Transcripts For CSPAN2 Former Defense Secretary Panetta Testifies Before A House Foreign Affairs... 20240712

Is just over an hour and a half. I see that we have a quorum present. I really want to thank everybody for joining us, its an important issue that i now recognize myself for opening remarks. Pursuant to the notice, were holding a hearing to discuss the american lives on the line come lessons for managing the russia threat. Two weeks ago startling revelations that russia put bounties on american troops serving in afghanistan. This week in the Foreign Affairs committee weve been examining this egregious attack on americans and the Top Administration failure to handle it probably. Its important for the public to know this. Ive personally been involved in four earrings. This week alone that ive with this issue and that doesnt include the actions of other committees working on their own. I just want to underscore to people listening that they should know that we in concert taking over some of this matter very seriously. The one thing if we do nothing else, the most basic and fundamental duties is to do everything in our power to keep americans safe. We all went to the servicemembers whose lives were lost in afghanistan. We went to their families if we owe it to every member of our military and every american serving abroad, puts their life on the line every day in the service of our country. On tuesday the subcommittee heard from former u. S. Officials and experts on the kremlins network from maligned actors to systems of corruption that oppress the russian people assisting its criminal actions and hybrid warfare, that and your submitted testimony, mr. Panetta, you know may be more dangerous than the threats we face during the cold war. While invited, its regrettable secretary pompeo declined to participate yesterday in our full committee hearing. This is part of a a pattern of failed to recognize the importance of united and unambiguous u. S. Response to the escalating threats we face from the kremlin. The members of our committee have many questions about what happened. We have been helpful to say the least to hear from the secretary himself as we reckon with the gravity of this issue. To his credit, secretary of defense appeared before the House Armed Services committee yesterday in response to my question he acknowledged he had seen reports of payments in response to attacks on our troops. Today we honor to be joined by secretary leon panetta, a dedicated Public Servant who shaped u. S. National Security Policy for decades and whose perspective and range of experience on these issues is frankly unparalleled. He served in the u. S. House of representatives, secretary panetta is lay with the Important Role of legislative branch place in shaping our National Security trajectory. Secretary panetta later served in multiple executive functions under two president ial administrations, including as secretary of defense, director of the cia, and white house chief of staff. We are fortunate to have you join us today because as we try to understand what transpired in the kremlins bounty scheme and how much of the Top Administration knew about it or not, your experience is uniquely instructive. You are someone who is been responsible for american troops abroad, managing a primary elegy of our intelligence apparatus for ensuring the president has access to the intelligence and resources he needs to carry out the duties of that office. Furthermore, secretary panetta has overseen and shaped u. S. Policy towards russia throughout the course of his career. Dion this specific instance, the resounding take away from this week and altering so far is we have no russia policy. In its place we havent misguided, illdefined, impulsive and, frankly, dangerous series of actions prioritizing the interests of the kremlin over the dedicated efforts of our Intelligence Community, diplomats and career civil service. The sacrifices of our military and the american National Security interests should as always remain parallel. Theres been no shortage of Information Available to President Trump about russias maligned activities, and yet its been one gifted person after another, whether its pulling out of european support inf and open sky treaties, withdraw our forces from syria without notice to our ally with troops on the ground, helsinki, his intent to reduce the core of our troops in germany, inviting russia back to a reconstituted g8, Holding Funds from the European Deterrence Initiative which is meant to deter russian aggression, or casting blame towards ukraine when our Intelligence Community proved russia russian was responsible for the attack on our 2016 election. We have been hearing all the week who pays attention and response to the action taken by the United States in concert with our allies. The message i hear loud and clear from President Trump is we can do whatever we want because we wont hold you accountable you can do thats unacceptable. How long to have to wait for policy towards russia to prioritize but all else keeping americans safe . Thats why these hearings this week are so important and why i am so pleased to have you joining us today, secretary panetta. Were looking forward to hearing from you, about your perspective on where we must go here as a country and a policy and posture towards russia. You have seen successes and failures, and we are running out of time to get this right. I know yield to the Ranking Member for his opening statements. Well, thank you, chairman keating for calling the street and i thank you, mr. Secretary, for joining us today. Since the 2008 invasion of georgia, russia shall not show not only a willingness fighting eagerness to develop past, and appoint an an event set of tools to undermine democracy in western institutions around the world. While russian and soviet predecessors have use for an forces to carry against the west, reports the Russian Military intelligence often referred to as gru set up a Bounty Program for american soldiers in afghanistan shows and embolden Vladimir Putin. Lets remember this is the same unit thats responsible for interfering in our elections using chemical weapons against russian defectors, living under nato protection and invading, invaded ukraine, and nato aspirational nation and the eu priority partner. Recently we seen the russian mercenaries supporting genocide in syria, yielding conflict in syria popping up the crop maduro machine. The fact that putin is trying to rest the United States in afghanistan should not come as a big surprise. The question remains about what does putin gained from this Bounty Program and why does he feel emboldened to carry that . Parts of the putin wants the United States to fall, fail in afghanistan just like his country did nearly four packet to go. Also my colleagues will likely try to paint this administration as weak on russia. I dont believe that is what is driving putins agenda. Lenin once said the probe with bayonets. If you find much you proceed. If you find steel withdraw. Putin has found mostly marshland probing the United States. We must be the steal that forces putin to think again. The first step is regulating the nature of work for has changed. Following the fall of the uncovered many believe we would usher in an era of perpetual peace. Countries, views included gave up on cold war policies that made western institutions the standardbearer and opposed and it posts of will. Russians adapted, learned and reinvigorated the tactics of it the 21st century. They been operating within a gray space that is neither war nor peace. We must not change how we respond to these clear provocations. Contrary to popular belief this administration has pushed back against putin. Take the incident in 2018 when mercenaries and forces loyal to a thought at that youth trips in syria. Within four hours hundreds of russians and syrians were neutralized. Not every provocation from russia can be met with kinetic action. In fact, on the our greatest weapon is the alliance of likeminded nations that it defended freedom since 1949. It is our best interest to work with our allies much like we did about the cold war to develop and deliver a strategy to counter putins lined activity. Much like putin did over the past decade we need to dust off the old cold war playbook and confront the thrush and after russians are. Despite all the putins foreign operations, he is not benefited domestically nearly 50 of russians opposed waiting president determines putin. 