to promote this messaging strategy. If you look at each of those budgets you will see components of it which the gap will be responsible for helping to corneille to make sure were doing everything we can to counter russias propaganda stop my time has expired. This is largely countries like the countries in the baltics under enormous pressure. Correct. Were helping some of our allies. The new stop treaty with russia is due to expire in just over one year. Fortunately, President Trump and putin can extend the treaty by an additional five years by mutual agreement. Russia has recently said new start will additionally cover russias only two new strategic new their systems that are reported to be deployable prior to 2026. Hypersonic glide vehicle and a new heavy icbm. Secretary ford, why would we not extend a treaty with which russia is complying and which will continue to cap existing and new types of Strategic Forces . Wesenator, i have not said would not that is a decision that has not been made. It is under consideration. As you indicated, there may be some systems the russians are developing now that will or could be brought under new start. Depending upon whether into what degree it is extended, i would qualify your statement slightly in essence it can be extended by agreement between the two powers for up to five years but could be asked ended extend for a shorter period of time as well. It through theat prism of our broader objectives and armscontrol and in particular the president s objection of some kind of a trilateral framework that will help us nip in the by the potentially emerging arms race that is being triggered by not just russian, but Chinese Nuclear development. China being in addition to the problems i mention with russia, china being on track to at least double the size of its arsenal over the next decade or so. Our hope is to find a framework that will provide enduring feature for the arms in the future and we are approaching new start through the prism of how we can most effectively contribute to that broader longterm chinas fraction of the warheads and the strategic Delivery Systems which the u. S. And russia have. An existing agreement which can be extended, which would then serve as a basis to enter and begin to negotiate with the chinese. Cannot realistically an extensionithin of start within a year, doesnt really make any sense for us to give up on the start extension so that we lose the benefits . Indicated, im not suggesting we are or would necessarily give up on new start extension. The question is how we can best approach these questions are you saying flat out you if thet extend start chinese are not included . A decision on these questions has not yet been made, sir. What were trying to do is find a way to bring both russia and china into some kinds of an armscontrol framework that meets the challenges that are presented by their ongoing modernization and build up other Nuclear Forces as well as the pressures the conventional military buildup and regional adventurism placing in a proliferate dylan i appreciate that. It is just highly unlikely as a time energy, logistical matter that we are going to be able to bring in the chinese during that period of time. U. S. W start expires, will inspectors be able to conduct on the ground inspections of russian deployed and nondeployed Strategic Systems and will they have access to thousands of notifications on the movement of such systems . I would think of new start were to expire, with it would go the verification protocols and onsite inspection procedures. Iswe would lose that, which a huge breakthrough which was made in terms of on the ground inspections. Russian deployed and nondeployed Strategic Systems. I dont think that would be a step that would be advancing our National Security. If new start expires, will u. S. Strategic command be able to as easily predict the future shape and size of russian Strategic Forces to inform how the United States configures its own Nuclear Force posture . Our hope is that it would be possible to put some kind of armscontrol base placements not just on chinese, but russian forces, designs to cover some of the things theyre building that are not likely to be covered by new start such as im talking about if we dont reach an agreement to extend. If we dont reach an agreement to extend, will we lose our ability to see what is going on resultof russia and as a not be able to as accurately anticipate the shape and size of the russias Strategic Force so that our own Research Development and ultimate deployment reflects what they could be posting . Postureis some by the treaty. We are interested in trying to keep our eyes upon is the long game of what happens beyond those five years. In some sense for the future of this potential emerging arms race, the russian and chinese actions are on the verge of triggering, even more important question is, what happens after those five years . Were are on track with our program to cover the next five years and then quite a bit more. What is in some sense more important for the future of armscontrol and the future of the strategic relationship between these three powers is what happens after that, whether it is in two years time or six years time. I appreciate that. My concern amongst other things is if we mishandle this, we could wind up with a new Nuclear Arms Race that could cost as trillions of unnecessary dollars because we have just opportunity to have a negotiated resolution first with russians, which is obviously something the chinese dont ifnd if we we dont take that opportunity, i think we will wind up with a deficit that is going to be ballooning because of a Nuclear Arms Race that is unsupportable. Was a leady ford, i republican on some legislation dropped with senator van hollen earlier this year that would ensure the u. S. Made every effort to engage in new start negotiations and entered whatever limitations were reached through those negotiations were adequate. We did address china issue, which i will get to momentarily enter legislation, but i think i just heard you, which is consistent with everything i read and hear him indicate russia is currently in compliance with new start . We do believe they are in compliance with the central treaty limits. Ok. Is there enough time to start . Te our new of new it is starting to become a concern because we are the 15 month mark from when new start will expire. We are running out of time. Do you feel the same sense of urgency toward renewal . Time to is plenty of extend, and decision were to be taken, extension is not something we particularly negotiate because it can be extended on its own terms. That was civilly take the agreement of the two parties. In theory, that could be done quickly. It sounds as if there is some reservations on pure extension on account of the china dynamic, which i think is a fair one, which is why senator van hollen and i included that in our resolution. Among other things, the legislation was put forward would require a director of National Intelligence to assess that the impact that a renewal or an extension would have on chinas actions. Whether if we stayed in or stayed out, what might china do . And what with the likelihood of chinese compliance with the parameters of new start, what with the likelihood of that be . We would want to consider the dynamic of china under this legislation. And so i hope this is something that the administration will study and then report back to members of congress, irrespective of whether or not that adulation passes. Is that something that is being studied right now . Were surly very mindful of how the relationship between moscow and washington affect chinese behavior and vice versa. I think one of the challenges we have in trying to build