Transcripts For CSPAN2 State Department Officials Testify On Russia Before Senate Foreign... 20240713

The committee will come to order. Thank you all for coming today and to the witnesses for joining us today as we examine the current state of the u. S. Russia relationship and the strategy to deal with the Russian Federation. Its timely to assess the relationship with russia and as weve recently celebrated the 30th anniversary of the events that led to the collapse of the soviet union, the fall of the berlin wall, solidarity, selection, victory in poland and the baltic demonstrations among others. Many former soviet states had become prosperous democracies with memberships in nato and the eu. Mr. Putin has taken russia down a much darker path. Today Many Russians suffer with oligarchs enriching themselves to control the major industries. Russia rates its elections to ensure onlensure a week from und politician speak the cut. Russia is targeted and expelled humanitarian organizations and three Media Outlets labeling them as foreign agents. The russian people are in humanity imprisoned and tortured for disagreeing with the government. Not only does the Russian Federation make life at home painful for the average russian, but putin is also making life hard for people around the world. Hes met with an american and european elections s selling political chaos. Hes pumped up the murderous regime of the president and sells arms to human rights abusers in africa and Missile Defense systems to u. S. Allies and adversaries alike. And in venezuela, he continues to hang on to power as people suffer thanks in large part to the russian assistance. Of course we all know about the invasions of georgia and ukraine over the years, and about the place and planting of russian people in london on other sovereign soil. The world today is more dangerous and less free because of the Russian Federation. As a result the u. S. Relationship with russia is at a low point during the height of the cold war, our leaders have a lifeline to ensure that neither side made a disastrous this population, the famous red phone. Today our engagement with russia are few, and there is a growing risk of a strategic miscalculation on the seas, the ground or in the skies. To be clear, our problems are with putin and his cronies. Today the u. S. And allies have been a beatup on the regime. Since 2014, weve imposed sanctions on dozens of russian nationals and companies that have been involved in the illegal takeover of creamy, the war in the east of ukraine, the downing of the flight mh 17 as well as human rights abuses in russia. In 2018 after russia used chemical weapons on the territory of a nato ally, the close to russian consulate and helped coordinate a 20 country expulsion of russian spies. The u. S. Now locates troops through poland and through the enhanced forward presence nato has stationed crew to get good troops and all text in americas provided lethal weapons to help ukraine defended itself from russian separatists. Each of the sanctions is important to counter the maligned global influence. However, they do not form a cohesive u. S. Strategy. To successfully do towar succese aggression, america including Congress Must think strategically about russia now and in the future. I encourage these witnesses to discuss administrations strategy towards russia and what it is intended to accomplish. But i must also urge caution to the administration and congress about focusing our strategy on sanctions that are not a strategy for dealing with russia. They are simply a tool. While the less financial preeminence makes sanctions easy and somewhat effective tools i have serious concerns about the consequences and over used particularly in the absence of a larger strategy. More sanctions dont necessarily make us tougher on russia and i am concerned about the russian sanction in the absence of concrete policy goals. The bill from senator cruise and senator shaheen i was a well targeted sanctions bill with a clear policy goal in mind. But the word general sanctions actions were not connected to the specific goals can be counterproductive. Sanctions not done in coordination with our allies who are far closer to russia in both distance and connectivity is a dangerous action that can undermine our alliances. And in some cases when the insufficiently vetted sanctions have been inadvertently helped to advance the goals of economic consultation and reinvigoration of the russian industry, these cannot be the outcomes we want. I assume these are outcomes we actually opposed. With that i will yield to senator menendez. Thank you mr. Chairman and thank you for calling this very important hearing which we have been seeking. Secretaries, thank you for joining us today to talk about the administrations policy with respect to the Russian Federation. Before we hear from our witnesses, i would like to outline five essential elements but i believe should comprise our policy on the Russian Federation. First, we must make it very clear that so many examples of kremlin aggression since the invasion of georgia in 2008 are simply unacceptable and cannot become the norm in international affairs. The infusion of ukraine, illegal occupation of crimea, the attempted assassination of the opponents of chemical weapons on foreign soil, to committing war crimes in syria, the attack on the 2,016th elections, these are just some. Its clearly not a country that belongs in the g7, despite whatever President Trump might be the. It is still mystifying President Trump refuses to stand up to this behavior. To this day he says that the kremlin attack on our election was a hoax repeating lies from the kremlin propaganda, he says that it was ukraine have but acy interfering with elections. During the cold war, those who unwittingly broadcast propaganda were called, quote, useful idiots. I dont know what you call those today in the administration argued in congress who knowingly spout kremlin lies. Whatever this guy does a lot of damage. Second, we must implement a clear sanctions regime to change the kremlin behavior. Sanctions on russi russia todaye clearly not have the desired effect. Why . Because the administration hasnt been serious in their implementation. Several mandatory provisions of this day still the ignored. I wont go through the whole list although i could. Other than to point out the most egregious example. Its been 144 days since turkey took the delivery of the russian s. 400 air defense system. Clearly a significant transaction under. And just last week, turkey tested the system against an american produced at 16. An american produced f16. Enough is enough. Cap the sanctions must be imposed without further delay. Any new russian sanctions legislation must make clear the ultimate policy goals what kind of behavior we are trying to change and how sanctions can be lifted in the event that the behavioral change takes place. To increase pressure on moscow we must also be honest that it could have other effects. Under the enhanced sanctions regime that Companies May no longer be able to benefit from the russian economy. American investors may no longer benefit from the russian sovereign debt market. The Energy Market may be impacted in the Banking Sector could be impacted. Of course we seek to minimize these effects, but the ultimate measure must always be howe continued kremlin aggression and facts our National Security. At the end of the day, that is the ultimate measure that matters. Third, on arms control. The negative consequences for the United States of abandoning the new start when russia is in compliance with the treaty into seeking to extend it would be grave in the short and longterm. Without this in place, russia would be able to upload hundreds of Nuclear Weapons onto its current Strategic Nuclear platforms. This rapid expansion of russias Strategic Nuclear arsenal would please the United States at a strategic disadvantage necessitating a fundamental reconsideration of our force posture. I look forward to hearing your views on this today. But, we need to remember the plight of the russian people who continue to live under these endemic corruption and relentless propaganda. The administration has strayed far from the traditional support for the democratic process and human rights and universal values. These must be at the center of u. S. Policy especially with respect to russia. Fifth, we need to support our friends in europe especially those on the front line of russian aggression. European Veterans Initiative funding should be increased. Recently the administration decided to redirect the money to the president s border wall. So, instead of mexico paying for the wall as the president promised, our closest allies in europe will bear the cost. What a deal. Finally, i want to close on a note about the american citizen whos been detained in russia since last december. If the russian authorities have evidence, they should charge them. I for 1 a. M. Skeptical such evidence exists and if they dont, they should let him go. In closing, mr. Chairman, i am under no illusion that he shares my views on these women of the policy. Hes abdicated responsibility for defending the country from the threats posed in the federation and simply is not either interested or compromised. We in Congress Need to step up to defend our security and our institutions and next week i look forward to working with you and others on the committee for the legislation towards that end. Thank you senator menendez. We will now turn to the witnesses. First of all we will hear from david hale has been the ambassador to pakistan, lebanon and georgia as well as the special envoy for the middle east peace. In washington deput washington t secretary of state for israel, egypt and the director for israel palestinian affairs. He held several staff posts including executive assistant to the secretary of state albright, member since 1984 and was the rank of the career ambassador and a native of senator menendezs home state of new jersey. Ambassador, please the floor is yours. Yours. Hispanic mr. Chairman that is why hes such hi such in and dee exceptional public servant. Hispanic thank you for that and good morning chairman and Ranking Member menendez and members of the committee. I welcomed the opportunity to be today with the assistant secretary to discuss u. S. Policy towards russia. Under President Trump the United States has taken consistent action against moscows attempts to undermine american interests and those of our allies and partners around the world. The United States will continue to use all of the appropriate tools of financial power including diplomacy to address in future any further such threatening actions from moscow and to advance and protect the interest of america and our partners as they relate to russia. As articulated in the president S National Security strategy, americ america is in e period of Great Power Competition and we must structure the policies accordingly. The administrations policy takes a realistic approach. Russia is a determined and resourced competitodeterminate s although one with significant weaknesses those weaknesses hinder its ambitions. We do not seek an adversarial relationship with russia. We are open to cooperation with moscow when it aligns with our interests. But this administration will protect our National Security and that of our allies the moscow attempts to threaten them. To be effective american diplomacy towards russia must be backed by military power. Second to none and fully integrated with our allies in all of our instruments of power to be the administration has increased Defense Budget to 716 billion in fy 19 and prioritized nucleaprioritized cr shortterm investments to maintain a robust nuclear deterrent. Russias systemic weaknesses are reflectereflected in the aggrese Foreign Policy which has driven in part by insecurity and a fear of internal change. This