60 with the president shouldnt be as old as putin is and only 25 of the russian people trust putins plan for the country. If this is not demonstrate that putin study failed, i dont know what does. What you think secretary panetta for joining us today. With that i will yield back to you, mr. Chairman. Thank you. I will now introduce our witness and again thank you for being here again today. Secretary leon panetta is chairman of the institute for Public Policy, testing script finished before in Public Service includes serving as 23rd United States secretary of defense, the director of the Central Intelligence agency white house chief of staff to president bill clinton, office of management and budget director and most important as a of the u. S. House of representatives from california. I will not recognize the wages for five minutes, without objection your prepared a written statement will be made part of the record. You are now recognize for your opening statement. At i dont know if your muted or not, secretary. How is that . Can you hear me now . You are on. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I would like to submit my testimony for the record and if i could try to summarize it for your benefit. Mr. Chairman, mr. Ranking member, distinguished members of the subcommittee, i thank you for the opportunity to be able to testify about the significant threat that all of you recognize from russia, and the threat that russia poses to our troops and our democracy and our nation. I had the honor to serve in the house for 16 years from 19771993, and was the height of the cold war between the United States and the soviet union. Through the end of the vietnam era, the reagan buildup, the fall of the berlin wall. And i have to tell you, during that Time Congress played an enormously Important Role in conducting oversight, whether it was a Republican Administration or democratic administration, to ensure that our National Security interests were protected during that cold war. I want to come in all of you, mr. Chairman, and all of your members for your continuing critical oversight to make sure that we protect our country. Let me begin by making clear that there is little question that were in a new chapter of the cold war with russia. This new chapter with Vladimir Putins Russian Federation is in some ways more dangerous than what we faced with the old soviet union. With the soviet union we were in a rough parity with our nuclear capabilities. They knew our strength. We knew their strength, and in some ways that gave us leverage to be able to deal with them from the position of strength. The deal with Vladimir Putin, you have to deal with him from the position of strength. If he senses weakness on the part of the United States, then make the mistake he will take advantage of it. Because he knows he doesnt have to pay a price. And thus, we have seen him take advantage of it to his aggression in crimea, in the ukraine, in syria, in the u. S. Election process, in libya, in afghanistan, and other places. The point is very clear, and i think its clear to all of us. That if we fail to draw lines on putin, if we dont make clear where those lines are, and make clear that he will not be allowed to cross those lines, then he will continue to be encouraged to be aggressive. Principal point is of this. In this new cold war chapter, once required is a resolute clear eyed, strong, unambiguous leadership from the president and the rest of our government that is informed by our diplomatic and military, and intelligence professionals, and guided i need to protect our National Security interests. That is got to be the message that putin hears. Some of you may remember president bush once said that he looked into putins eyes and saw somebody that he thought he would be able to deal with. My friend and former colleague bob gates said that he, too, looked into putins eyes and saw kgb, kgb, kgb. Putin believes that the glory of the former soviet state must be restored. He believes the fall of the iron curtain brought with it an era of weakness in russia. And he is determined to return russia to the status of a global superpower. And to that strategy is to undermine the United States, and to weaken our country and weaken our Foreign Policy. Look, putin has his own problems. Russian population is aging. Its shrinking. By the economy, rush is struggling. Theres a mix of an overburdened socialist state with a very core of oligarchs of literally stolen aliens of dollars from the russian people. They have serious social and economic issues. No democracy would tolerate the mismanagement and corruption weve seen it there, and thats why putin has done away with any semblance of democracy. He is pushed through constitutional referendums as we know just recently that allows him to be a virtual dictator through 2036. Russias strategy to restoring its superpower status is dependent on the following elements. First, they clearly want to underline nato and its key missions. Nato has been a barrier to the ability of russia to expand back to the soviet state. Secondly, they want to undermine military presence in europe. Our forces in europe have been a check on russian ambitions. Thirdly, he wants to reinsert the russian regime back into the g7 to be able to regain the status that they lost when they were kicked out because of their invasion of crimea. Fourthly, they believe that interfering in the United States and other western elections has sown chaos and discourse, and theyre seeking an election result in all areas that are favorable to russia. And lastly, they have developed and in some ways perfected hybrid warfare. Russia cannot match the u. S. In a force on force conflict. But they have developed asymmetric power, hybrid power. They have used a mix of civilian and military capabilities to undertake deniable lethal covert operations. Theyve engaged obviously in election interference, the recruitment of spies and agents, the theft of technology. They have taken prisoners, all to gain geostrategic leverage wealth triggering conventional without triggering conventional conflict with the west. What we saw with the latest intelligence of the possibility that russians were using vacuums come in many ways comes right out of putins playbook. I have not read the intelligence assessment but i think we all need to take these reports very seriously. Because as i said it fits playbook. By the playbook that he has used as as a result of his concerns in afghanistan and other areas. He still resents what the United States did in Charlie Wilsons war, when we kicked the soviet union out of afghanistan in the 80s. He believes we have used the afghan war as a pretext to position u. S. Military and intelligence assets on the doorstep of russia. And he resents the fact that the afghan war has been a nato mission whose goal is to fracture nato. And there since is the best way to fracture nato is to bring them down in afghanistan which is the graveyard of empires. He pays mercenary forces to come after us, and thats very consistent with putins methods. They develop the wagner group to attack our forces in syria, take over oil facility libya. They contacted assassination attempts in the uk against former spies, and obviously they have conducted this attack in her own democracy in the 2016 election. The assessment is very clear here there so question here that russian president Vladimir Putin ordered and influenced campaign in the 2016 election aimed at trying to influence what happened in u. S. President ial election. And they further assessed, this is something we just have to continue to remind ourselves, that putin is going to apply the same lessons in the current election in this country as well as in elections that are taking place with our u. S. Allies. This is not a hoax. Its a real threat. It works, and you can look at the consequences. Its strain relations between the United States and nato allies. There was even the possibility at one point like we might pull out of nato, and very frankly the