this future for the armscontrol enterprise and make it serve our interests and that of International Peace and security is to precisely to figure out how these three way dynamics work. We have conceptual templates from the cold war that are bilateral and those dont make sense in at least understood. Secretary ford, or mindful of it you are mindful of it. Are you conducting a formal assessment of chinese response to an extension of new start or a renewal of new start . We are considering those questions. I dont know it would be fair to describe it is a highly formal assessment but it is part of our decisionmaking. As you quite correctly point out, is a prickle question. Plus were dealing with Nuclear Weapons here. Important armscontrol. Wouldnt it be both appropriate and right to conduct a formal assessment working with our best intelligence to try to come up with the probability of different chinese responses and the nature of this responses were a renewal or an extension to occur . It seems like that would be a responsible action to take come as you carry out your analysis. Do you agree . Ethic making sure we have a clear assessment for those questions is important. So will it happen . It is already being considered and important, sir. Will it happen . It will be considered. Does that mean a formal assessment is occurring . As i said before, i dont know how formal it would be to the process. Is a written work product being produced . We are working with all relevant elements of the agency to make sure that questions including but not limited to that are a part of what our principles are able to consider as they seek to make a decision not just on a new start extension but these broader questions of how best to pursue a trilateral arms deal. Sounds like at least if we cant elicit from the Intelligence Community or state department a formal assessment, then perhaps a classified briefing on this topic would make sense. We will follow up on that. What is our country doing to ensure the dialogue is in place to negotiate the potential renewal or extension . We have already had in this administration two engagements with the russians described as Strategic Security dialogs. I have a great honor and privilege to be able to participate in the first of those in 2017, when i was in a different capacity. Tolivan led our delegation the secondeneva for of these engagements and we committed to doing another one. Potentially a question of figuring out what the mutually acceptable time is to hold the engagement, but i would anticipate it hopefully happening in the very near future. This is up to principal channel right now for discussions on these lines, talking about strategic arms control and Nuclear Weapons related issues. It is an important way for us to be in touch with our russian counterparts, understand each other better, and lay the groundwork for whatever may come, potentially at least new start extension talks. In the next 15 months. Thank you so much, im way over time and appreciate your important service. , isssistant secretary ford it correct that the u. S. Has over 500 flights under open skies of russia since 2002 . Dont knowonfess, i the exact number, but i dont i would not be surprised that was exactly right. Done it true that we have more flights over russia than they have done over the u. S. . I dont know the ratio. You can take my word for it, then. Check and let me know if im wrong. A lot of this was about building context between the countries. Deputy secretary sullivan said that any decision to lead open skies would require unanimous consent of a nato country. The nato countries. Do you share that understanding of u. S. Policy . At a have the terms of the treaty at my fingertips with respect to withdraw procedures, but i can certainly say that there has been a lot of press open skies on our policy, not all of which one should believe. As mark twain said of his own death, reports of its demise arc greatly exaggerated. You believe that open skies is a valuable contribution to the Nuclear Security at this point . It does make contributions to our security and that of our partners. Right now we are undertaking a thorough review of the merits and demerits of continued participation. No decision has been made to get out. I will just take that. Secretary pompeo, in response to astion, i asked him question i asked him, he said that the extension of new start would have to take into account new actions. We took that to mean china. The new weapons, thats not such a new a big issue. We have two bank systems that the Russian Foreign says would be covered. The vanguard and the new heavy icbm they are building. There are two that wouldnt be deployable until the and of the next decade. So those we dont worry about too much. And then there is the conversation that has to be worked out over a plan for launched ballistic missiles, a launch from a heavy bomber covering a response from a fighter, it wouldnt be just like a cruise missile, similar distance would not be covered if flushed from a fighter. That seems manageable when it comes down to one met one weapons system. The china peace that has been raised consistently, china has approximately how many Nuclear Warheads . Isut 300, would you say that the ballpark of reported numbers . I have certainly seen that in the press. How many strategic warheads do we have deployed . I should know that number but i dont have it at the tip of my tongue. Its about 1750. For russia, 1600. How many do we have if we include tactical warheads . Not much more than that. Quite a lot more, several thousand more, actually. The point is 300 chinese , with the triad in the infant stage of development. We have a very sophisticated triad. So does russia. We have strategic warheads. More than five times the number. Thats a huge disparity. Are we really going to say that we have to resolve the architecture between china with this neophyte program and the u. S. And russia with a much larger, sophisticated program in order to extend new start . I was not trying to say that it needed to be tied up with a bow before the end of whatever lifetime new start has. We think it is incredibly important that we are engaged with russia and china in finding that is trilateral for arms control because of we cannot do that we will run up against the same problems. As you think about that, do you think the u. S. Coming down to the chinese number of 300 or the chinese being given permission to come up to the u. S. Number of 1750 deployed strategic warheads . Are you advocating for an increase in chinese weapons . Im keen to try to are you advocating the u. S. Come down to the chinese level . Im advocating to advocating finding way to stop an incipient arms race. You have to argue for one or the other. Us to come down for china to come up. Or you are arguing that you think they would agree to differential numbers, locking them into a much lower number than the u. S. Are you arguing for that . The president has directed us to pursue a trilateral cap on three powers to stop what could be a very dangerous emerging arms race. Disturbed. Im i really am disturbed that in order to take into account the vast difference between china and the u. S. You have one of three options. One, we put on a cap the china will be able to come up to, a cap closer to china to become down to, or a differential the china that they would agree to. Those are the three options and you havent said you support any of those three. You are saying that we are one year out from the end of the therel new start and havent been serious negotiations with china to figure out which of these three options to pursue . I dont like any of them, myself. Those kinds of questions are just the kinds of things that we need to be and should be talking about