oligarch regime replies to stifle the public discontent as illustrated by its harsh response to this protest, the largest since 2011. The russian people increasingly realized that the corrupt regime is either incapable of addressing their problems or in many cases as the source of them. Russia seeks to dominate its immediate neighborhood into ukraine they must end its belligerence and implement its agreement obligations and encouraged by the positive steps ukrainian president has taken to resolve the russia instigated conflict in Eastern Ukraine bus far we are disappointed by moscows response. The threats on russia are not just an external or military one. Moscow utilizes Digital Technologies to target us and our democratic allies from within. Within. These actions include election meddling and well resourced influence operations directed by the highest levels of the russian government and the very heart of the western world. We provide significant foreign assistance in europe and eurasia and almost all of which support the building of resilience to and increasing pressure on the russian wind influences and in accordance with accounting russian influence fund. The department has also increased its support for the Global Engagement center and additional funding and staffing. We have degraded the ability to conduct aggression by imposing costs on the russian state and the oligarchy that sustains it. The administration sanctioned 321 russia related individuals and entities since january of 2017. The sanctions and related actions serve as a warning to the russian government that we will not tolerate any activity aimed at undermining our manipulating the 2020 election. I confronted the deputy minister and russian interference in our elections in july and have raised the matter with the Russian Ambassador several times and weve likewise taken action against the diplomatic presence in america and in response to the imposition of the staffing tap on the diplomatic personnel in russia we closed the facilities when russia attacked the citizens with a military grade we closed the facilities and expelled 48 russian intelligence officials from the russian embassy. Our diplomats counter these other regions including the middle east, south america and africa where the actions exacerbated stability and undermined u. S. Interest. In survey oinsignia of the milit to the regime and attacks against civilians have exacerbated the humanitarian crisis and in venezuela we are pressing russia to withdraw its diplomatic military and economic support for the former regime. In africa we have called up the destabilizing policies including support for the mercenaries. Russias disregard for its interNational Security and arms control commitments represents another significant challenge for the policy. Therefore, th the president has trudged us to pursue the new era of arms control agreements. We know that congress has a Critical Role to play in providing the tools and resources to implement the strategy. We are committed to working with you in this regard. Mr. Chairman thank you again for inviting me today and i look forward to the questions of the committee. Hispanic thank you, ambassador. We now have doctor Christopher Ford assistant secretary for interNational Security and nonproliferation where hes alss also invalidatehes alsobeen upd functions of the office of the undersecretary for arms control and interNational Security. He previously served as the senior director for weapons of mass destruction and counter proliferation at the National Security council. He began his Public Service in 1996 as the assistant counsel to the intelligence Oversight Board and conservative several congressional staff. He served as the principal secretary and the state Departments Bureau of the verification and compliance and as the u. S. Special representative for nonproliferation from 2008 to 2013 he was the senior fellow at the hudson institute. A native of cincinnati, author of three books and hold a doctorate and a law degree. Welcome, the floor is yours. Thank you. Ranking members of the committee for having us here. In the remarks, the undersecretary has a strategy to approach the challenges that russia presents us with today. In my own testimony i would like to address the questions from the perspective where i am exercising delegated authority as you mentioned. I will appreciate my remarks for delivery and would request that the full version be entered into the record. Thank you, sir. From the perspective of arms control and the ongoing challenges of managing the relationship and strategic sense with moscow i think that its important to remember that we can do all of these tasks out of a long background of not just of tension in the problems but also with some notable successes over time. The changes in the environment that word on occasion be the end of the cold war made possible an enormous attack on the strategic arms reduction that has seen both countries Nuclear Arsenals come down to two small fractions of what they once were. I mention this because i think that its important to remember this background. It reminds us that it is possible to make progress in reducing the Nuclear Sanctions and the intensity of the strategic standoff when the circumstances of the security environment or conducive to such and we hope to get back to such an environment, mr. Chairman. Policies are designed to make this possible as well is to protect the security of the American People and that of our allies until that point. For now, however, of course the security environment is indeed very challenging. Russia is developing an extraordinary Nuclear Delivery system for which there are no u. S. Counterparts and most of which seem likely to fall outside of existing arms control framers. Russia also has a large arsenal of weapons of 2,000 of them. A vastly larger stockpile than we hav have and is projected to expand the number of weapons considerably over the next decade. Most observers will be familiar with the russian 729 ground march Cruise Missile production deployment of that system placed russia in the breech of the treaty and the 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 violations. But its only one of a broad range of new Russian Ground sea and airbased nuclear or dual capable Delivery Systems. They have more accuracy, longer ranges and yield than before and they are coming online in support of doctrine and strategy that emphasizes and demonstrates and exercises. Both coercive and military uses of the nuclear weaponry. We assess the deal remain in compliance with these obligations but its behavior in connection with most other arms control agreements and must be ill fated imf have been short of appalling. As indicated in the statement, russia remains in noncompliance with its conventional arms control obligations and it is only selectively fulfilling others. Theres also the problem of course with chemical weapons where russia condones and seeks to ensure impunity for the continued violations of the chemical weapons by the client state. Further alarming a is russia has itself used chemical weapons in violation of the chemical weapons violation by developing and using a socalled military grade nerve agent on the territory as the chairman indicated that a nato ally and 2018. Also up to no good in the new and emerging domains of actual or potential future conflicts such as cyberspace and outer space. Its been developing capabilities in all of these respects and even as it has been trying to promote hollow disingenuous proposals that would address the challenges that russia itself is working very hard to create so this track record as a miserable one. I would be for you to my written statement for some of the details of how the responses were being directed. But i would stress we are working to address the challenges. The department of state is being approached systematically as we coordinate them into an integrated strategy for pushing back against russian mistress. The u. S. National Security Strategy makes it very clear that its our duty to take the competition seriously and we are doing so. Its this kind of resolution and focus in the face of National Security threats but i think we very much need and can be our ticket through getting through this phase of geopolitical competition. We need to stay on course maintaining our solid deterrent strategy, completing our own nucleanuclear and military modernization, continuing to reassure our allies not just of the capacity that our willingness to side with them against intimidation and aggression indicating all these issues on track while still seeking good faith negotiations to advance the shared interest wherever possible. If we can do that, i think we can stabilize the situation and turned 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 then we we wil do a fiveminute round. For you, can you give me your thoughts if you would come as yowant a come asyou know i was g opponents of the new s. T. A. R. T. Treaty. Its now been in place as long as it has in obviously we cant talk about it in this setting about the absolute compliance but from a general standpoint, i think that we can say they are substantially more in compliance with the new s. T. A. R. T. Treaty, the major weapons than they ever were with the more intermediate weapons. Why the disparity, why were they so far out of whack on the imf and just totally would ignore us as far as depressing that 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. I would hesitate to try to get into his head in this respect, but they clearly made the decision that they felt they wanted to have the capabilities of ththat the treaty did not alw them to have. They seem to have assumed we were remaining compliant in the treaty even if we found out. They were right in that regard. Absolutely correct. We were compliant for the entirety of the period in the treaty. That certainly is something we are working to try to address the challenge of meeting those with the development of new conventionally armed intermediate ranged systems such as the ground launch Cruise Missile that was flight tested last august. They said we would remain in compliance and neither are correct for a while they would be able to get away with not just a testing and developing and deploying a treaty prohibited system and hopes they would not respond to it. Why they did not do Something Like that is something i wouldnt be in a position to guess about but they dont seem to have decided that they needed to play with point out that russia is developing today and indeed openly brags about the development of the new strategic Delivery Systems. About the development of the new super heavy icbm about the development of a Nuclear Power to Nuclear Armed underwater drone. Drone. Aimed at the president ial election was that a hoax quex. Know. Are you aware of any evidence ukraine interfered in the 2016 election quex. I have not. I appreciate doctor hills testimony before the house for europe and russia who said that theory is a fictional narrative perpetrated or propagated by the Russian Security services themselves. In february 2017 that putin himself suggested ukraine interfered in the 2016 us elections. I dont recall that but i dont doubt that. You said we all know during the president ial campaign the Ukrainian Government adopted that certain oligarchs with that leadership to fund that candidate to be more precise. To make is this a regular russia propaganda point quex. I dont know if that is our regular point would that be in his interest to prove such a narrative quex. And with the National Security interest possibly be putins interest to push a narrative. Did president putin make this point to President Trump from helsinki last year . Its a big problem when he meets and confiscates the notes but it does not appear to be in a position of senior diplomats like yourself or any intelligence officials