entire military structure reviews to contain russia could fall apart if we did that. They paid no price for annexing crimea, and obviously they believed that the president as in many ways given russia and putin i passed on crimea and the ukraine. A pass on theyve seen the United States that is slow to enforce sanctions, sanctions passed by the congress, by you. And although the president invited russia back into the g7, the reality is that that invitation contained no concession on the part of the russians. The u. S. Also is set to redeployed 9500 u. S. Forces from germany, forces that are critical to signaling u. S. Resolve with our allies. What are the steps required to counter this russian threat . Let me end by summarizing. One i do believe we have to make clear where the lines are that cannot be crossed. Made very clear that he will not get away with attacks on our forces, and that we will respond with diplomatic isolation, through sanctions and through military force if necessary. We have to recommit to the Nato Alliance. Look, russia and china are primary adversaries at this point in time, and what is the one thing that they cannot do . They cannot form alliances. They fear alliances. And so our ability to develop and maintain alliances, one of our best weapons against those adversaries. Third, we had to make sure that we do protect free and Fair Elections in this country, free from russian interference. And fourthly, we do have to read and listen to intelligence assessments about russia. This is information that gathered at great risk. Our intelligence professionals, and youve heard from many of them, have spent their careers analyzing the Russian Federation and putin. They understand what putin is up to, and they can be very helpful in providing a heads up to the president and to this country about what putin is trying to do. Look, no leader, no leader can act responsibly for this country without good intelligence. Thats a bottom line. Fifthly, i think its important to suspend the actions to redeployed forces from europe. This is the wrong time to be moving forces out of europe. And again, it sends i believe a message of weakness to russia. We have to finally we dedicate ourselves to the values that make america strong and free. At the end of the day what putin hears the most, very frankly, is our values. They threaten the power he is trying to consolidate, freedom of the press, freedom of speech, equality of all citizens. All that undermines the strength that he is trying to assert in russia. Greatest threat to putin, the values that are our greatest strength in this country. So let me conclude by saying the United States has to be clear with putin. We cannot afford to send mixed messages to an adversary who wants to make clear, we must make clear, that there are lines that we will not allow russia to cross. One of those lines has to be that we will not tolerate any involvement by russia in killing u. S. Men and women who are putting their lives on the line for this country. Look, as secretary of defense and cia director, i was involved as deploying our young men and women in harms way. I had to go to dover to receive our Fallen Heroes and give condolences to their families on behalf of a grateful nation. This is about lifeanddeath. Life and death. Mr. Chairman, and members of the subcommittee, i think all of us owe it to our troops and to their families to answer a very simple question. What did our government do to protect our troops . And if russia did put a price on the heads of our many women in combat, what price will russia pay for doing this . Americans are entitled to know that we did everything necessary to protect our troops, our National Security, and our democracy. Thank you. Thank you, mr. Secretary for your testimony. Comprehensive you gave to that. I will members for five minutes each pursuant to house rules, all times yield is for the purposes of questioning our witness. Because of the virtual format a very we recognize members by committee seniority, alternating between democrats and republicans, and if any of you missed your turn, please let your staff know and we will circle back to you. If you seek recognition you must unmute your microphone, and i will start by recognizing myself for five minutes. Mr. Secretary, i would like to start where you ended your opening remarks. In my life, my younger years, most Sensitive Conversations i had was with my father and my grandmother where we never talk about the circumstances around which my uncle was killed in action. It left an indelible imprint in my mind and my values. I agree with you. This is about being responsible and respecting our servicemen and women and families who have lost loved ones. So i just want to underscore your point, honoring our Fallen Heroes and their loved ones we mean taking action, taking action, creating consequences to hold putin and the kremlin accountable. Also, i just want to start wih your background in terms of your intelligence background. I would like to turn next to the intelligence aspect of this, and would it have been possible in the administration that you served in for this type of intelligence not to have been briefed to the the president . Not just the initial briefing by briefings before there were six calls, six personal calls from march, thereafter, the president and putin. Before slashing funds to the European Deterrence Initiative which was set up to curb russian aggression, before inviting russia and putin to the newly constructed g8, after they were thrown out of ukraine, thrown up for their actions in ukraine and resulting 13,000 plus ukraine gas. And before ordering a quarter of our troops out of germany . Is it plausible that there would not be a briefing in the administrations you served with in any of those circumstances . The role of commanderinchief is to be able to support and defend our many women in uniform who do put their lives on the line in order to protect our country. And if we received intelligence, frankly, as you have heard, intelligence that is presented as part of the pdb, there is in terms of its credibility. They can be low credibility. It could be moderate, high credibility. But if there is intelligence that indicates that theres a possibility that the russians were putting a bounty for putting a price on the heads of many women in uniform, that intelligence would be brought to the attention of the president immediately. Because that does involve the lives of our many women in uniform. That does involve the responsibility that the president and our military leaders have to be able to protect those that are out there in combat. So i find it very surprising that that kind of information was not brought directly to the president of the United States. Midi can shed some light on these things. It wouldnt be random or noncorroborated at all in your experience if something was brought to the president during a daily briefing, if it was information shared, high intelligence information shared with an ally like the uk thats been recorded to protect troops or maybeyou can tell us about the cia wire , intelligence review and these are significant benchmarks of intelligence. Im almost out of time but if you can shed some light because this seems to be the discussion of the week again, theres no question that certainly when i was director of the cia the if we had information that that was taking place and it involved our nato allies that we would immediately share that with our allies. So that they would be aware of it as well as it involves their lives. So first of all it will be shared with our allies but most importantly it is the kind of intelligence that i think is the duty of those in the white house and in the Intelligence Community to bring that information to the president even though they may think it isnt fully corroborated. Even though they may think it isnt fully backed up, that doesnt make any difference. That is very sensitive intelligence information. The president of the United States should know and should actupon. Thats right on point and thank you for answering it so directly and ill now call on representative kinzinger who can have the time to go over the five minutes. You mister chairmanthank you for being here. I think the question of