with our russian and chinese counterparts, which is why it is so essential for them to come to the table with us. Ok, but you havent engaged in those serious conversations yet and i know from the past that i can take many years to work out the details when there are actually fairly uniform relationships between two and powers and this is not a uniform relationship. I will just close their since i am over time. I think what we dont want to see is china used as an excuse to blow up the existing or potential extension of an agreement with russia that contributes to International Security and, of course, in the nuclear realm, thats important to our survival. Thank you, senator. Dr. Ford, for this committee, in the understanding that this is an open setting, regarding the open skies treaty, can you talk about talk a little bit about the disparity, the issues russia has caused as far as not ,llowing access and, perhaps enlighten people on why that is causing difficulties with where we are. I will try, mr. Chairman. We first found russia to be a noncompliance with its obligations in the summer of i believe 2017. I would stress that that was the first time we found it. We decided to declare them in noncompliance. In fact the things that they had been doing at that point and in many cases are still doing our things that they had been doing premuch continuously since the treaty came into force in 2002. We have found them to be in noncompliance with regard to certain overflights of the baltic enclave. We have found them to be in noncompliance with regards to flights within the vicinity of the enclaves that they potentially invaded and carved off of this country of georgia. And our maintaining my proxy , wees by proxy forces have found them to be selective in military exercises. All of these amount to a thing where they have been chronically in noncompliance and a selective noncompliant with other open skies obligations, causing great concern to us and our allies, naturally. And obviously itun levels the playing field. It has not gotten to the point where we have declared that we feel there to be a material breach, but there have been breaches and there are they are things that we very much hope russia will turn around. Thank you a much. Thank you to both of you for your time and testimony today. The Russian Federation under Vladimir Putin has invaded its neighbors, georgia and ukraine, supports the murderous regime of Bashar Alassad. It is engaged in active Information Warfare against western democracy, including meddling in the u. S. Election 2016. Russia is responsible for heinous actions like the downing of malaysian flight 217 and ukraine and the Chemical Attacks in cells very, the united kingdom, 2018. Clearly they are an adversary, malicious interference in the 2016 elections and continue to intend to do that in 2020. And other democratic elections around the world as well. Believe that Vladimir Putin is a thug and the Russian Federation should be designated as a state sponsor of terror. This committee has been working on a number of bills, stopping the line activities from russian terrorism act. A bill that senator menendez and i have authored to require the state department to submit a report to congress as to whether russia fits the criteria to be declared a state sponsor of great state sponsor of terror. They have worked for together something that obviously creates economic, political, and diplomatic pressure on russia in order to respond to the interference in the democratic process. Theres online influence their in syria with the aggression against ukraine. The European Energy security and diversification act, which many of us have worked on, legislation that would authorize 1 billion to finance catalyzing publicprivate investment in European Energy projects to help wean their dependence off of Russian Energy assets. So, we know russia supports terrorist groups, have carried out the actions we talked about. We know that separatist movements around the world, they have supported. They have interfered in democratic elections and found themselves responsible for a chemical attack on a nato ally. You believe that russia is a state sponsor of terror . I must confess, my portfolio doesnt have a lot to do with those designations and im not as familiar with the elements that go into that as i probably should be. I would defer to others on the question. Dr. Ford . I must agree with dr. Nelson. Hell, apologies. I will answer to any title. The state department has not at this stage determined that russia is a state sponsor of terrorism. Theres a fairly complex delivered a process for doing that and we look forward to working with you and sharing information with members of the committee. Based on these descriptions at based on these descriptions, do you agree that they would meet the criteria . I agree with the description of malign behavior, but i dont see that per se as state sponsorship of terrorism, terrorist attacks. But they are supporting and getting very close to the edge in some places on that. We also have to recognize russia itself as a victim of terrorism, safe to say that on the record as well. In 2016 we saw a series of showed, basedhat on russias buildup of military, they could sweep the baltics in less than 60 hours. Secretary hell, has that analysis changed to any degree, with the increased investments in nato and other developments in europe . Im not familiar with that study and im not an expert on these matters but i can tell you that we are very concerned about the defense of all of our nato particularly the baltic states, and have done there for a great deal to increase the nato troop presence on their soil. When it comes to europe and the actions of european allies, what actions have been taken to press what are we pressing european allies to do when it comes to russias continued aggression . Job number one is to increase defense spending in line with the pledge of 2 and to realign the burden sharing in a nato common fund. There also very focused on vulnerabilities of the eastern flank of nato, if i can put it that way. These are relatively new democracies that are very vulnerable to russian intimidation, russian tactics to use corruption, use access to media to undermine societies from within. We have seen Cyber Attacks and other types of interference that have been dramatic and we want to boost those defenses as well. Which is more complex than just a military response. Using the tools we talked about. Much, senator. Ry senator sheen . You, mr. Chairman. Thank you both for being here. Dr. Ford, in your Opening Statement you talk about progress that has been made in reducing Nuclear Tensions. I have listened to the back and forth around the new start treaty. Do you support an extension of the new start treaty . I would support it if i concluded that that were the most effective way to contribute to our goal of bringing both china and russia into some kind of arms control framework, the question we are all considering right now. Do i understand you to say that we look for opportunities and areas of mutual agreement where we can work with russia on somethings . Indeed, we try to keep channels of communication open. Working together on shared interests. Hasnt Vladimir Putin suggested that this is one area that he would like to see negotiations resume . I believe the russians have made that clear. By their actions rather than words have made it clear that they would like to continue an uninterrupted military and nuclear buildup. Im not asking you about that. I appreciate the uninterrupted nuclear buildup. We all appreciate that thats something that we dont allow to continue dont want to allow to continue to happen and we need to look for ways to prevent that. But i am asking you about