to the president s talking points. Is that point made stronger or weaker with members of congress insist on repeating those debunked lies let me turn to the sanctions does administration have authority to impose sanctions and then when it comes to pipelines. As one of the authors that among the other things as the russian pipelines away has administration to talk about this pipeline and that this committee passed legislation that are likely included but every day that ticks by is one that you could act today. You have any idea quex. So we oppose the pipeline. But do you have the power to do something about it . Im trying to get a sense is there a reason why you have not actually pursued the sanctionable authority you have under the law to stop with the Administration Proposes quex. We have been using other tools i know the most powerful opportunity to create a huge problem of the pipeline knowing they are sanctioned so are the sanctions mandatory quex. Senator i think that is yes sir. That is a determination of the secretary of state is someone on the list. And did turkey take that system july 12th. I dont recall the specific date but that sounds correct. They are in possession. So russia delivered the system is that fair to say. Thats correct. Does the presence have a us security interest impact quex. We believe it does. Does it prevent present a challenge spec thats why secretary pompeo has made very clear the two cannot coexist to make you sanctioned china for purchasing the as 400 from russia which i applaud that you sanctioned china for the very exact system that is clearly a significant transaction by turkey 144 days later. And we still havent sanctioned them. That we are not serious with the sanctions of the Congress Passed that are mandatory and thats a challenge because they will say turkey got a pass why cant i and the consequences undermine the essence of the major sanctions against russia to undermine the military procurement around the world. This that i appreciate the chairman who soon as a markup to move forward but when you dont pursue mandatory sanctions and that discretion that you seek and others have sought i acknowledge that is very tough for some of us to accept if its not mandatory than how do we believe if you have discretion you will not consistently use discretion . This is a problem. You are quite right regarding the issue with turkey and the nato allies by law you will have the opportunity to speak on this next week that will help the administration in that regard. So just to follow up what is the reluctance to oppose the sanctions on allies quex. Secretary pompeo has made it clear we will comply this is a deliberative process currently underway Ranking Member menendez is correct sanctioning china taking possession not just the as 400 that the other fighters as well we took position possession and then eight months later we issued our sanction to the chinese procurement entity so as the nature of these things go to make sure we understood the implications and had done our homework in regard to the sanctions for the chinese procurement it took eight months to do that 144 days to deliver a process that is still underway. I want to give you an opportunity to explain that undersecretary hale talk about the broadcast board of governors and what has been appropriated for to circumvent the firewalls around the internet like russia and china they have not use the appropriations we had the confirmation hearings the nominee director now that seems to be snagged both being we can get that individual confirmed but is it the administrations policy for those technology that can circumvent with russia and china and iran quex. Yes. There seems to be a real reluctance on broadcast programs as opposed to Technology Opening up the internet. I agree with the thrust of your concern but thats not my direct responsibilities i have to get back to you. But that does make sense to you quex. Correct. Hopefully the committee can recommend the confirmation as soon as possible i would also like to get your evaluation of the current relationship you only have two minutes so pick and choose now they are thinking of their relationship to china and iran and turkey. In general russian behavior is characterized by opportunism they look for opportunities to deflect attention to their problems as they use aggressive tactics but i think in that context it is a Great Power Competition they want to subvert our values and a fear like one interfere in our practices but there also differences that we have to watch very closely between those two countries when it comes to turkey and congruence weve had to work out our differences later i say russia plays a part one a prominent role we continue to consult with russia where we find those commonalities of interest to syria and iran and ukraine and venezuela with arms control issues we do have dialogues to find common ground. In terms of the mandatory sanctions as part of the concern me will push turkey into the welcoming arms of russia. Obviously we are not interested in that and in a manner to protect the National Security interest. I want to follow up to metal in the elections by russia you indicated you had conversations with the russians about the interference of the coming election . Director ray testified before the Judiciary Committee that russia absolutely intends to interfere with our elections. Have we just been ineffective with our relationship with russia to prevent them from trying again in the 2020 elections as the policy failed have the sanctions not been used effectively or do you disagree with director ray . And also with social media with a whole host of issues. Another concern is liability element make your conversations with the russians is that what they are doing . You say conversations but according to the director we have not been successful to stop them in 2020. I have been in frequent contact with the Russian Ambassador to expose information we have to demonstrate russian interference to warn of potential consequences if they repeat that performance in 2020 thats our strategy. Are you taking any other steps. Thats our Mission Message to the russians we have a whole government approach to deter our nation from this interference. In the fy 17 Budget Congress appropriated 625 million to counter the influence can you tell us how that was used to counter the propaganda you are talking about quex. I dont have measurable data today but we are pleased to have that support so on a global basis working with allies to counter russias propaganda are not just trying to influence our elections but all along their border within the eu particularly those that are relatively new democracies. They held up the use of that money for a period of time additional pressure was exerted you saying it was very helpful that there is a strategy to seek Additional Resources to counter russia propaganda . The Global Engagement Centers Budget last year for the first two years was 3 million we are asking for 76. 5 million. You were given 600 million you did not ask for and did not spend brick or at least initially. From where i stand that kind of support is very helpful. Our Foreign Policy is best with what we stand for talking about sanctions working strategic like the magnet ski sanctions. And to know that russia has upped its activity against the ngos. And with the people of dissent and with the support of america and what they try to do to reform their own country do we have the strategy to the game . And then i hope we are grateful for the work of this committee to move the nomination forward because people on the ground are hardworking and are hardpressed. Are you aware there is a bipartisan letter suggesting we are looking at the magnet ski sanctions . What is the status of that quex. We have not responded but we intend to. Its been a while and the people protesting are still arrested and imprisoned for quite appreciate your words actions speak louder than words. Senator romney. I applied the fact the president looked at china and said weve been asleep at the switch for far too long china has been aggressively pursuing their National Interest we have not recognize those are taking action appropriately although there is a lot more to be done to develop a strategy i applaud the fact we finally recognize we have not been recognizing their level of intent if the same is occurring today with regards to russia and i say that because what you have described is a series of actions that are extraordinarily alarming. Layer investigating aggressively in the middle east and in north africa in latin america supporting some of the worlds worst actors they are violating the ins and mister ford who indicated they are meet about to make a massive investment of Nuclear Missiles a major investment of the Nuclear Arsenal developing new technologies and weaponry of course the invasion of georgia and ukraine interfering around the world and here in the United States so what is their ambition and strategy . What is their goal collects why are they doing these things that has a declining population and weak base they would be try to find ways to improve their economy but instead they improve and interference around the world what is the objective from our standpoint from the state department what is russia strategy and objective. I agree with what you said about russias behavior thats why we appreciate the support of the senate to get the legislation right to do that as part of a broader diplomatic strategy with National Pieces and military elements asking about the motivations russia seems to strike out and to dominate the states around it as a buffer and looking for opportunities to demonstrate america is weak so they look for openings where they cannot be as strong as they could be. I recognize those tactics but what is the ambition to reestablish the russian empire . A superpower with the United States . Looking to invade other neighbors . Their population is shrinking they want to rebuild their population . What are they hoping to accomplish . To have the selfimage as a superpower. I dont disagree with that it is significant the National Security strategy has provision is powers it is our obligation to pursue to make sure we protect those interest you are right about a shift in china policy so the same thing could be said about russia and what we have been doing since its issuance and the end of the cold war did not issue in the environment and during that period somewhat complacent approach with moscow and beijing to build their influence and then to take a revisionist approach is now our challenge to make up for that time to help stabilize a deteriorating environment to find stable mutually prosperous way. I to have a collaborative coexistence and that they have very different intent and we need to be clear eyed about their intent to develop a comprehensive strategy against individuals dramatic strategy i go back to George Cannon im not suggesting we go to the cold war but a comprehensive strategy because they are continuing with an activity in the interest of a Peaceful World that gives me great concern and i thank you for Public Service of course there is no way to unwind our policy toward ukraine well have plenty of opportunities to litigate what the policy has been in the past but it would be appropriate to clarify what it is currently toward ukraine so ambassador hail, is it currently our policy to request investigation into an entity . Is it currently our policy to ukraine to request investigation since the connection between the former Vice President s family and a Company Called burisma. Not that i am aware. Is g on the lawn giuliani involved in discussions that those were appropriate and i think it is relative of those demands as part of official us policy if they were appropriate they would have been dropped after the investigations began. On another topic one of the ways to talk