what the president briefed, i believe he wasnt. I believe that. We can debate and i think its probably a good debate within the administration of whether he should have been. As the secretary mentions. Its a pretty serious accusation. Im not sure if intel was to the point yet ofactionable. So i think the decision was made there. One of my concerns about this is russia and quite honestly Foreign Policy should be a bipartisan issue. And i think its nobody on this committee and i mean that but some people quickly jump to accusations of the president loves russia and this kind of stuff and i think what that does is it makes it more likely this becomes partisan and that both sides hit the fence with but that said, i think we need to get to the bottom of it. And i think its a very serious accusation that we should find out if its true. Mister secretary, do the russians want to accelerate the us withdrawal in afghanistan . Do they want to bother usdown for the next decade or does the outcome not matter for them. I think the answer is yes. All of the above because i think their interest is to try to undermine the position of the United States. And theyre going to take advantage of everyopportunity. And if they think, and i think this is probably more likely, if they think that as the president is going to be trying to remove our forces from afghanistan, theyre going to try to do Everything Possible to try and encourage thatresult. And try to, and i think part of what was involved in this possible intelligence was that they were trying to obviously americans killed. Have those bodies returned to dover and have those families basically saying that enough is enough and urge the president to bring those troops home. I think that was of the game here but in my experience, the russians were involved in a number of ways with the caliban and with our enemies either providing support or providing weapons to try and assist those that were going after american men and women. Let me ask you to questions and i think that the point you make is extremely important. To specific questions, if this intel is proven correct and we get whatever high confidence incentives, what do you think we should do in response and if you could piggyback on that what you think we should do with regards to the quote unquote peace deal. I disagree with a lot of what the administration is doingon afghanistan to be clear. I think its a relatively minor investment for what the alternative would beif we left but you if you can answer those that would be great. I think its really important that if this information is further corroborated, and the president of the United States has to make very clear and the president has to do, the president has to make clear to russia and to putin that we will not tolerate this kind of behavior. And that we are going to take all necessary action to protect and defend our forces. We need to get that message area that we dont have to go into particulars but i think that larger message needs to be said. This is not to be tolerated. With regards to the situation in afghanistan, i think weve got to be verycareful. Not to make the same mistake we made in iraq. And i was concerned about that because i thought we withdrew all our forces there. Didnt continue to have a presence in iraq and trying to work with their security forces. With their Intelligence Forces, to be able to deal with al qaeda area and try to make sure that they did not distort any kind of power in iraq, that what would happen is exactly what did happen which is the creation of isis and then the invasion and the necessity to the United States to go back in and defend. If we suddenly pull out all our forces out of afghanistan , and do not have some kind of rational basis on which to maintain a presence, to make sure that the caliban does not take control of that country and that al qaeda and isis dont take control of that country. Then i think were making a big mistake. It isnt so much whether or not we want to look at the possibility of withdrawing some of our forces there. The bigger question for me is are you taking steps to make sure that you are not handing afghanistan back to those who attacked us on 9 11. I have a great deal of respect, thank you for being here in the last thing ill say is in afghanistan the difference between the russians and us if the Afghan People want us there really 80 or 90 percent agreement so with that thank you mister secretary, i yield back. You are muted. Mister meeks of new york. Thank you. Mister secretary, thank you for your testimony, thank you for being here and thank you forbeing the great patriot thatyou are. And for all that youve done. Weve listen to your testimony today. Youve observed the administrationhas been slow to enforce the sanctions against russia. So now in light of the allegations that the russian government put bounties on our us Armed Services in afghanistan , my question is can you talk to the effectiveness of the United States current sanctions regime. And are the sanctions that we have in place now an effective instrument to counter what i call putinism, president putins brand of authoritarianism and autocracy . And how would you counter those who say as some say putins Approval Rating is maybe in decline or it deters russian aggression worldwide. What would you say about that and about what we need to do and what kind of sanctions were put in place . Thank you for that question. I was urge i would urge the administration to look at their approach to sanctions against iran. And apply those same sanctions, same processes that they applied now and they have applied very strong sanctions against iran every area weve gone after. A banking capability, weve gone after the ability to sell oil. Weve gone after their very heart of their economic ability to stay alive. Weve done that. And the argument by the administration is that continuing to press on those sanctions is in their minds what will bring iran ultimately to thetable to negotiate. Im not sure if thats going to be the ultimate approach here but what im saying to the demonstration i think what should be sent to the administration is take the same approach. That youre using against one adversary, iran apply it exactly the same kind of pressures with regards to russia. Cause if we did, mark my words, it would send a clear signal to putin that we are serious about making sure that they stop the aggression theyve been involved in. Grade, i think you muted again. I think you muted. That gives us more work that we can do in congress as far as passing those similar types of sanctions that you just indicated that we have on iran and on russia and see what the president does with that. As regards to i saidyesterday , for his silence. Now he saying hes going to go after and check out everything that if theres anything that is possible to be found hes going to go after them, we havent heard anything from the administration and silence in my report is complicit to a large degree. And when it comes to our men and women who put their lives on the line , to stand up for them in that regard. And he also testified in my life. Its about the strong support and the need for us to make sure that nato and our transatlantic economic relations subcommittee of which i am the cochair for the nato pa. Weve had this conversation going back and forth. And i made the case nato is beneficial to theUnited States. As you have. So could you explain to a large degree line the us support for the euro Atlantic Security institutions like nato as a bulkhead against russian aggression and that we dont need to withdraw germany, our troops from germany so can you let us say how we should send that message to the American People so that they know that we need to make a stronger case about how important nato is to us in our National Security . I am a strong believer in the importance of our nato relationship as the director of the cia and also as territory of defense i cant tell you important it was to be able to work with our allies, not only in sharing intelligence also in doing Security Work together. And in taking steps to be able to protect the security of europe and of the United States. We could not have done that without nato. This goes back to what harry truman did for god sakes in establishing a not only nato the Marshall Plan and the other steps that were taken in order to contain russia. And theyve been successful. I think in some measure where responsible for bringing down the berlin wallwall. So im a big believer that we need to maintain our Nato Alliance and to maintain our presence there. I think the president ought to do two things. Number one, make clear to russia that we will not tolerate the russians doing anything to target our men and women in uniform. 