new start, only. Possible that we could move forward with an extension of new start at the same time that we are looking to negotiate other issues . And otherchina nations that may be a concern in terms of Nuclear Weapons . That is indeed one of the possibilities we are considering right now, maam. Why would we not want to do that . We would if we determined that was the best way to bring this troublesome arms race dynamic under control. So, whats the longterm concern about doing that . It would give us more time to negotiate a broader agreement that would include china and could, potentially, look at other areas where there are weapons that we might want to include in a treaty. Why would we not what to continue an extension of new start . As i indicated, thats precisely one of the questions we are looking into right now. We dont have a decision from the interagency principles yet, but it is certainly one of the things before them. I would suggest that well, i would align myself with the comments of senator merkley. This is a red herring to suggest that we cant do anything about new start without including china and the other issues. So, i would hope that we would how we can best move forward and continue the progress that has been made under new start while we look at other ways that we can negotiate a broader agreement. Ambassador hale, i continue to be very concerned about the repercussions of the decision in syria to its raw troops. And what it means in terms of increasing russias influence in syria and the middle east. Can you talk about what our withdrawal has done to strengthen russias position in syria . Well, we do still have troops, of course, present. There have been adjustments along with all the news that we have seen and the agreement that was reached in october. We have had a dialogue and continue to have a dialogue with russia on syria. Do we have any potential to influence their bombing in that part of syria . Have we try to do that . Yes, we have. Ambassador jeffrey, our envoy handling the matter is, has had extensive discussions with his russian counterpart. I have as well with my counterparts. We believe that these kinds of bombardments must absolutely top and we will not be able really cooperate well with the russians unless they do so. Is that the only leverage that we have . To say that we wont cooperate with you unless you stop bombing . Just talking about not cooperating in the case of syria. No, the russians know that we have a wide range of tools. Its part of the benefit of having sanctions. But we havent suggested that that would be an option in syria , if they continue bombing . I havent had that suggestion myself, senator. So, the president was just in afghanistan. One of the things that he suggested was he was planning to resume talks with the taliban and. Do you know if there have been any discussions with russia, either with respect to syria or afghanistan about the potential role they could play in helping to address that resurgence of isis . As i mentioned the ambassadors spoke to the russian counterparts intensively about this. We would like to see stronger russian cooperation. Not just in fighting isis, but helping in the political processes in these countries. Isis doesnt have the opportunity to regroup and develop. Thats the essence of our approach. What has the response been . Less than ideal. They have not offer the kind of risk the kind of support that we would expect. And when we had a presence, they were not engaged full in the fight against isis . They were also not hopeful in that effort, particularly . Like they were not. Again, as we think about restarting talks with the taliban, do you have any sense of what discussions there will of isisd the resurgence in afghanistan. Not a resurgence, but the growing presence of isis in afghanistan and what we will be asking the taliban to do with respect to isis . Dont want to get into classified information, so let me offer generally the disses a growing concern and sense of alarm in the administration. Bellse ringing the alarm on my last assignment as ambassador. We need to make sure that all elements that are prepared to come into a Peace Process are focused on that problem is what. Thank you, mr. Chairman and Ranking Member. I would hope that you would consider a classified hearing to discuss the potential for isis to be a problem in any negotiations with the taliban and in afghanistan. I think its a huge threat and we need to be concerned about it. I agree with that. We will talk about that briefly. Thank you so much. Senator paul, you are next. Ambassador hale, sanctions are intended to change behavior. For years we have been having sanctions to russia. Can you name some specific changes that russia has undertaken with regards to and because of our sanctions . Well, is a work in process. We have not achieved our overriding objectives in terms of having russia withdraw from ukraine. Certainly, they continue to violate human rights. And we have continued to see interference in the elections. Any specific changes from russia that you can name . There may be a deterrence effect that is hard to measure. Its going to take time, as we know. Sanctioning specific behavior that we dont like it, theres no indication there has been a change in russias behavior. Are there discussions with russia, specific ones, saying that if you do x, we will remove these particular sanctions . Is there that level of particular sanction discussion . The russians are well aware of what they need to do to get sanctions relief. No specific discussions on removing sanctions on your members coming here you do this . In various conversations that may have been touched upon. This sort of illustrates the problem. Its easy to put on sanctions and say we want to change behavior, but it doesnt seem to be working and if it isnt, we may need to reconsider exactly what were doing. We have also put sanctions on the congress, deciding that we know better on the president , you put the sanctions on and the president cant take it off. Is that easier or harder for negotiated if Congress Puts on sanctions that congress doesnt have the means or power to remove . At the you put your thumb on an important point, the need for reversibility and flexibility. The threat can be more effective than the imposition of a sanction. The only time i can think of in recent times where sanctions seemed too obvious a work was the president putting on or threatening sanctions on erdogan in turkey, and when the behavior changed, removing the sanctions. The threat has leverage and when we place them, they have no like no leverage. We leave them on for decades and it appears nothing is changing. Contrary to what people think, behavior. Idify bad once they get the their backup, they are like we are changing and will never do that as a result. Some would say that the sanctions worked in bringing iran to the table for the iranian agreement. The contrary argument i also be that it was because we engage them and offer them something and they took the agreement because they got something in exchange. I think that as we look at the world, we can think we can tell the world what to do, but there doesnt seem to be a lot of evidence of that working. There may also be the evidence that, or at least the argument can be made that sanctions or embargoes, such as the longstanding embargo cuba, may have the opposite of the intended effect. It did seem we would want to study these days the things. For decades the castros said that your economy sucks and have no food, because of the embargo. I think we should at least be open to the argument of whether sanctions work. We ought to try to study whether they work. If you believe that they are the way to go, we should also have an additional