about competition with russia is a prism of asymmetric warfare. It has always struck me that it is a choice not the inevitability. Is something we are just not willing to do from a moral standpoint but they are also capabilities that we choose not to utilize and the way they use their Energy Resources and to win friends and adversaries. We choose not to use them in the same way but there are appropriate means we could provide more direct assistance to make them energy dependent senator johnson and senator rubio have a piece of legislation with the financing capacity in the federal government to help finance the projects in and around the periphery. It is a way to close the gap is there a way to increase the support and the way they leverage their resources and we leverage ours. Part of that is to make sure our allies have alternate sources that is a major thrust of our strategy we dont want others to be even more dependent i myself have had multiple conversations on this very scene the private sector is a prominent partner in that enterprise. The undersecretary is quite right with the Russia Strategic policy not just promoting any particular type but focusing upon we are working very hard in my corner to improve relationships with partners around the world to help provide them with carbon free nuclear energy. Thn both sides of this committee. My time is up, thanks mr. Chairman and. Thank you. Senator portman. Let me start by thinkin thanh of you for your service and to those like me because i know you are from cincinnati, but ukraine after 2014 i had to see what was going on and incredible, dominated and chose to take a different direction to encourage economic and Political Freedom joining with us in the eu. To a certain extent, we did the first couple of years we gave the assistance to defend against the russian aggression. In the line of contact ive seen where 3,000 soldiers have been killed. I dont care what people say, and they needed the opportunity. They were not asking for u. S. Troops. They were asking for help in 2017, e. Team, 19. The Trump Administration did that and i think that should be noted as a bipartisan effort on the hill starting in 2014 and i appreciate that you raised that in your opening testimony. My question for you it is whero we go from here. I think its important that we reestablish that we are allies with ukraine and we want to help them and as again this administration has done we have been helpful. Talk about antiaircraft weaponry among other things what can we do to be more helpful to bishops that we have now provided clicks not only am i a cincinnati and, i grew up in the house district. Im not in that position to speak to the specific operational needs of the forces. Weve gone through the trouble as you pointed out to try to help them in the difficult situation bu of the russian aggression has put them in. On the order of 1. 6 billion or so in the various state and dod assistance that does include as you indicate the antitank systems. I believe there are more. Im not in a position to speak to that ithat it is precisely td next. Rifle in your committee if you could provide a list of what has been provided because theres been some information out there that hasnt been accurate and again if you could talk to the appropriate people to get a sense of what is needed to give talking about ukraine as you know hes chosen to take the initiative in terms. There is a meeting of the socalled normandie format mosque in paris coming up shortly to talk about whats happening next week. What is the u. S. Government position on the initiative to try to resolve the issues on the eastern border in ukraine . We have done in credible steps that have moved towards the problems we have seen the reinforced. They repair a bridge thats very important for the local communications so we strongly support this and weve definitely backed the people of ukraine from this regard. I wasnt involved at the time that we are very closely matched up with the germans and french in this regard and we also talked to the uk and we are present during this process. There are discussions about trying to expand it and we will keep you posted. On the Global Engagement center you mentioned response that you are supportive and you look at your proposal saying you are looking for additional funding. I think thats important and i know senator murphy agrees we have for to ensure the information propaganda. What kind of capabilities do we need and why are you asking for additional funding . We are very impressed by that leadership. 75 million is a lot of money and theres even more resources Government Agencies to promote the messaging strategy so if you look at each of the budget he will see the components that are responsible for helping to coordinate and make sure we do everything we can to counter the propaganda. To make the point of this is largely countries like those in the politics that are under enormous pressure so we are helping some of our allies. Thank you mr. Chairman. The new s. T. A. R. T. Treaty with russia is due to expire in just over one year. They can extend by five years by mutual agreement. Russia recently said that it would cover the two Strategic Nuclear systems that are reported to be deployable prior to 2026. The hypersonic glide vehicle and the icbm. Why would we not extend a treaty with which russia is complying and will tap the forces . I havent said we wouldnt. That isnt a decision that has been made. Its under consideration. There may be some systems they are developing now that could be brought under the new s. T. A. R. T. Treaty dependent upon what degree it is extended. I would qualify the statement between the two powers but it could be extended for a shorter pure code of time as well. What we are doing and approaching these extensions have a policy question is to look at it through the prism of the broad objectives and controlling and in particular the president s objective of the trilateral framework that will help us in the potential arms race being triggered by not just russia that the Chinese Nuclear developments in addition to all the problems. To double the size of its arsenal over the next decade or so and our hope is to find a framework to provide an enduring future in bringing those threats under control and we are approaching for the Delivery System for the United States and russia have. We have an existing agreement that can be extended which would serve as a basis to enter into negotiate with the chinese. If we cannot realistically bring china with an extension of startadoesthat make sense to gin the extension so that the lose the benefits . We wouldnt give up on the extension. The question is how to best approach to questions. Are you saying flat out that you will not extend s. T. A. R. T. Treaty if the chinese are not included . A decision hasnt been made. To bring russia and china and then arms control framework. As well as the pressures the conventional military buildup. As the time energy logistical matter but we will bring in during the period of time and will they be able to conduct on the ground inspections of the russian deployed and mom deployed Strategic Systems and will they have access to the thousands of notifications on such systems . It would go to the verification protocols. In the on the ground inspections in the deployed and non deployed systems that is a step that we would be advancing in the National Security if it expires would they be able to predict the future size of the forces tforce is to inform how e United States configures its own Nuclear Force posture. Its possible to put the bass limit upon not just chinese but also the Russian Forces designed to cover some of the things they are building that they wouldnt be likely to cover. If we dont reach an agreement to extend what we lose our ability to see whats going on inside of the russia and as a result of not being able to answer accurately anticipate the shape and size of the Strategic Force of our own Research Development and ultimate deployment reflects what they would be posing. What we ar were interested in e long game of what happens beyond the five years and in some sense for the future of this potential arms race is triggering even more questions after those years. We are on plan with our Modernization Program to cover the five years and quite a bit more. What is more important for the future of arms control on these powers is what happens after that whether it is two years time or six years time. My concern among other things is that if we mishandled this te could end up with a Nuclear Arms Race that could cost us trillions of unnecessary dollars because weve missed the opportunity to have a negotiated resolution first with the russian, which is obviously something that the chinese deal with and if we dont take that opportunity we will wind up with a deficit that is going to be ballooning. Thank you mr. Chairman. I was a lead republican on this to ensure they made an effort to engage in the negotiations and ensure whatever limitations were reached through those negotiations were adequa adequate. I heard you which is consistent with everything i read and hear to indicate its currently in compliance. Is there enough time to negotiate a renewal. Do you feel the same sense of urgency towards the renewal . Spinet theres plenty of time to extend. It would take the agreement of the parties and it would be done very quickly indeed. But it sounds as if there are some reservations on account of the dynamic which is fair and why senator van hollen and i included that in our resolution so among other things, the legislation that weve put forth was required the director of National Intelligence to assess that the impact that the renewal or the extension would have on the actions of your we stayed in or out, what might china do and what would the likelihood be with the parameters, what with the likelihood of be so we would want to consider the dynamic of the legislation. I hope this is something that the administration will study and then report back to the members of congress irrespective of whether or not that legislation passes. Is that something that is being studied right now click we are very mindful of how the relationships between moscow and washington affect the chinese behavior and vice versa. One of the challenges that we have tried to build for the armscontrol enterprisarmscontra sort of our interest and that of the International Peace and security is precisely to figure out how these dynamics work. We have templates from the cold war that are bilateral and those dont make sense in a trail of the world. You are mindful of it. Are you conducting a formal assessment of the chinese response to an extension of the renewal. We are considering those questions. I dont know if it would be fair to describe it as a highly formal assessment that there is an important part of the decisionmaking and as you point out it is a critical question. We are dealing with Nuclear Weapons here and important arms control agreements wouldnt it h appropriate and right to conduct a formal assessment working with our best intelligence to try to come up with a probability of different chinese responses and nature of the responses that were a renewal or extension to her it seems like that would be a responsible action to take us to carristo carry out again. U agree . Stanek making sure we have a clear assessment of those is important, sure. It would have been laboring all of these questions together. Does that mean a formal assessment is occurring . I dont know how formal it would be to describe the process those are precisely the questions. Is the written work being produced as it relates to the topic that weve been discussinn discussing for the last ten minutes . Teaneck we are working with the Intelligence Committee and all relevant agencies to make sure that the questions including but not limited to that part part of what