2, that we are going to maintain our force strength in germany and elsewhere. As part of our nato commitment. To ensure that russia will not take any steps of aggression against other former soviet states area and thirdly, i think diplomatically, strengthening those sanctions you talk about could be part of the package area so that didnt get a clear message that we are not going to tolerate his behavior. That message of strength will take us a long way towards making clear that putin is going to pay a price for behaving the way he does. And right now that message isnt there. Thank you, i yield back. Chair, i represent Brian Fitzpatrick from angelina. Thank you mister chairman thank you for calling. Its an amazing perspective mister secretary and id say the apple doesnt fall from the tree with your son. Its the kind of man i know. And thank you for being you. Thank you for always putting your country and of your party and because of that you have more respect than you realize you across the political spectrum including from every republican that i know and i wish we could pull in and replicate search so i want to say thatat the outset. A few things and i had to jump back so i dont know if this question was asked before. Number one with regard to, because in your role as director of the cia if you could just help me and the panel and my colleagues understand how the president ial agreement works as far as inclusion, exclusion, whats a breach versus what doesnt and to what extent different people should be held responsible regarding omissions and my second question is with regard to the latter in you probably understandbetter than any of us. What do you believe his goals are and what do you believe his greatest fear is because its always helpful to know what these people fear what do you think he fears area. Thanks for that question. You had some testimony with respect to, but basically what we do with the president ial daily brief is to summarize all of the intelligence that has come in during thatevening. That involves threats to the United States and it can contain other information its largely human with threats that are out there. And theres a lot of work done to scrub the information thatcomes in. Theres a great deal of information that comes in from all our sources around the world. And so theres a process of trying to rub down what is the key intelligence that we are receiving and that the president should be informed of. That is contained in the pdd. And for those of you that have not seen the pdd. It can be a number of pages. Depending on the intelligence that has come across. I understand the president s reluctance to look at some of that stuff i have to tell you its not a very comforting read when you look at the pdd because youre reading about all the threats that are possible against the United States. And it can start your day off on the wrong foot by virtue of that nevertheless, its importantinformation. That the president needs to happen other policymakers need to have area and so when its presented to the president in briefings, dont forget this pdd has circulated not just to the president. Its circulated to other individuals in the administration. The National Security advisor to the chief of staff, to the cabinet members, secretary of defense, secretary of state so all of them are brief. Normally the reaper is assigned to all those key people. And the reaper will go through the pdd. The first responsibility is to read the pdb so its important to have a good reaper. The reaper will go through the key elements of the briefing and highlight our key information, respondto your question. Thats usually whats done and im sure its done with the president and those other individuals. So in some ways even though the bravery may not have touched on everything it is the responsibility of the person who gets the pdb to read the damn thing and i know its tough. I know it can be timeconsuming but theres a lot of Important Information so im a little concerned that other people who if this was in fact contained in the pdb what others didnt raise this as well as a result of that. Its not just up to the briefer, its also up to the individual who has to read the pdb. With regards to putin i dont think theres any question as i mentioned, this guy is a kgb officer. He thinks like a kgbofficer. Hes immersed in all of the tactics and the methods of spies. Thats what he cares about. Ill tell you just quickly one incident, when we were dealing with 10 russian agents who hadbeen planted in the United States , and we were able to discoverthey were there. We arrested them and we tried to work out and we did work out a trade with russia. The time i talked to my russian counterpart with the intelligence there. And i said are you, do you agree to this trade and he said at that time and putin wasnt even president. He said we have to talk to putin about whether or not we can make this trade. So putin had his hands on all of that intelligence and trade that goes on. His goals are to really restore the former soviet union area he thinks that that was a great tragedy. That they were weakened and i think his goal is to gradually do what he did in crimea with regards to others , other countries area that were former members of the soviet state. His greatest fear. His greatest fear is that if the United States remains strong. And remains true to ourvalues , that ultimately if we can work with our allies that we can weaken russia and bring them down the same way that the formersoviet union went down thats what he fears. And thats why his primary goal is to undermine our strength and undermine our values. Very hopeful that for the perspective and i yield back. The chair recognizesmister david sicily from rhode island. Thank you mister chairman and thank you for convening this hearing. You have the admiration of your son is bipartisan so we all feel a tremendous value. Thank you for your in service to our country. And as you said we have no mistaken responsibility to honor the lives lost in the defense of our country and sharing words of appreciation is not efficient. We must ask act consistently with that obligation and our most basic response has to be to condemn this action, punish and deter it from ever happening again and of course the president has to understand that his responsibility in commanderinchief is to support the men and women in uniform goes beyond planning a military parade and its fundamentally his most important responsibility and when the briefing was provided to the senior members of our caucus at the white house, mister corey came out of everything and said nothing in this briefing have just given a need to believe this is a hoax as the president claimed and he said the American People deserve to know what the, why the president didnt condemn Vladimir Putin. If were not going toprotect them what are we going to do . In my position as National Security advisor has been to prepare options for the president to consider in response to this intelligence so my first question is is it the normal case that there had to be some level of intelligence before the process of developing options occurs and secondly in order to be included in the president s daily brief there has to be some intelligence to support it whether its moderate, i or low confidence but it doesnt include rumors or in your window or unsupported allegations, is that fair to say that mark. Absolutely. The intelligence is there ranges across a vast spectrum of credibility. But let me just give you an example. If there were intelligence there that Nuclear Weapon had been planted someplace in washington dc, and lets assume that there just was a lot of credibility assigned to it but just the mere fact that there may be a Nuclear Weapon