effort saying we want to have a talk with you about whether you doing this and then we will do this. Some kind of exchange. The problem is, like so many things we have, we start out with unrealistic propositions. The one with russia is when you leave crimea, then we will consider remedial relieving your sanctions. From a practical point of view, it was wrong that they invaded crimea and i dont agree with the policy and its not likely that they will ever leave short of someone pushing them out. If thats the point, the sanctions will stay on forever and eventually the russians will say it has no effect. If we believe in sanctions working, we have to have negotiations with our adversaries and say all right, we will dok, x x. I had the vote in this committee to relieve sanctions on members of the military to travel here and it was like we were sanctioning diplomacy. I was the only vote allowing for russians to come here. Thats a small sanction the could be exchanged for something. Foranging Little Things Little Things as opposed to everything for everything. Consequence, nothing ever happens. Our goals are too large and unreasonable. Your response . I agree that we should be very thoughtful about how we impose sanctions. The more targeted and specific in nature are, they are, the better off we are. We need to ability to maintain flexibility and reversibility. Reversibility. We have to be able to unwind them or are or they are of no value. Yes, sir. We should not look at them in isolation in terms of the overall diplomatic strategy. Thank you, senator. There are certainly some valid points that senator paul has made regarding sanctions. We have a tendency to reach for those quickly without the thought process sometimes that you need to go into them. Having said that, i think it is stretching a little bit to say how effective have they been. You cant measure something they didnt do in light of the fact that they were facing sanctions. Thats hard to do. On the other hand, the more appointed they are, their ability of the administration, to be able to remove them when they want to is important. I know you consider that whenever we are working with these. Thank you very much. Senator cowans senator oontz . Thank you both for your testimony. Russia undeniably attacked our elections in 2016 and has every intention of doing so again. It, through the earlier questions from senator menendez, as you yourself said, moscow engages in election meddling and complex well resourced organizations directed by the highest levels of the russian government. I agree. You went on to say that this threat is essential for understanding this threat is forible for longterm a response. The Russian Intelligence Services have been promoting a fall narrative that ukraine interfered in our election. In response to his questioning, we are told there is not any credible credible evidence of ukraine appearing in the election. Would you understand agreed are beingrements clear that there is no evidence of ukraine having interfered . I agree, senator. Any intelligence assessment or open source that would support the idea that ukraine interfered in the 2016 election . Nothing credible along those lines. Diplomatu aware of any or executive branch official asserting publicly that ukraine interfered . Any diplomat . Anyone other than President Trump. Thats correct, sir. If an american politician of either branch repeats this russian disinformation effort, saying that ukraine not russia interfered in the 2016 election, does that promote our security . Its a free country, people can debate any ideas they want. Our focus at the state department has been, as it should be, on proven russian interference in the 2016 elections and its plans to do so in 2020. Would it be in the interests of securing the 2020 election to continue distracting the American Public, american legislators from the demonstrated russian intent to interfere . See nove said this, i credible evidence about the allegations around ukraine. As Foreign Policy practitioners, our focus is not there. Its on the russian problem. On the Appropriations Committee i worked with senator leahy and colleagues from both parties to secure an additional 250 million this year in Election Security funding in an appropriate appropriations bill that would prevent attacks against our cybersecurity. Do you think that is a wise investment in our own security . Terms of securing democracy here in europe against russian aggression. In principle i believe firmly that we need to do everything we can to deter and if necessary defend against the attacks your home and with our allies. You have heard from many senators today. We agree that russia needs to pay a price for their annexation of crimea, attacking our elections, underlining undermining democracy in europe, their support for the murderous , thee of Bashar Alassad list goes on. One area of interest to me where russia has stepped in to exploit activities is africa. Strengthening ties with american countries is one of the top foreignpolicy goals. In october, he convened a russian led conference in sochi. They have demonstrated influence or attempted to influence recent elections in madagascar are, new guinea, zimbabwe, and in the Central African republic. Last month i introduced the bipartisan libya stabilization act, including sanctions on those involved in the russian intervention there, requiring an Administration Strategy to push back on russian actions they in libya. According to recent public arts, there are literally hundreds of russian mercenaries in libya. What is the state department doing to address or limit russian influence in africa, libya, and other countries i just mentioned . Its a topic in our conversations with russian officials. I dont think that dialogue is producing or yielding results necessary for National Security. More significantly, pointing to our policy towards africa and african states, we are trying ourbest to make sure that relationships with africa are wellmaintained. That we are promoting u. S. Business there. We are also increasing our assistance levels so that u. S. Business can be participating in the Economic Growth and development of those countries. Thats a very important area. Also our cooperation in the areas of security are very important. On the matter of libya, i would say the strategy there is to try to do what we can to bring about a ceasefire and compliance with various Un Security Council thelutions so that situation is stabilized. Meanwhile, we have thrown a spotlight on the russian presence there in various statements, but it is most unsatisfactory. I see my time has expired. Thank you for your testimony today. I look forward to working together to keep an open line of communication between the administration and the senate. I think that continuing to cooperate in standing up to Vladimir Putins aggression against Upcoming Elections is important to the future of our republic. Thank you. Gentlemen, thank you for your testimony today. Secretary hail, a moment ago you just said that our focus is on the russia problem. I agree with that sentiment. I think that the Administration Needs a far more of a focus on the russia problem. Russia is not our friend, Vladimir Putin is not our friend. We have two areas id like to focus on where we can do better. In your judgment, if russia completes the nordstrom pipeline , what would the effect be for europe and the United States . Negative. Its another tool for the kremlin to use russian resources to destabilize ukraine. As you know, we are at the precipice of it in completed. Last month the last regulatory barrier in place, denmark, gave final approval to complete the final portion. My understanding is that we are roughly 60 days away from the completion of the pipeline. It