the principles are able to consider as they seek to make a decision on these broad questions of how best to pursue a trend that alarm steel. It sounds like in the least if we cant elicit from the Intelligence Community or the state department a formal assessment, then perhaps a classified briefing on the topic would make sense. What is our country doing to ensure the dialogue is in place to negotiate a potential renewal or extension . The weve already had two engagements with the russians described as a strategic dialogue. I had a great honor and privilege of being able to participate in the first of those when i was in a different capacity last summer the deputy secretary from the department of state led a delegation to engage with the foreign minister in geneva for the second of these engagements and be committed to giving another one is a question of figuring out the time to hold that engagement but i anticipate that it would happen in the near future. These are the channels right now for having discussions on these talking about strategic arms control Nuclear Weapons related issueissue is an important way s to be in touch with our russian counterparts and understand each other better and lay out the groundwork for whatever may come such as potentially at least the extensions. I am way over time and i appreciate your service. Assistant secretary, is that correct that the u. S. Has had more than 500 overflights since 2002 . I dont know the exact number but i wouldnt be surprised if that were right. We have done about three times more than they have done over the u. S. . I dont know the ratio. Can you just take my word for it . This is a vote of confidence buildinlot of confidencebuildine two countries. Deputy secretary sullivan, any decision to plead these guys would require the nato countries consent. Do you share that understanding of the u. S. Policy clarks i dont have the terms of the treaty with respect, that i can certainly say that there has been a lot of press speculation of a policy noon the policy noth ones as mark twain is to have repeated the reports are exaggerated and we are currently complying. It provides a valuable contribution to the Nuclear Security at this point. It does make contributions to that of our partners. What we are doing right now is undertaking a thorough review of the merits and demerits of the continued participation. No decision has been made to get out. We are going through some trouble. So, secretary, in response to a question that i asked, he said any extension would have to take into account new systems and new actors which we understood by his conversation to mean china. Now, the new weapons, that isnt such a big issue because youve got to systems that the Russian Foreign minister has said they already agreed would be covered. The vanguard and the new heavy icbm so this hypersonic. There are two that wouldnt be deployed until the end of the next decade so those we dont worry about much and then there is the conversation that has to be worked out over the plan that launched the missile that was covered from a heavy bomber with a cover that was launched from a fighter wouldnt be just like a Cruise Missile similar distance wouldnt be covered if it was launched from a fighter so that seems like a manageabl manageabt comes down to a one weapon system. The china peace though that has been raised consistently so china has approximately how many Nuclear Warheads . Spin it about 300. Would you say that is in the ballpark of the reported numbers . I certainly see much talk of that. And how many warheads do we have deployed . At the present i should note number but i dont have it. Its about 1750 and for russia is about 1600. How many total of the behalf of a tactical warheads . Not much more than that. Quite a lot of fun actually, several thousand more. But, the point is 300 chinese warheads with their triad in the kind of intense stage of development, we have a very sophisticated triad and so does russia. We have a strategic warhead, more than five times the number. That is a huge disparity. Are we really going to say that we have to resolve the architecture between china with this neophyte program and u. S. And russia with much larger sophisticated program in order to extend . I wasnt making the point of that needs to be resolve resolvd tied up with a bow before one reaches over a lifetime it still has. We do think that its incredibly important that we be engaged with both russia and china in finding a future that is trilateral because if we cannot do that, we will run up against the same problems. As you think about that, do you think of the u. S. Coming down to the number 300 or the chinese being given permission to come up to the u. S. Number 1750 deployed strategic warheads . Are you advocating for an increase in chinese weapons . No, im actually very keen to spinnaker you advocating a come down to the chinese little . Im advocating we find a way that is an arms race for becoming a fullblown very dangerous one and if it is not you have to argue one or the other, for us to come down over china to, or you are arguing that you think they would agree to differential numbers walking them into a much lower number. Are you arguing for that . With the president has directed us to do is pursue hr ladder will pass on the arsenal of all three powers precisely in order to stop what could be a very dangerous emerging arms race. Im just really disturbed that in order to take into the best difference between china and the u. S. You have one of three options you either have to argue that we are going to put on a cap that china is going to be able to come up to or a cap closer that we are going to come down to what you think you can walk in a differential with china that they would agree to. Those are the three options and you havent said that you support any of those three. You are saying we ar were just a year out from the end of the initial new start mac and there havent been serious negotiations to figure out which of the three options you are going to pursue. I dont like any of the three of them myself. Those kind of questions are just the kind of thing 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 to engage on the finding of a future that manages the challenges effectively. You havent engaged in those serious conversations that, and i know from the past arms negotiations it can take many, many years to work out details when they are actually fairly uniform relationships between the two powers, and this is another relationship survival close because i am over my time, but i think that what we do not want to see is this china uses it as an excuse to blow up the existing or potential extension of an agreement with russia that contributes to interNational Security come into force in the Nuclear Realm that is very important to our survival. Thank you senator. For this committee, understanding that this is an open setting, regarding the open skies treaty, can you talk a little bit about the disparity of the issues russia has cost us far as not allowing access and perhaps enlighten people on why that is causing difficulties with where we are. I will try. We first found russia should be in noncompliance with the open skies in the summer of 2017. But i stress that i would strese first time that we found we decided to declare them in the noncompliance. In fact, the things they had been doing at that point in many cases are still doing the things that they have been doing pretty much continuously since it came into force in 2002. We found them to be in noncompliance with regards to certain oversights of the planning ground if we found them to be in noncompliance with regards to flights in the vicinity of the enclaves that they essentially invaded and carved off of this country of georgia and are maintaining their by proxy forces and we have found them to be selective in allowing or not allowing some russian military. All of these things amount to russia being in chronic noncompliance with some of the obligations it a selective non complier with others of the open skies obligations int obligatios causes concern to us and our allies quite naturally. And on the levels of the Playing Field but its supposed to create is that correct . That is a challenge into question. We have not, it hasnt gotten to the point that we have declared that we feel there to have been a material breach, but there have clearly been breaches and there are things that we very much hope that russia will turn around. We are looking at the situation day by day. Thank you very much. Thank you mr. Chairman and the things to thos both of you r your time and testimony today. The federation has invaded its neighbors in ukraine and supports the murderous regime of busofthe shower awsat and enemin afghanistan and its engaged in a active Information Warfare against western democracies including meddling in the United States elections in 2016. They are also responsible for the actions such as the downing of Malaysia Flight 17 over ukraine in 2014 and Chemical Attacks in salisbury United Kingdom in 2018. Clearly an adversary, the malicious interferenc interfere, the elections continue to intend to do that in 2020 and other democratic elections around the world as well. I believe the Russian Federation should be designated to state sponsor of terror that joined syria, north korea and sudan. The committee has been working on a number of bills stopping the maligned activities from russian terrorism act as though senator menendez and i have offered to require the state department to submit a report to congress establishing whether or not they fit the criteria to be declared a state sponsor of terror under u. S. Law. The bill that many of the committee have worked together on the committee but obviously creates economic, political and diplomatic pressure on russia in order to respond to the interference in a democratic process of maligned influence in syria and the aggression against ukraine as well. The European Energy security and diversification act that many of us have worked on legislation that would authorize a billion dollars to help finance and catalyze the public and private investment in the European Energy projects to help mean they are descendents of the Russian Energy assets. So we know the terrorist groups carry out the actions that was talked about. We know they funded insurgencies and separatist movements around the world. Theyve interviewed and democratic elections and have been found to be responsible for the chemical attack on the soil of the ally. I must confess my portfolio doesnt have a lot to do with his to see designation so im not only with humans to go into that as i should be. I would d for 2 others on that. I will answer to any title. The state department has not at this stage determined that russia is a state sponsor of terror. There is a fairly complex deliberative process for doing that and we look forward to sharing information with you and other members of the committee. Based on these descriptions with a for the criteria . I grew with your characterization of russias malign behavior. I dont personally see that per se as state sponsorship of terrorism, terrorist attacks, but they are getting close to the edge in some places on that but have to recognize russia is also a victim of terrorism too, safe to say that on the record too. In 2016 we have seen a series of rand reports and analyses that showed based on russias build up of the military they could sweep the baltics in 60 hours. Secretary hail, has that analysis changed to any degree with the increase in investment in nato and other development we have seen in europe . Im not a lawyer with that study and im not an expert on these matters but i can tell you we are concerned about the defense of all our nato allies particularly the vulnerable Baltic States and done a great deal to bolster their defenses and increase natos troop presence and other