Record subject to limitation and the rules. Please have your staff email the previously mentioned address or contact for committee staff. Please keep your video function on at all times. Even when you are not recognized by the chair. Members are responsible for muting. Mute yourself after you are finished speaking. I now recognize myself for opening remarks. We meet to discuss reporting that russia put bounties on america and allied troops. Forian cash pouring exchange for american lives. While we will steer clear from discussing classified information, its safe to say these allegations and claims were never denied by the white house. Russias actions, if true, or unacceptable. The American People are american answer demanding answers and accountability. Nowicas longest war, approaching two decades of continued conflict, still rages on in afghanistan, bringing the 9 11 terrorist to justice with an imperative. The few would argue that National Security interests are being served by this and this war. This past week, a young soldier from my hometown died in a rollover accident. And dreamedars old of becoming a nurse after serving in the army. I express my condolences to his family and the more than 2000 American Families who lost a loved one during this conflict. We need to bring this endless war to a close. Today, this committee looks to answer an important question. Why has russia faced no consequences, not even a public review, from the Trump Administration . We invited secretary pompeo to testify today. He refused, which is what weve come to expect. While he makes plenty of time for interviews on fox news, he rarely, if ever, summoned the courage to answer questions from his former colleagues in the house of representatives, as every other secretary of state before him has done. Russia is not our friend. Vladimir putin is not a partner of the United States. Hes a dictator, who just last week extended his tenure to 2036. Hes robbed his people of their rights, trampled on the sovereignty of his neighbors, use the resources of the russian government to undermine democracy, spencer nato and the eu. His tools are disinformation, violent suppression, and assassination. All of that is contemptible enough. But putting a price on american heads is a serious escalation. Exactly how the intelligence on this matter will be presented to the president is still unclear. The Trump Administrations excuses keep changing. Perhaps it was in his briefing, but that doesnt necessarily the briefers briefed him on it because it is widely known President Trump doesnt read the Daily Briefing. Or maybe they didnt brief him , even it was disputed though only intelligence that is majorly significant makes it into the Daily Briefing. A usual with President Trump, long way from the buck stops here. True, it paints a picture of incompetence at the highest level of our National Security apparatus. But what troubles me the most from a Foreign Policy perspective is what this white house did and did not do once it received this information. Was there a public condemnation of russia and Vladimir Putin from the trumpet ministration . Do the state the Trump Administration . Did the taliban, with whom weve been at war for nearly two decades, gave rise . And defense state departments doing to protect Service Members . How are they working with native allies, contributing to the support mission in afghanistan with us to address this threat . None of that. Thismatter of fact, president kept doing since he has been doing before he was elected, posing up to Vladimir Putin. President trump has released a joint statement with Vladimir Putin, directed the purchase of faulty ventilators, and withdrew from the open skies treaty, a critical part in monitoring russian activity. He also ordered the reduction of troop presence in germany, an act met with rebuke and criticism from our allies, but was praised from the russians. He even wanted to expand the g7 to include russia again, which was expelled from the group in 2014 following prudents illegal putinson ash putin illegal annexation of crimea. This issue is not without precedent. In 2011, the Obama Administration discovered pakistani officers ordered to attack. How did the Obama Administration respond . Secretary clinton and chairman of the joint chiefs contracted confronted pakistani officials and publicly shamed them even though we were relying on them for access into on thestan, they called intelligence agencies. White house officials stood up for americans and the troops in harms way. Administration tries to distort reality and gaslight the American People is a page out of Vladimir Putins playbook. But the facts are clear. The Trump Administration failed in its most sacred duty, to keep americans safe. I hope our witnesses can navigate this today and provide ideas and insight about what our policy should look like under the circumstances. But before i turned to witnesses, i want to recognize mike mccall of texas for his opening [no audio] thank you, mr. Chairman. I hope everybody can hear me ok. Thank you for calling this important hearing. As i have said time and time again, and i agree with the chairman that Vladimir Putin is not our friend, not a friend to the United States or our allies. In the past few years, weve witnessed his regime invade parts of georgia, unleash