in washington dc seems significant enough that youd better damn well alert the president of the United States to that responsibility. I think thats the question i have mister secretary is the elephant in the room, that is you spoken a lot about strong condemnation, about moving to zero but a number of steps working more closely with our allies but this is, these are suggestions made at the conduct of the president who from the day he took office as expressed admiration for Vladimir Putin, has described russian interference in our president ial campaign as a hoax. As cited with Vladimir Putin against the intelligence communities and so my question is twopart is what can we do in that context. Where the president of the United States refuses to do all the things you described and the congress doesnt in a meaningful way and the second part is what damage that can do and what Vladimir Putin thinks when he hears the president say those things and behave that way in terms of future aggression . As all of you know, the members of congress obviously you can play a very Important Role in terms of oversight. You can play an Important Role in terms of trying to move legislation. That will send a message. You can play a very Important Role in terms of what you do to educate your constituencies about these issues. But in the end, it is the president of the United States. And who is commanderinchief and has the power. To be able to speak on behalf of of the United States to our foreign adversaries. I find it difficult and as the former chief of staff, having worked with the National Security advisor that they would not when this issue came up make very clear that the president needs to this issue. And to the country. About this possibility. And they could have made references to the questions they have about the credibility of the intelligence, but the fact is that that intelligence is so critical because it does involve the lives of our men and women in uniform. And look, the secretary of defense and im sure as many of you have gone abroad and you look into the eyes of our men and women in uniform and these are brave young people who are willing to fight and die for this country. Talk about getting a sense of confidence about what the strength of america is. Look into the eyes of our men and women in uniform andwhat theyre willing to do. And if you do that, then we know them every step necessary to help protect their lives. So when you get this kind of information i think the National Security advisor, i think the chief of staff, i think the secretary of defense secretary of state should have gone immediately to the president of the United States and said you need to issue a statement that makes clear to russia that this should not happen. Rather than having the president say i never saw it or nobody ever told me and having the National Security advisor say it just wasnt the right kind of intelligence to present to the president , push all of that aside. The fundamental issue is are you going to protect our forces . Are you going to protect our men and women in uniform . That should have been the main message coming out of the white house. Ideal back mister chairman. The chair recognizes the congressperson from tennessee. Can you hear me mister chairman weston mark thank you forputting together this important meeting. I think the best thing you ever did was make a really cool son. Hes a good dude, man and hes a good friend. Anyway, thats what we do here in the south. We Say Something nice foryou then we go for the jugular. With all due respect. Im putting you on my prayerlist. Thats the way we got to you in charge, we need to pray for all soandso. Hesin the bottle a little too much or whatever. All kidding aside i had a question. For the record we try to be diplomats and i know thats not what you want to hear but tim burgess thinks hes a thug, hes too big for his gucci loafers, the 435th most powerful man in congress, i dont like the guy, i dont care i know its well documented the russians operated a ship and it carried submersibles that can tap into and even sever our undersea fiberoptic cables which were would slow argumentation with our allies considerably. Additionally the russian subs are known to operate close to these cables. I was wondering if you could discuss the russian submarines and physically the threat it imposes to our Undersea Cable Network and what we can do to protect the flow of data. Its a very good point for you to look at because make no mistake about it, the russians are engaged in whatever efforts they can engage in in order to try and either take our technology or interfere with our communications or obviously interfere with our election process. Thats what the russiansare all about. And they do it obviously through their Intelligence Forces and their spies. But they also use their military for that purpose as well. A lot of what youre asking wonders into classified territory so im a little hesitant to discuss logistic operations but make no mistake about it. The russians are trying to conduct efforts that interfere with the communications that go on between the unitedstates and the rest of the world. And they have very sophisticated equipment to be able to accomplish that. That i think should be of concern not just to you but to allamericans. You think theyd rather sever those cables or tap into them and find outall of our secrets i guess . I think the more important effort for them is to tap in and get that information. What were they allowed on the covert special operations and cyber that has to confront, how was it so effective for is it just all they have to weston mark. Its something we better get smart about. Because that could very well be the kind of conflict were going to have to face in the future. I know we focus on conventional wars area i know we focus on potential nuclear wars but the russians have developed a hybrid capability that i think is going to become 11 of the future. It combines cyber with the ability to conduct covert operations with the ability to have even the military involved toassist others but its all done on a covert basis. And it works very effectively. Maybe you did in the ukraine. They used it in syria, theyve used it elsewhere. We need to develop that kind of hybrid capability. Not to say that we dont have some of those same elements, obviously have special forces area we have other technologies that are able to give us some capability but i think the ability to put together an entire strategy as they have done using hybrid methods of warfare, has proven very effective in their ability to produce chaos, to undermine stability and to create the kind of situation that they can then take an advantage of. Though in many ways hybrid warfare is russian, is an arm of their diplomacy so that they can then go in and undermine the strength of whatevercountry theyre dealing with. Thats how they operate. I think you and im out of time but i want to tell you what an honor it is. I wish my folks were alive read they would dig the results that you get so i wish they were allowed to see this. This is cooland thank you brother, sayhello to jimmy tonight area. House a high for you. Thank you and ill tell my wife in kentucky that she can talk southern to me tonight area. Thats the only place in the country people dont speak with an accent, you know that. We have some here in massachusetts to. If youre over in tennessee just say where can i get a moon pie and they will probably throw you in the back of a squad car. For a key lime pie, lets get serious and recognize that from california. I think you are muted, jim. Does this work . I want to thank the subcommittee for this important hearing and were all honored on a bipartisan basis to have secretary panetta testify before us with his wealth of expertise. Its obviously been well stated, documented and its been a pleasure to work with you for over 30 years and for all my other colleagues who are getting all this credit for any i will tell them that the panetta household as always been a partnership sylvia and its been a team sport in terms of determination and Public Policy so we know that they get that not only from you but from his mom as well. I want to take on that. First of all in your summary you talked