instruments on their soil. When it comes to the action of our european allies what actions has the United States taken, what are we pressing our allies to do when it comes to russias continued aggression . Job number one is to increase their defense spending in line with the whales pledge of 2 and to realign the burden sharing in the nato common trend with the topics under discussion as we speak in the nato summit. We are very focused on the vulnerabilities of the in eastern flank of nato if i can put it that way. These are relatively new democracies and they are very vulnerable to russian intimidation, russian tactics, corruption, access to media to undermine those societies from within. Weve seen cyberattacks that have been quite dramatic so we boosted those defenses as well which is more complex than a military response. We have to use all the tools we have talked about and other questions. Thank you very much. Senator shaheen. Thank you for being here. Doctor ford, you talk about progress that has been made in reducing Nuclear Tensions and i 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 were the most effective way to contribute to bringing china and russia into the framework and that is the question we are considering right now. Did i understand you to say we look for opportunities and areas of mutual agreement where we can work with russia on some things. We try to keep the channels of communication open. Hasnt Vladimir Putin actually suggested that this is one area he would like to see negotiations resume . I believe the russians have made that clear and by their actions rather than words made it clear they would like to continue an uninterrupted military buildup and nuclear buildup. Im not asking about that. I appreciate the uninterrupted was able to then we would all agree that is something we want to allow to continue to happen and we need to look for ways to prevent that. Isnt it possible we could move forward with an extension of new start at the same time we are looking to negotiate other issues and include china and other nations that may be a concern in terms of Nuclear Weapons. That is one of the possibilities we are considering. Why would we not want to do that . We would want to do that if we determine that is the best way forward to meet the longterm objective of bringing the troublesome arms race under control. What is the longterm concern about doing that . That would give us more time to negotiate a broader agreement that would include china and potentially look at other areas where there are weapons we might want to include in the treaty so why would we not want to continue an extension of new start . That is precisely one of the questions we are considering and the alternatives we are going through right now. We dont have a decision from the interagency and principles as of yet but that is one of the things for us. I would suggest, i would align myself with senator merkley that it is a red herring to suggest we cant do anything about new start without including china and the other issues so i would hope we would look at how we can best move forward and continue the progress that has been made on the new start. And negotiate a broader agreement. Ambassador hail, i continue to be concerned about the repercussions of the discussions in syria and what that 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 . We have troops present. Theres been an adjustment in line with all the news weve seen in the agreement reached in october. We had a dialogue and continue to have a dialogue with russ on syria. Do we have any potential influence there, what is happening in that part of syria that we tried to do that . Yes, we have ambassador Jim Jefferies handling these matters with intensive discussions with his russian counterpart. I have as well with my counterparts and im sure the secretary has engaged as well. We believe these must stop and we will not be with to cooperate well with the russians unless they do so. Is that the only leverage we have, to say we wont cooperate if you dont stop . When it comes to not cooperating in case of syria the russians now we have a wide range of tools, that is part of the benefit of having sanctions. They know that is a potential avenue we may go down. But we havent suggested that would be an option in syria if they continue bombing. I have not had that discussion myself. The president was just in afghanistan. One of the things he suggested was he was planning to resume talks with the taliban and. Do you know if there have been discussions with russia either with respect to syria or afghanistan about the potential role they could play, to address the resurgence of isis . Ambassador jefferies i mentioned, talked to their russian counterparts intensively about this. We would like to see stronger russian cooperation not just in defeating isis but helping political processes necessary to stabilize these countries that isis doesnt have, the opportunity to regroup and develop. That is the essence of our approach with the russians. What is the response . Less than ideal. They have not offered the support we would expect from them. When we had a presence in syria they were not and were engaged fullblown in the fight against isis. They were also not helpful in that effort particularly, where they . They were not. As we think about restarting talks with the taliban and do you have any sense what discussions there will be around the resurgence of isis in afghanistan . It is not a resurgence, the growing presence in afghanistan, what we will be asking the taliban and to do with respect to isis . I dont want to get into classified information so let me offer generally a growing concern, source of alarming the administration. Pakistan was my last assignment. We were ringing the alarm bells and i think he effectively. We need to make sure all elements are prepared to come into a Peace Process focused on that problem as well. Thank you. I would hope you would consider a classified hearing to discuss the potential for isis to be a problem in any negotiations with the taliban in afghanistan. That is a huge threat we need to be concerned about. I agree with that. Thank you so much. Senator paul, next. Ambassador hail. Sanctions are intended to change behavior for years, can you name some specific changes that russia has undertaken with regard to it because of our sanctions . This is a work in process. We have not achieved our overriding objective in terms of having russia withdraw from ukraine. They continue to violate human rights and we continue to see interference in our elections. Specific changes from russia that you can name . The deterrence effect but it is hard to measure and we want to continue. It will take time when it comes to sanctions regimes. Specific behaviors we dont like and no indication theres been any change in russias behavior. Are there discussions with russia, specific discussions if you do x we will remove these particular sanctions . That level of particular discussions . I think the russians are well aware of what they need to do to get sanctions relief. We will remove sanctions on members coming here if you do x . In various conversations that may have been touched upon. Illustrates the problem. It is easy to put sanctions on and want to change behavior but doesnt seem to be working and if it is not working we need to reconsider what we are doing. We put sanctions, congress decides we know better than the president to we will put sanctions and the president cant take them off. Does that make it easier or harder to negotiate Behavioral Changes if Congress Puts on sanctions that the president doesnt have the means or power to remove . Makes it harder in most instances, the reversibility and flexibility, the threat can be more effective than the actual imposition of a sanction. It is very obvious the president putting our threatening sanctions on erdogan in turkey and immediately when the behavior change removing sanctions. The threat of sanctions has leverage. And contrary to that, it may solidify bad behavior. Countries have their national pride. Some would say sanctions worked, bringing iran to the iranian agreement. We engaged iran and they signed the agreement in exchange. We think we can tell the world what to do but there doesnt seem to be a lot of evidence. There may be evidence or argument can be made sanctions or embargoes like the longstanding embargo with cuba may have the opposite of the intended effect. It would seem we would want to study these things because the castros you have no food because of the americans and the embargo. And study how they work. An additional effort saying we want to have this talk with you, if you do x we will do x. The problem is like so many things we have we start with unrealistic propositions. Our proposition with russia is when you leave crimea you would consider relieving your sanctions. It was wrong they invaded crimea and i dont agree with the policy and unlikely they ever leave crimea short of someone pushing them out of crimea. And the russians will say there will be no effect. If we believe sanctions worked we would have negotiations with adversaries thing if you do x we will do x. One thing i proposed and got no support, i had to relieve sanctions on russian members of the legislature to travel here. We are sanctioning diplomacy and the only vote for allowing russian members to come here. That was a small sanction that could be exchanged for something. There are things the russians want that we could exchange Little Things for Little Things as opposed to everything for everything. As a consequence nothing ever happens, we our goals are too large and unreasonable. Your response. We should be thoughtful with how we impose sanctions, and flexibility in reversibility, we incentivize the target to behave the way we want. To unwind them they are of no value. We should look at sanctions for the overall diplomatic strategy. Thank you, senator. There are some valid points regarding sanctions. We tend to reach for those quickly without the thought process you need to go into them. Having said that it stretches 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. On the other hand the more they are, particularly the ability of the administration to remove them when they want to is important. I want to thank both of you for your long service for your testimony today. Russia undeniably attacked our elections in 2016 and has every intention of doing so again. According to the director of the fbi and National Intelligence as you confirmed in response to earlier questions from senator menendez, you said in your opening testimony moscow engaged in election meddling and complex resourced influence operations directed by the highest level of the russian government, i agree. He went on to say this is essential for developing a longterm response. Two weeks ago doctor fiona hill testified, the Russian Intelligence Services have been promoting a false narrative that ukraine interviewed in the 2016 election and you told senator menendez you are not aware of any credible evidence that ukraine interviewed in the 2016 election. Would you agree as you said in your opening that understanding the russian threat requires being clear that there is no evidence of ukraine having appeared in the 2016 election. Yes i do. Have you seen any intelligence assessment or opensource reporting that could support the idea that ukraine interfered in our 2016 election. I have seen nothing credible along those lines. Are you aware of any us diplomat or executive branch official who is asserting publicly that ukraine interfered in the 2016 election . Any diplomat. Anyone other than donald trump . That is correct. If an american politician of either branch repeats this russian disinformation effort, says falsely that ukraine, not russia, interviewed in our 2016 election does that promote our dramatic interests. Our focus at the state