is now or never. As you know, i authored Bipartisan Legislation that passed this committee by an overwhelming bipartisan vote of 20 22 to stop the nordstrom2 pipeline. Specifically to prevent the ships from laying from completing that pipeline. Now, there is some hope in the senate, even in this bizarre partisan time, will manage to work together. There has been considerable progress wraps passing that legislation as a part of the authorizationse act. I am grateful for the assistance of the chairman and the Ranking Member to try to make that happen. That would be an enormous bipartisan victory for the. Enate and the United States that being said, at the end of the day, we dont need to pass that legislation to stop this pipeline. The administration has full authority right now, today, to impose those same targeted sanctions. The sanctions that would result in shutting down the ships laying the pipeline and stopping it right now, today. Why has the administration not yet acted . We have been using our ouromatic tools to seek goal of stopping this project. I think you and i share, the administration shares your has that succeeded . At the at this stage we have slowed it down but havent stopped it. Is there any prospect, a snow bell, snowballs chance in hell that talking to the german ambassador will suddenly stop this high wind . Certainly not talking to the germany masseter, but we have a range of agreements on this that are still unfolding. We do have some time. There is a deliberative process about what the options are and if we come to the conclusion that diplomacy is not achieved our goal, sanctions are among them. Let me give you a very clear message to take back your colleagues. I have had multiple conversations with the white house and secretary pompeo on this topic. Time is of the essence. A strategy that is lets pursue our Diplomatic Options at this point is a strategy to do nothing. A strategy that will result with 100 certainty in the pipeline being completed and Vladimir Putin getting billions, europe being made more so energy dependent on russia, weakening the u. S. Position in the world. The administration can stop it. It is only a nurse. There have been principled meetings and, sadly, some bureaucratic intransigence. Particularly from the treasury department, pushing back against exercising clear statutory responsibility to stop this pipeline. I want this to be very clear, if the pipeline is completed it will be the fault of the members of this administration who sat on their rear end and didnt exercise the clear power. You have an overwhelming bipartisan mandate from congress to stop this pipeline. It is clear, it is achievable, its a major foreignpolicy victory. The only thing that would allow this pipeline to be built is bureaucratic inertia and dithering within the administration. I hope the dithering ands and you exercise your Clear Authority and stop the pipeline before it is completed next month. Thank you for your message. I want to turn to a second topic on russia. Dr. Ford, we were talking about the open skies treaty and you said something that i wrote down because it startled me. You said, i think this is a, that it makes contributions to our security and those of our partners. My understanding is that statement is directly contrary to the assessment of the department of defense and the Intelligence Community. In 2015, then the director of the intelligence Defense Agency president obama told congress that the open skies construct was designed for a different era and it allows russia to get incredible foundational intelligence on critical infrastructure, bases and ports, all of our facilities, giving putin a significant advantage. And, the head of strap, in 20 said it gives russia the capability to be able to reconnoiter parts of the countries and other nations. 2017, chairman of the joint chiefs of staff told congress we dont believe the treaty should be in place if the russians are not complying. You told the committee that russia is in chronic noncompliance. Russia to flyg over the United States to engage reconnaissance on her major cities, washington, d. C. , making ourselves more vulnerable and gaining, as i understand it, little to nothing because everything that you would gain from the overflights we gain from satellite technology. And russia is not complying with the treaty. How is it possibly in our interest to benefit the Russian Military by exposing our defenses and not gaining serious actionable intelligence on the other side . Those are some of the questions we are considering right now in the course of our open skies review. When i said the treaty provides some benefits, thats true, and clearly as you point out there are some problems and concerns. The relevant question is the net benefit between what it offers and the challenges it presents. It is evaluating the relative weight of each of those elements on the scale that is precisely the policy question we are trying to assess. On the positive side, our allies and partners, many of them seem to feel strongly that there are Conference Building benefits and diplomatic benefits that they feel strongly about. We need to take that into consideration and we are carefully consulting with them. At the end of the day we need to make a call as to how that next equation looks like. There are elements on both sides. Thank you. Thank you, mr. Chair. Thanks to both of you for coming. Secretary hale, good to see again. I have seen you in a lot of real estate around the world over the years. The title of this hearing is the future of u. S. Policy towards russia. Your testimony has a number of references to nato, both written and verbal. How about just starting with a direct question. How important is it to the future of u. S. Policy towards russia that nato remains strong . That it issay absolutely essential. The strength of nato has been a cornerstone, nato has been a cornerstone of our National Security strategy since the 1940s and it is inconceivable what the world would be like if we had not developed that concept and continue to support it through today. Priorities had many in the battle against terrorism, for example, its not as if russia is the only priority. But i take your testimony that nato remains very important and remains an element of u. S. Policy towards russia. Would our nato allies say the same thing . A strong, vibrant, continuous nato is important in its own face off against russia . I think so. There may be differences in the intensity of that viewpoint. I have no quarrel with the administration pressing nato to not only feel the commitment and benefit of nato but contribute proportionately. I think that is a smart thing to do. I have a piece of legislation before the committee and if you months ago i offer this amendment to an energyrelated fill. I pulled it aside and hope that we can take it out in our next business meeting. Of legislation that basically says this, sort of in honor of natos anniversary, clarifying that no president could unilaterally withdraw from nato, but any withdrawal would have to be accomplished either by a Senate Ratification of the treaty or through an act of congress. Would Something Like that provide assurance to our nato allies that the United States weends to stay in nato as use that Alliance Structure to benefit not only the United States, but other nations in the world . Senator, i dont want to address the specifics of your legislation. In theay be differences privileges in play, but i would say that with nato allies, there is no alarm over the u. S. Position. They are focused on appropriate burden sharing. How about the french president saying that he viewed nato as being on brain death because of concerns among european allies that the United States was backing away