about what constituted a plan that we used during the cold war on a bipartisan basis to confront the soviet union and that plan regardless of what administration in terms of the foundations of that plan was very successful because it was, it had continuity and it had i partisan support. And obviously from an administration as well as the congress where politics in those days when you served tended to stop the waters edge. Not so much these days unfortunately. So i guess my question to you is how would you assess that we reinstitute our bipartisan plan. You talk about what the tenants of that could constitute. I think you just noted by the last collie in my group talked about the hybrid implementation that has implemented to undermine the west and our allies in europe. And youve got to give him credit. Hes taken a limited hand area he played very well area though im wondering because i agree with conventional weapons for a lot of reasons. As we go forward are going to have less of an impact in our ability to deal with these hybrid efforts that involve hightech and a lot of other things. I think we have got repair work we need to do on nato and i think we both are acting in the as transatlantic legislators, id like to get your sense on how much repair work we need to do. People forget this 71 years of nato is the longest time in europe in over 100, 1000 years. And its not just because we are good people but that was in our own interest and it still is in our own interest and its imperative that we educate people and we when we talk about an overall strategy i sometimes and this is no reference to any sort of committee or subject but i think putin and company are the russian version of the sopranos. And that timing, we look at the 50 top house repairs and how theyve taken so much as well and how much of that is in european banks and other places and ive seen their yachts in the caribbean and the lifestyle they lead. We know where a lot ofthose Bank Accounts are andim wondering if that could be a part of a hybrid strategy. Grab them where it hurts. Good question jim. Let me try to do my best to try to mention what i think are theimportant areas. That we need to stress. First and foremost, obviously we do have to maintain our military power. It hopped out this ismilitary power on the face of the earth. And thats critical and it sends a very Important Message that the United States is, has the ability to respond to any threat. Not only diplomatically but militarily so maintaining a strong military, developing obviously a hybrid capability i think is important as well. Secondly, i am a believer as i stated in alliances and the importance of alliances. I think developing alliances is a key to our ability to respond to a number of flashpoints in the world. Ithink were dealing with a lot of flashpoints right now, not just russia. Youre dealing with failed states in the middle east and syria and iran. Were dealing with north korea. Dealing with russia,were dealing with china. Were dealing with cyber attacks. All of which are threatening our National Security. I think one of the keys to be able to respond to that many threats first of all is to have the United States be a world leader. I dont think we should withdraw fromleadership in the world. Ithink we have to be a world leader. And as a world leader i think we have to be not only strengthening the Nato Alliance is our primary alliance in dealing with russia but i also think we ought to be building new alliances in Southeast Asia and we ought to be building an alliance with those countries to try to check china. And i think there is that possibility area if we work with those countries and i was secretary of defense i was trying to build that kind of relationship on a security basis so that we were working together on security areas. I think we can build an alliance in the middle east made up of moderate arab countries, made up of israel to try to deal with the threat from iran. Try to deal with the threat fromterrorism. I think we can build an alliance in south america, in africa. Alliances are going to be the key. To our ability to preserve peace and prosperity in the future so i would stress that. Thirdly, diplomacy. I think its critical that we have a strong diplomatic arm available and that we have good diplomats in these areas who represent the United States and keep their ear to the ground and can tell us what kind of threats are out there. And i also believe very deeply in a strong intelligence capability. We just cant do this unless we have information about what the hell our adversaries are up to and we can operate in the dark. No leader can operate in the dark so getting thekind of intelligence is a good thing , not a bad thing area its a good thing to be able to have our spies and our sources and our capabilities out there trying to gather information on where these threats are real and providing that you are opinion makers lastly, something that you mentioned that i think is really important is somehow, weve got to restore a sense of bipartisanship when it comes to our National Security interests. During most of my career in the Congress Even when i was secretary of defense, i really worked to give bipartisan support with regards to what i was doing. And i did get bipartisan support and was very important. I think somehow weve got to get back to that spirit of bipartisanship. I know the politics of today and i know what all of you are putting up with one way or the other but some point, we really have to be concerned about this country. And right now i think putin looks at the United States and looks at the polarization and the partisanship and the divide that has taken place in our country and sees that as weakness on thepart of the United States. When we are together, we are working together, there is no country stronger in the United States of america so i hope at some point we can get back to a spirit of true bipartisanship when it comes to National Security my time has expired and i think your point is well treated these exploited western elections in europe longer than hes been doing in the United States with the intention to take our divisions and undermine our strength of governing and hes had a limited hand that hes played pretty well but you know mister chairman my time has expired but on those three categories, diplomacy and our Nato Alliance, are we stronger or weaker than we were 30 years ago, four years ago . I worry that we sent a signal. When ive gone abroad, our nato allies are concerned about the commitment of the United States toward the Nato Alliance and thats not agood thing. So it really is important and i commend the congress because i think the congress has spokenclearly about the importance of protecting nato. I think its important for the president of the United States to the importance as much as possible so that our nato allies know that the United States is going to be a partner and will be there if something should happen. Thank you. You know, i want to thank all of our members for being patient and if you have to be patient and you have to be somewhere in the country to be patient i would probably rather be insan diego and many other places. I like to recognize representative juan vargas and san diego. Mister chairman thank you so much, can you hear me . I want to thank you for holding this hearing and the Ranking Member i appreciate it very much mister secretary you for being here i would be read this and as my colleagues have said if i didnt tell you about my affection towards her son jenny. Hes a wonderful member and a good friend to all of us and you do have a very unique perspective and this obviously has come out in this hearing as you were the secretary of defense, the director of the cia and you were the white house chief of staff but i thank you for your words and your perspective. And unfortunately i think you are correct that we are in the middle of the cold war which i think is too bad. A lot of us to leave or wanted to believe that when the ironcurtain came down that we were going to be able to work with russia. Russia does have a lot of western thought in it, a lot of the books that we love, that we read in college, just yesterday, though they are written by russians so a lot of us are