department, on the proven russian interference, plans to do so in 2020. What be in the interests of securing our 2020 election to continue distracting the American Public, american legislators from that demonstrated russian intend to interfere. I said i have seen no credible evidence about these allegations ukraine as foreignpolicy practitioners, our focus is on the russian problem. On the Appropriations Committee i woke with senator leahy and other colleagues to secure 250 million in security funding, and appropriations bill that is not past the house and senate. This would prevent future Cyber Attacks against election machinery, that is wise to mystic investment against Election Security and we should not be doing that but more to secure democracy in europe against russian aggression. Im not really with that but i believe firmly we need to do everything we can to deter and defend against these attacks here at home and with our allies. You heard from many senators, russia needs to pay a price for attacking our elections for their annexation of crimea. Undermining democracy and separating the United States from nato, support for the murderous regime of Bashar Alassad and the list goes on. One area of interest to me where russia has stepped up brazen and exploit native activities in africa. Strengthening ties with african countries is one of Vladimir Putins top policy goals. In october he convened 40 african heads of state for a russian led conference and they demonstrated their influence, attempted to influence recent elections in madagascar and congo and zimbabwe. And those involved in russian intervention there and would require Administration Strategy to push back against russian actions in libya and according to recent public reports, russian mercenaries in libya. What is the state department doing to address or limit russian influence in africa and libya and some of the other countries i just mentioned . The topic of our conversations with russian officials, i dont think that dialogue is yielding results that are necessary for the National Security but more significantly is to point to our policy toward africa and african states. We are trying our best to make sure relationships with africa are wellmaintained, we are promoting us business, we are increasing our assistance levels so us business can be participating in Economic Growth and development of those countries. That is an important area. And our cooperation in areas like security and the matter of libya i would say our strategy is to try to do what we can to bring about a ceasefire and compliance with Security Council resolutions so the situation is stabilized we have thrown a spotlight on the russian presence in various statements but it is most unsatisfactory. I see my time has expired. I look forward to are working to keep an open line of medication between the administration and the senate. Continuing to stand up to Vladimir Putins aggression, it is very important for the future. Senator cruz. Thank you for your testimony. You said a moment ago in response to senator coombs that our focus is on the russia problem. I agree with that sentiment. The Administration Needs far more focus on the russia problem, Vladimir Putin is not our friends. I want to focus on two areas the administration can do better. In your judgment if russia completes the nordstrom 2 pipeline what would the effect be for russia, europe and the United States . It would create another tool for the kremlin to use russias Energy Resources to divide europe and undermine and destabilize ukraine . We are at the precipice of nordstrom 2 being completed, the last regulatory barrier we stood in place, denmark gave the final environmental approval to complete the final portion of nordstrom 2. We are roughly 60 days from completion of that pipeline. It is now or never. I authored Bipartisan Legislation in this committee that passed the committee by an overwhelming bipartisan vote of 20numtwo to stop the nordstrom 2 pipeline. It is narrow targeted sanctions like a scalpel designed specifically to prevent the only ships that can waiver the pipeline from laying the pipeline and completing the pipeline. There is some hope that the senate even in this bizarre partisan time will manage to work together. There has been considerable progress passing the legislation as part of the National Defense authorization act. I am hopeful that will happen. Im grateful for the assistance of chairman risch and drinking member menendez to make that happen. It would be an enormous victory for the senate in the United States. We dont need to pass the legislation to stop this pipeline. The administration has full authority to impose the same targeted sanctions. Those sanctions that would result in shutting down the ships that would lay the pipeline and stopping it right now today. Why has the administration not yet acted . We have been using diplomatic tools to seek our goal of stopping this project. The administration shares has that succeeded . We slowed it down but have not stopped it. Is there any prospect, a snowballs chance in hell that talking to the german ambassador is suddenly going to magically stop the nordstrom 2 pipeline . I am not talking to the german ambassador but we have a range of engagements on this which are still unfolding. There is a deliberative process what our options are. We have come to the conclusion of diplomacy has not achieved our goal and sanctions are among them. Let me give you a clear message to take back to your colleagues. I had multiple conversations with mike pompeo and Steve Mnuchin. Time is of the essence. A strategy that is lets pursue our Diplomatic Options at this point, a strategy to do nothing, a strategy that will result with 100 certainty in the pipeline being completed and Vladimir Putin getting billions of dollars in your being made Energy Dependence more so on russia and weakening the United Statess position in the world. The administration can stop it. It is only in her show. There have been principled meetings, some bureaucratic intransigence particularly from the Treasury Department pushing against exercising clear statutory authorization to stop the pipeline. I want this to be clear. If the pipeline is completed it will be the fault of the members of this administration who sat on their rear ends and exercise the clear power. You have an overwhelming bipartisan mandate for congress to stop this pipeline. It is clear, it is achievable, it is a major foreignpolicy victory and the only thing that will allow the pipeline to be built is bureaucratic inertia and dithering within the administration so i very much hope dithering ends and you exercise the Clear Authority and stop this pipeline before it is completed next month. Thank you for your message. I want to turn to a second topic on russia. Doctor ford, we were talking about the open skies treaty and something i wrote down because it startled me. You said and i think this is verbatim it makes contributions to our security and those of our partners. Doctor ford, it is my understanding that statement is contrary to the assessment of the department of defense Intelligence Community and in fact i will give you some specifics in 2015. The director of the intelligence Defense Intelligence agency under president obama, general stewart told congress the skies conflict was designed for a different air, allows russia to getting credit the foundational intelligence on critical infrastructure, basic imports, all of our facilities and gives Vladimir Putin a significant advantage. The head of strap, said it gives russia the capability to record order parts of our countries and other nations a 2017 us general danford told congress, quote, we dont believe the treaty should be in place of the russians are not complying. You told this committee, quote, russia is in chronic noncompliance. We are allowing russia to fight over the United States to engage in reconnaissance on our major cities, defense infrastructure, new york city, washington dc, making ourselves more vulnerable and we are gaining little or nothing because all we gain from the overflights we gain from Satellite Technology and russia is not complying with the treaty. How is in our interests to benefit the russian military, with action on the other side. Those are actions we are considering an open skies review. They correct problems, the relevant question is what the net is for the challenges, the relative weight of each element on the scale. What they are trying to assess on the positive side, many seem to feel strongly theres confidence building benefits and diplomatic benefits they feel strongly about. We need to consider that. We need to make a call what that equation looks like and there are elements on both sides. Thank you. Thanks to both of you for coming. I have seen you in a lot of real estate around the world. I want to begin with you. The title of this hearing is the future of us policy toward russia. Your testimony has a number of references to nato in your testimony, written and verbal. Start with the direct question. How important is it to the future of us policy toward russia that nato remains strong . It is absolutely essential. Nato is a cornerstone of our National Security strategy since the 1940s and it is inconceivable what the world would be like had we not supported that concept until today. Nato has many priorities and has been helpful to the United States in the battle against terrorism so it is the only priority. Your testimony that nato remains important and remains an important element of us policy toward russia. What our nato allies say, a strong vibrant consider us nato is important in their own faceoff with russia. There may be variations of intensity. I would support that. I have no quarrel with the administration threatening nato allies to not only feel the commitment and benefit but to contribute proportionately, that is a smart thing to do. I have a piece of legislation pending before the committee and as an amendment to energyrelated bill and the chairs request, i hope we may take it up in our next business meeting, the piece of legislation would basically say this. In honor of nato at 70 anniversary clarify no president can unilaterally withdraw from nato but any withdrawal of the United States from nato would have to be accomplished either by Senate Ratification or an act of congress. This would provide assurance to nato allies the United States intends to stay with nato and be the partner as we use that alliance structured the benefit not only the United States but other nations in the world. The specifics of legislation, the executive branch, i would say in my meeting with nato allies there is no alarm over the us position, they are focused on appropriate burden sharing. Nato is braindead because of concerns among european allies the United States was backing away from nato . I dont want to characterize the french president s comments. He would not characterize that as an expression . He has legitimate concerns. We need to focus on natos future and make sure it is relevant. Clear in our commitment. What might help is this piece of legislation that is bipartisan. I think it would send a strong message that the United States under any administration, congress of whichever party is dominant would be very committed to nato. There is a legal question to ratify a treaty, the constitution is silent about exiting from treaties. The relevant case law, the constitution is silent on Something Like that congress is free to legislate. There is no barrier to congress legislating. The situation is an ambiguity. Congress can legislate and remove the ambiguity and provide insurance to nato allies. At the 70th anniversary of this very important to your own testimony, others would agree it is my hope that we would send that signal, a treaty that was entered into by the senate cannot unilaterally be discarded by any president but would be