from nato . I dont want to characterize the french president s comments. You would not characterize that as an expression of alarm alarm . I would say that he has legitimate concerns. And remain clear in our commitments. My hope is that this piece of legislation, which is bipartisan, would send a strong message that the United States under any administration, under congress, whichever party has dominance, would be very committed to nato. There is a legal question that has been raised. It takes a two thirds vote of the senate to ratify a treaty. The constitution is silent about exiting from treaties. The relevant case law from the Supreme Court makes it plain that when the constitution is silent on Something Like that, congress is free to legislate area there is no barrier to congress legislating. Right now the situation without. Egislation is a ambiguous but congress can legislate and remove the ambiguity and provide reassurance to nato allies. At the 70th anniversary of this very, very important to your own testimony and others would agree, alliance, its my hope that we would send the signal. A treaty entered into by the senate cannot be unilaterally discarded by any president. But would require some congressional action prior to it being withdrawn or the u. S. Presence in it being the tron. To my colleagues, i hope we might be able to take that up and at the 70th anniversary because overly sensitive strong messages about the importance of the alliance that you continue to contest to our allies. H that, i yield back area thank you both for being here. First of all, i have been consistently and aggressively outspoken about the threats posed by russia. I believe going back to october of 2015i was a candidate on the , commenting on those issues saying that this was the work of a foreign power. I understand the tactical Nuclear Weapons and stockpile and so forth, but i find it fascinating, taking a deep breath here, how totally consumed american politics has gep gvse nations is somewhat to that of new york, less texas or brazil, half the size of california. I thought that was an important question today, watching on the broadcast senator romney ask their goals. One thing americans dont fully appreciate or understand, there are a lot of different ethnic groups within the Russian Federation. They have always had friction, internally. Combined with rising prices, justice, equality, what you have in many ways is a lot of what you see around the world and even hear what they tried to do in the u. S. , Vladimir Putin trying to position himself as this great historic unifier of all of these different groups, going back to 2014, he invaded crimea. He built a National Unity around that. Right . Groupsument between the was that they all faced the same threat from the west and he was the one bringing them together. You even see now in the things hes doing around the world that much of what hes doing is designed to remind people of a time when the soviet union, russia, was a great global power. As much as anything else, it was about the distracting of the domestic problems they face internally. Isnt that a not insignificant driver of a lot of these things at the end of the day . A driver to address these internal things, rallying allow around this nationalistic sense of ride, portraying himself as an indispensable leader and great power. They are not, economically. They can project our militarily in smart and creative ways that allow him to pull off the charade. Eloquently said more what i tried to say in response to romneys question about that. This is a matter of russias leader trying to live up to a self image as a global power in order to distract from the internal problems of russia that they are experiencing. He deeplyng i imagine enjoys. Not that we shouldnt look into things or talk about them, but it would be my sense that he greatly enjoys watching so much american politics be about Vladimir Putin and consumed by it. Its early makes the argument, does it not . Its consistent with what we know the russians are trying to do through social media and other tools to divide our nation. The reason i say that is not because i dont want to focus on those issues. I thought it was a good, bipartisan report, but in this country we have to figure out how to do two things. One, address the threats, perhaps by passing the did turn act, kicking and sanctions if russia were to do this again. I think the Vladimir Putin is a costbenefit analyzer. If the costs outweighs the benefits, it would most only affect him. I also think we need to because is about or at least aware of these ongoing efforts. This is not a oneoff effort by the russians. The whole impeachment situation playing out nationally, idle expect you to opine on it, but i can tell you that you can see, stand back and watch how they are using this to test the first thing they say is america is completely dysfunctional. The second is that they are eroding trust in democracy, that it doesnt work. They also view it as an opportunity to damage our relationship with ukraine. I think the goal, as i said, to protrude the u. S. As dysfunctional, exacerbating domestic tensions, and arguing that our system is corrupt. Anything else, sometimes we get tunnel vision and we think this is about supporting a single or individual and this is much bigger than that. This will be here much longer than after we are gone. Its an effort to weaken us from the inside, pointing to us as dysfunctional, not working, coming apart at the seams. It elevates him as a person who in some ways has a sly smile on his face every time he is blamed for it because it strengthens the argument that he is this big global player. Thats my comment. I dont know. Thank you, senator. Senator menendez . Thank you, mr. Chairman. Just a couple of things. I agree with my colleague and my friend. The only thing i would say is that we harm ourselves more when we internally ultimately espouse the very essence of the russia propaganda. Me that is one of the most detrimental elements of what has been happening. Secretary hale, on a different matter for the moment, i am alarmed to have learned today that secretary pompeo may be considering changing the way in which the state Operations Center places and participates in calls with foreign leaders. I am concerned about the lack of transparency, lack of recordkeeping. In effect keeping the American Public and congress in the dark during a time when we know that the president s Senior State Department officials and others seem to be carrying out official government Foreign Policy on personal cell phones. Im not looking for an answer from you today, but this committee needs to understand what changes are being proposed, how the department will maintain full and complete records. The intent is behind what appears to be an effort to keep the American Public, congress, knowing about or understanding our governments communications with foreign leaders. I urge you to bring this back to the secretary. Because if there ever was a time that such an action would be disconcerting, it is certainly right now. I am not aware of any proposed change to the policy. The secretary is in london today, but i understand your concerns and questions. We will get back to the committee. I appreciate that. ,ery briefly, secretary ford you know, you repeated something earlier in response to the chairmans first rounds of questions. Startetractors of new repeatedly bring up. That russias new exotic Nuclear Systems and how the treaty may not constrain them are an issue. But you must be aware that russia has already stated that hypersonic, the glide vehicle and the icbm will fall under new start. Is that not true . I believe the russians have said that and hopefully that indeed turns out to be the