Cyber Attacks against our allies, using nerve agents to try and kill a former russian spy in the in. , prop up corrupt regimes syria and venezuela. They meddled in our elections. The undermined american interests around the world. He has proven he just cannot be trusted and he certainly is not our friend. And now we are faced with allegations the Russian Military intelligence unit, the gru, has paid talibanlinked militants to kill americans and Coalition Forces in afghanistan. While its not news moscow provided the taliban with weapons and other support, and theyve been there since 1979, russia paying bounties for the murders of american Service Members would be an on acceptable escalation. If true unacceptable escalation. If true, the Administration Must take swift action to hold putin accountable. That would include not inviting russia to join the g7. We have passed sanctions today on these russian entities. Ultimately, there is nothing more important than protecting our american troops serving overseas. We can all agree we must take any threat to their safety seriously, especially from someone with a track record like putin. I hope we use our time today to discuss how to effectively deal with the autocrat in the kremlin rather than descending into a partisan blame game. The only person who benefits from american infighting over this issue is Vladimir Putin. He loves chaos. After last weeks sham nationwide vote in russia, that allows putin to remain in power through 2036, essentially making him the emperor of russia, its even more critical for americans to Work Together with our allies, especially through nato, to counter putins nefarious activities around the world. While the topic of this hearing will center around russia and Vladimir Putin, the backdrop is afghanistan. I urge my colleagues to into supporting our partners in afghanistan to help bring peace and stability to our country. Ramani,d, ambassador devoted herself to helping secure that feature for afghanistan. I want to thank this opportunity to thank her for her unwavering dedication to that mission. I think its very commendable afghanistan appoint a female ambassador to the United States, and i hope that she will be made a part of the negotiating team when they meet with the taliban. I would also like to know i appreciate the white house quickly providing briefings on todays topic on both sides of the aisle, including myself, chairman, and others on the committee. I know my colleagues want to get the full story, so i would encourage them to read all the classified materials provided on this important matter to get the entire picture. Finally, i would like to think the chairman and witnesses for their testimony. And with that, i yield back. Thank you, raking member mccall. I am now going to introduce the witnesses. The first witness is michael morel, former acting director and Deputy Director of the central direct Central Intelligence agency, one of the leading National Security professionals, and has been at the center of the fight against terrorism, worked to prevent proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and efforts to counter u. S. Adversaries like russia and china. In charges previously of organizing the president s daily brief under president george w. Bush. Dr. Wallwitness is. Nder, 4 dr. Wallander expert onading russian Foreign Policy, defense, and military affairs, and is the current resident and ceo of the u. S. Russia foundation. Asviously, she served secretary of defense. Was a professor at the american university. Suspendedu. S. Army expanded 26 years. Adjunctserves as an faculty member on leadership with Harvard Universitys john f. Kennedy school of government and as a member of harvards center, which sustains track to dialogue between retired americans and russian senior officials for military and intelligence backgrounds. Last but not least, we have ian, former secretary of defense for europe and nato, and National SecuritiesAffairs Staff are. Nato,a leading expert in with more than three decades of experience in government service. Hes a senior fellow on strategy and security and cancels future europes and the councils future europe initiative. Thank you for being here. I will now recognize each witness for five minutes. And without objection, your written statements will be made part of the record. Mr. Morel . Chairman castro, thank you Ranking Member mccall and members of this distinguished committee. Good afternoon. Its an honor for me to be here with you today, and also an theseto testify alongside distinct panelists. For the sake of time, im going to summarize what i submitted to the committee. What i want to focus on is what i know, which is how the collection, and analytic processes of the Intelligence Community work. Heather pdb process works. How the policy process on Something Like this would have worked at senior levels of the bush and Obama Administrations, in which i spent much time in the situation room. So with that in mind, i want to make eight points. One, there is a misperception about who receives raw intelligence. Many assume that it only goes to Intelligence Community analysts, who decide what to share and in what context to intelligence consumers. That perception is not accurate. Raw intelligence gets disseminated widely to Intelligence Analysts, yes, but also to