congressional action prior to being withdrawn in the us presence in being withdrawn. I hope we can take that up and the 70th anniversary we send some strong messages on the importance that we continue to attest to so with that i yield back. Thank you for being here. I have been consistently and aggressively outspoken about the threats posed, going back to 2016 i was a candidate on the ballot and would not it was the work of a foreign power but i am fascinated how tactical Nuclear Weapons and Strategic Nuclear stockpile and so forth, how totally consumed american politics has become by a nation whose gdp is equivalent to italy and the state of new york, whose gdp is less than the state of texas and brazil and gdp is half the size of the state of california. I was watching what the goal is and i want you to comment on this. Something americans dont appreciate or understand, there are a lot of different ethnic groups in the Russian Federation. You combine that with rising prices and inequality in many ways what we see around the world and what they tried to do in the us is about Vladimir Putin, trying to position himself as a great historic unifier of all these groups. Back to 2014, the argument that he was the one, they all face the same threat from the west and was bringing them together and you see that many of these policies are designed to remind people of the time the soviet union and russia were great global power and much of this is about distracting from domestic problems they face internally. Isnt that a big if not significant driver of a lot of these things at the end of the day, a desire to address internal things and rally everyone around a sense of pride by distracting from domestic policies and portraying himself as an indispensable leader in russia of a great power to they are not economically but they project power militarily in smart and creative ways . Yes, you said more eloquently what i tried to say in response to senator romneys question that this is a matter of russia and russias leader trying to live up to selfimage of the global power and much of that is to distract from the internal problems in russia that they are experiencing. I would imagine he deeply enjoys, not that we should look into things but it would be my sense that he greatly enjoys watching so much american politics be about Vladimir Putin and consumed, certainly makes the argument. Social media and other tools to divide our nation. Not that i want to focus on those issues but member of the Intelligence Committee looking at it, talking about issues, what i thought was a good bipartisan report but we have to figure out in this country, addresses these threats, and if and when russia was to do this again. The costbenefit player, nothing to affect them. This is not a 1off effort, the impeachment is playing out nationally. I can tell you, america is completely dysfunctional. They also view it as an opportunity to damage our relationship with ukraine and the goal ultimately to portray the us as dysfunctional, to exacerbate our domestic tensions which add to that portrayal of dysfunctional and also to argue our system is corrupt and it is as important as anything else, sometimes we get tunnel vision and this is about supporting a singular individual, this effort to weaken us from the inside, get us to fight one another and point to us as dysfunctional, not working, coming apart at the seams because it elevates him as a person who has a smile on his face because it strengthens the argument he is a big global player. Senator menendez. I agree with my colleague and friend. The only thing i would say is we harm ourselves more when we internally ultimately espouse the very essence of the russian propaganda. That to me is one of the most of the mental elements of what has been happening. On a different matter for the moment i am alarmed to have learned today that mike pompeo may be considering changing the way the state Operations Center places and participate in calls with foreign leaders. Im concerned about the lack of transparency and Record Keeping such a change may entail and keeping the American Public and congress in the dark at a time when we know the president Senior State Department officials and others appear to be carrying out official Us Government and foreignpolicy 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 and what the intent is behind what appears to be an effort to keep the American Public, congress and others from knowing about our understanding our governments communications with foreign leaders. I urge you to bring this back to the secretary because if there was ever a time such an action would be disconcerting it is right now. Im not aware of a proposed change to our policy but i understand your concerns and questions, i will get back to the committee. Very briefly, secretary ford, you repeated something earlier in response to the first round of questions, and russias new exotic Nuclear Systems and how the treaty may not constrain these systems are an issue. Russia has already stated the two systems, the icbm, the fm guard hypersonic vehicle will fall under new starts. Is that not true . The russians have said that and hopefully that is the case. There would still be three systems, the poseidon and kindle that would not become but in that respect. We cannot imagine these new systems wouldnt be covered but if you dont explore in a negotiation what is willing to be covered we cant dismiss it out of hand. Further reports indicate other systems of concern likely will not reach deployment during the lifespan of new start even if it is extended. I join the echoes of concern that several of my colleagues were saying, first on the china angle, china is dramatically under the us a billy in the Nuclear Arsenal. Seeking to include them creates a real dilemma in terms of what senator merkley pointed out. Secondly, suggesting russian systems are a reason not to continue new start, and i would urge the administration looking at new start in a totally different way and i think even some of our allies urged us to do so. Let me ask you something else. Egypt is reportedly planning to purchase russian jets. You had meetings to dissuade them from making this purpose . Im not going to speak about any specific information about potential russian transactions. I dont know why we are not talking about it. What i can say, riding with partners among them, egypt, helping them understand the potential for section 231 exposure. I had conversations making points about the importance of the law and avoiding that exposure in cairo and elsewhere, these are the engagements we are successful in having around the world and having been essential in our policy to turning off or persuading billions of dollars i would like to get a classified briefing if you are not going to answer the public and other items as to what we are pursuing other entities of the world. You have been given all the authority of the under secretary for arms control and interNational Security. Is that correct . On 21 october mike pompeo delegated to me the authorities and responsibilities of that area. Here is an example. You may be capable of doing that. You havent been nominated for such a position. This appears to be another case of the state department playing fast and loose with the rules in hopes that no one will notice. In order to do that, you should be nominated for the position and if you were nominated under the law you would be allowed to serve in that role for only 210 days. This is a concern for the state Department Acting in ways that seek to circumvent the oversight and jurisdiction of this committee. It is not acceptable. I would say there is no intend to circumvent anything. What there is is recognition of the importance of not having those important duties began. Im filling in i agree with you, nominate somebody, nominate somebody, but dont circumvent the committee. You all think we are asleep at the switch, we are not. We are not. Thank you, mister chairman. A couple minutes left to vote but do you want another thank you very much. Fortunately the four column votes seem to be pretty extensive as long as the chairman stays hidden. We have another important matter. An important picture of the committee. I will try to make this as quick as i can. I want to get to russias intentions with regard to ukraine. The occupation of crimea area was happening in Eastern Ukraine, falls into russias playbook to see this unity to prevent ukraine from fully integrated or applying for nato membership. We know that. We also know many questions on this during this hearing, that the press accounts of ukraine being involved in our election which has been stoked by some individuals works to russias playbook even though there is no effect at all for many of the security people on the Intelligence Committee, diplomacy, that ukraine was involved in the 2016 elections. I want to get to how we are proceeding with the peace talks. We had minsk protocols and russia was very excited about that but never complied with it. Im not sure what their intentions are. We now have the steinmeyer formation and i would like to get your thoughts about how we are proceeding. Is russia winning the debate on how we are going to resolve conflicts in ukraine by developing a formula that will ignore the occupation to establish semi autonomy for Eastern Ukraine but still keeping ukraine a divided country . What is going on in this process . We are united with our allies in europe and with leadership in ukraine to get the russians out of ukraine. Crimea is pretty ukraine, Eastern Ukraine is part of ukraine. That is the objective and we call for the immediate end to this occupation but our focus, there are several initiatives as you said. The process is resuming over a long period where nothing was happening. We will see what happens on 9 december. I dont want to predict something that hasnt fully formed yet but we have also seen that president zelinski has reduced the tension. But we need to see more on the security front prior to any Political Activities related to minsk. The heart of the occupation. As it relates to the steinmeyer formulation that was recently released it looks like ukraine is following that. Russia seems to be excited about it at least from what we have been told. Are we assured we are not going to end up with some type of legitimacy of russia in crimea . We will never accept that. That is pretty definitive. I appreciate that. You have a lot of support here in congress for that position. We would like to ease tension wherever we can so that is a positive step but as we have seen, russia doesnt play by any organized playbook of fairness. Their objective is to keep us divided. Hard for us to imagine a new process that doesnt extend the division of ukraine. Thank you, mister chairman. With both of our witnesses we sincerely appreciate your service to the country and your testimony here today. I will enter some supplemental materials for the record for the record to remain open until the close of business friday. The witnesses could respond rapidly to those, we would appreciate that, the meeting is adjourned. [inaudible conversations] thursday on cspan the house meet at 10 am eastern for general speeches followed by legislative business at noon. On the agenda is a bill that would define clear standards for banning illegal insider training. On cspan2, judicial and executive nominations. On cspan3, treasury secretary Steve Mnuchin testifies before the House Financial Services committee. At 1 00 pm eastern House Armed Services subcommittee holds a hearing on privatized military housing with representatives from housing companies. Next a look at brazils amazon rain forest and Climate Change concerns. The council on Foreign Relations hosted this event. Experts discussed ways to combat deforestation of the amazon rain forest by working with the brazilian government and engaging the private sector