case. There would still be three systems, then. They would of course not be covered in that respect. Heres the thing, when we say that in fact we cannot imagine that these new systems wouldnt be covered, here are two already that the russians themselves have agreed to cover and if you dont explore in a negotiation whats willing to be covered, that i dont think you can dismiss it out of hand. Further reports indicate that other systems of concern likely will not even reach deployment during the lifespan of new start, even if it is extended. The echoes of concerns that several of my colleagues have said. First, china angle. Under u. S. Amatically ability in the nuclear arsenal. Createsto include them whatl dilemma in terms of senator merkley obviously pointed out. Secondly, suggesting that russian systems are a reason not to continue new start is also alarming when we have seen that they have agreed to, in pursuit, might agree to others. The administration, looking at new start in a totally different way, i think even our, even some of our allies have urged us to do so. Let me ask you something else. Egypt is reportedly planning to purchase russian jets. Any information we may have or not have about arms transactions, i can say that we have been very active. Well, i know about it, the big question is out there in the public realm. What i can say is that we have an active around the world, including with hartness like egypt, making it clear, helping them understand the potential for 231 sanctions exposure. Myself i have had sanctions making those points about the importance of the law and avoiding that exposure personally in cairo as well as elsewhere. These are the kinds of engagements that i think we have been successful in having around the world and have been essential in our diplomacy to turning off. Would like toe, i get a classified briefing if you are not going to answer in public on this and other items as to where it is we are pursuing other entities in the world. My understanding is that you have been given all of the authority of the undersecretary for arms control and International Security. Correct . On the 21st of october secretary pompeo delegated to me the authorities of that office, sir, yes. Ok, now here is an example. You may be capable of doing that, but you have not been nominated for such a position. This appears to be another case of the state department playing fast and loose with the rules in the hopes that no one will order ton order to, in do that you should be nominated for the position. If you were nominated, under the law you would be allowed to serve in that role for only 210 days. This is another concern i have for the state Department Acting in ways that seek to circumvent the oversight and jurisdiction of this committee. Its not acceptable. I would say, senator, that there is no of course intent to circumvent anything, simply recognition of the importance of not having those important duties being gapped. I really view. Nominate somebody. But at the end of the day, dont circumvent the committee. You all think that we are asleep at the switch here. Were not. Were not. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Senator cardin. Senator cardin thats right. Vote. Start a the floor tolerance has been extensive as long as the in. Rman stays senator risch we have another important matter. Hats the picture of the committee. Mr. Cardenas ill senator cardin i will try to as i can. S quick russias intentions with regard to ukraine. Crimea the occupation of falls into russias playbook to cede this unit in europe, to revent ukraine from fully integrating or even applying for nato membership. We know that. We also know that and we had many questions on this during that the press accounts of ukraine being election, which has been stoked by some works into russias playbook even though theres no any of the from people, intelligence 2016 elections. I want to know how were talks. Ing with the peace we first had minsk. Russia k protocols and was excited about that but never complied with it. Their know what intentions are. We have the steinmyer formation. I want to get from secretary how your thoughts about were proceeding. Is russia winning the debate how ell resolve the conflict in ukraine by developing a formula that will ignore the occupation crimea and establish semi Eastern Ukraine but still keeping ukraine a divided were , is that where heading . Whats going on in this process . Under secretary hale we are united with our allies in europe and, of course, with the ukraine to get the russians out of ukraine. Part of ukraine. Eastern ukraine is part of ukraine, so thats the objective. Call for the immediate end, this occupation. Focus there are several initiatives, as you have aid, and its good that the normandy process is resuming after a long period where nothing was happening. What comes of the ninth of the december. Weve also seen president elensky has with some success been able to engage in dialogue with the russians to at least tension. E but we need to see much more on the security front prior to any related to tivities minsk. That gets to the heart of the occupation. Senator cardin as it relates to formulation that was recently released, it looks like ukraine is following that. Russia seems to be excited about it, at least from what weve been told. We assured were not going o end up with some type of legitimacy of russia and crimea . Under secretary hale we will that. Accept senator cardin thats pretty definitive. I accept that. Theres a lot of support in congress for that position. Toies the to ease the tensions wherever we can. We know that russia doesnt play by any organized playbook of fairness on each side. Their objective is to keep us its hard for us to imagine that theyre going to follow any process that does not the division of ukraine. Chairman. Mr. The chairman thank you very much. Thank you to both of our witnesses. Appreciate your services to our country and appreciate your testimony today. Supplemental ring materials in the record as well. The record will remain open close of business friday. If the witnesses could respond appreciate that. With that the committee is adjourned. [captions Copyright National cable satellite corp. 2019] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. Visit ncicap. Org] as this hearing comes to a close, the house gavels in today t 3 00 eastern after a weeklong thanksgiving break. Members are expected to open the until and then recess 3 45 eastern today when legislative work will get under way. Ight measures are on the calendar today including a resolution disapproving a of russia joining future umities until it meets certain criteria. And later this evening, changing of illegal on trading. And israelpalestine twostate solution. Watch it online at cspan. Org or listen free with app. Span radio the house impeachment inquiry on cspan. Ntinues today, the House Intelligence Committee will vote in a closed oor session to send their findings on President Trump to the house judiciary committee. Then on wednesday, live at 10 00 the house n, judiciary committee, led by hold jerrold nadler, will a Public Inquiry hearing on the constitutional grounds for residential impeachment and well hear testimony from law professor. Of harvard law school. Follow the impeachment inquiry, watch live on cspan3, online at cspan. Org, or listen on the free cspan radio app. The house will be in order. 40 years, cspan has been providing america unfiltered coverage of congress, the supreme se, court, and Public Policy events from washington, d. C. , and country. E so you can make up your own mind. 1979, cspanable in is brought to you by your local cable or satellite provider. Unfiltered view of government. President trump continues with World Leaders in