were fighters in the field, at the pentagon, policymakers at state department and defense department, as well as the senior white house officials via the white house situation room. Important point here is that many people would have already seen the raw intelligence as the analysts were just beginning their work on it. Two, a key question with regard to the raw intelligence is whether it was clear to a reader what might be happening, that is what the russians might be doing with these bounties, or if it was possible to only see that by connecting a number of dots. I dont know what the case was here. But even if it was only vaguely clear from the raw intelligence that the russians might be paying bounties for the killing of american soldiers, that information would have made its way to the highest levels of the United States government, including the president , before the analysts concluded their work. Lead agencies in assessing the informations would have been the Central Intelligence agency, the Defense Intelligence agency, and the counterterrorism agency. They would assess the information and come to two separate judgments. One, whether or not they believed moscow was offering the bounty. And if they believed that, number two, their level of confidence in that judgment, low, medium, or high. Four, if the analysts believed, at any level of confidence, that the russians were providing the bounty, that judgment would be presented in the pdb. If the president does not read the pdb, and not all president s have, it would have been briefed to them. If not by the briefer, then the director of national intelligence, director of the cia, or Senior Administration officials who were aware of it, such as the National Security five, contrary to what has been said by some, a dissent within them within the Intelligence Community on either the judgment itself or on the confidence level would not keep the piece out of the pdb, rather that is the dissent would be noted in the pdb. Six, once the piece was in the pdb the ic leadership on something of this significance would brief congress as early as the same day as the piece ran in the pdb, and certainly no later than the next day. Seven, if the Intelligence Community assessed the russians were providing the bounties at any level of confidence, that would kick off a policy process inside the nsc staff on how the u. S. Should response respond. The analysts level of confidence would make a difference to that process. A medium to high level of confidence would lead to a policy decision i believe on how to respond, while a low level of confidence would result in a decision that more intelligence was necessary before a policy decision to be made. I will leave it to general nicholson to explain how the war fighters in afghanistan would have reacted to the information and to the analysis at any level of confidence. Finally, a medium to high level confidence judgment that the russians were offering the bounties would in every administration that i worked in , and i worked in six, have resulted in some sort of policy action designed to deter the russians Going Forward. The safety of our troops would have required it. Mr. Chairman, let me stop there, and i look forward to answering the committees questions thank questions. Thank you. We will now go to dr. Wallander. Thank you. I think the Committee Members for the invitation to contribute to your work. Today i will summarize my written testimony and for the purposes of todays discussion i will assume that the publicly reported details of the intelligence assessment are accurate. These operations are embedded in a nearly decadelong Russian Campaign of strategic competition that aims to weaken the United States and advance russian power and influence. The russian leadership recognizes that while it is while it does appear to the United States and Strategic Nuclear capabilities it does not match the United States in global power projection and in conventional military capabilities. Russia seeks to compete where it has advantages in the asymmetric terrain and to avoid competition that could lead to its failure. Russia has invested in tools and methods to asymmetrically counter american advantages, whether those lie in extreme extremist in social media, limited military interventions in ukraine and syria cyber intrusions and networks and infrastructure abroad or interfering in american and european politics. Russia also deploys asymmetric tools to deny responsibility , however implausible that deniability has proven, in order to be able to operate with impunity and exploit ambiguities. This takes place in the phase zero end of the conflict spectrum, the sub military conflict strategic environment in which diplomatic , informational, political, and Economic Conditions shape a countrys capacity to secure its interest short of active military confrontation. The concept is not unique to you to Russian Security doctrine, but it has sent its centrality and asymmetric nature is distinctive in russian doctrine and operations. Russian asymmetric phase zero operations are conducted not only by political, but also Russian Military actors, primarily Russian Military intelligence, the gru, and quasi private actors such as the vogner. The earliest stages of operations in ukraine in march of 2014 political protests were manag