hopeful and unfortunately turned to despair i think when they went the hard line with. I have to say that i agree with everything you said about the asymmetric deals that can puton this field different. Putting a bounty on us soldiers to kill them to me feels different. Wheni read about this, when i heard about it , i think it was almost a red on blue attack area could you comment on that because this to me doesnt feel the same as what hes been doing previously. You know, in some ways it is, its difficult to believe that an adversary would put a bounty out there in order to kill us men and women in combat. And it strikes me as putin taking a very careless step. I think its careless. To think that, i mean assuming this is true and as i said it sounds like something that might come out of his playbook. But i think its an indication that putin feels empowered to do things that you would not otherwise do. And because he doesnt pay a price, because were not taking steps to make clear to him that this will not be tolerated, i think what it does is it gives him a sense that we can try to do something that we may not have done before but if its successful and if us men and women are killed as a result of this and if the United States is so depressed by our presence in afghanistan that we remove our forces from afghanistan, then it could play to his benefitand i think thats the way he thinks. He doesnt think its as a world leader, he thinks of a former spy. I think what led to this. In many senses it seems careless but reckless too. Incredibly reckless. Assuming for a second that is true that the intelligence comes back and says this is what they were attempting to do and they say they were successful, got for me they were one of the things we previously and we havent done is kick russia out of the Banking System we have that secures these transactions to always thought he would act recklessly and many others have said youd better not do that. What do you think would happen if we did take a dramatic step to kick them out and you took a look at iran,thats what we did to iran obviously. How would hereact . Its that old story about the jackass that wouldnt move and the guy finally hits the jackass across the head with a stick and somebody said what are you doing and he says im trying to get his attention. I think we may have to do something bold in order to gets attention. I think right now who can does not really believe that the United States is going to respond in a way that is going to really undermine russia. And undermine him. So i think it may be necessary to send a bold signal. To russia that he has crossed the line. I think when you take steps to put a price on the head of our men and women in uniform, that is crossing the line that is unacceptable. And i think we do need to send russia a very clear signal that is not to be tolerated. Thank you again, my time is expired. Maybe we need that to buyfor to teach russia but thank you again mister secretary. The chair recognizes mister sherman. Mister secretary, thank you for your service and thank you for donatingyour son to our institution. The loudest testimony on this we heard yesterday from the secretary demeo whose decision not to come before the full committee speaks volumes about how the policymaking process in the white house and the policies they actually derive their are simply indefensible and cannot be defended. Russia and the United States have a long history of arming each others enemies. Thousands of our troops died in vietnam at the hands of soviet weapons. Thousands of russians died in afghanistan in part because of the mujahadeen but thats when we treated each other as enemies. For years russia has known to have been providing weapons to the talent than and for the most part those weapons are used to killamericans. But now theyve added this additional obscenity by putting a bounty on the heads of american soldiers so they are acting like an enemy and they learned that they can act like an enemy and wetreat them like a friend. The president best those great honor and friendship when he brings up the g8. We have, we still allow our Financial Institutions to lend money to the russian state. And we had a law requiring that sanctions be imposed on the sovereign debt issue and the treasury imposed the lightest possible version of these that still allows for americans to invest in russian sovereign debt and american banks to a russian state enterprise area of course, [inaudible] and of course theres a pipeline being built that will make germany dependent on natural gas. We are using limited resources in many areas of the world. We can have primary sanctions where we take action and a secondary sanctions to urge our allies to do something for these men and women. [inaudible] we can sell weapons or provide weapons. [inaudible] we should at least make it clear they should not be allowed in the g8 and american Financial Institutions shouldnt be lending money to the russian state or its state owned enterprises, with that be a starting point . I think youve outlined the options that are available very well. And i dont think theres any question that any one of those options whether it was to take away that invitation to the g7, g8 or whether its to tighten up the sanctions in a way that really would have an impact in terms of russia. I think doing that would send a message that the United States is not going to simply look in the other direction while the russians do what theyre doing. Thatsignal needs to be sent. Ill point out that the top sanctions on russian sovereign debt are to increase their borrowing cost about half a percentage point which in the financial world is very solid and that we in the house passed my men that would accomplish that and if it gets it out in the senate they will have a chance you that again withthe and the aa. Secretary and we also provide more weapons than we have two ukraine and georgia . Obviously i think our ability to provide military aid to the ukraine is extremelyimportant. In sending that signal to russia that we are not going to allow the ukraine to be taken over by russia. And i dont think theres any question that we ought to be looking at what additional military aid could we provide that would assist Ukrainian Forces in their efforts to try to maintain their independence. Thank you and i think the chair for letting me participate even though im here. Thank you mister chairman, i asked the Ranking Member if he has any closing statements otherwise i have afew closing remarks. Thanking the members who participated and you mister secretary, there was talk about bipartisanship and you can see through this committee, this collegiality we dont agree on everything but you can see i think in a and the republicans see and members of congress who Work Together and we do understand the import of that. I do want to just have a couple of closing remarks. Despite that collegiality, this is a as serious as it gets as anissue. This is as me and most members its heartbreaking and anxious time with the information that bounties could have been placed on militaries heads. But what were suffering through is nothing compared to our troops that are serving and the family members of the troops are lost have been going through and i emphasize our hearts and our convictions, we are with them and this isnt going to go away. The perception that some of something came across the president asked and he missed it, just doesnt cut it with. I mean, just in the time between that briefing and the end of february it was on his desk, and what transpired, thats one swing in this. There were six calls in preparation, person to person between our president and putin, six. Seven thing, you know, before the seven discussion and invitation there was another period where he had to sit down and say, hey, this is going o. Before you give that invitation. Before you do Something Like cut the europeans deterrence funding, which is one of those most popular programs that deters russia and brings our allies together. Before we went to informing the british that this was a threat to them, are we to believe we will be discerning faq lied to a discussion on russias influence in the United Kingdom and the rest of europe. You are watching live coverage on