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. The ally. I can tell you we are very concerned particularly the Baltic States its a great deal to bolster their defenses with a true presence on their soil. With european allies what action are we pressing to do with russias continued aggression and also to realign the burden sharing we are also very focused on the vulnerabilities on the eastern flank of nato these democracies are vulnerable to russia and intimidation and the tactics and to undermine those societies from within that are quite dramatic to boost those defenses as well. Thank you very much. Thank you both for being here in your Opening Statement talk about progress that has been made reducing Nuclear Tensions and i have listened to the back and forth do you support an extension of the new start treaty. I would support it will have to contribute to our goal and then to look for those opportunities and then to find ways. And then we need to see negotiations resume with her actions whether but they their words they would like to continue uninterrupted military buildup. I appreciate that i think we were all agree thats not something we dont want to allow that to continue to happen but i am asking you about new start only. Isnt it possible to move forward to negotiate other issues with the other nations in terms of Nuclear Weapons. Why would we not want to do that i think he would if thats the best way forward to meet the longerterm objective so whats a long term concern . With that agreement with china but those weapons that he might want to include in the treaty. As i indicated thats one of the questions we are considering we dont have a decision from the inter agency as of yet but thats one of the things. I would suggest i do think this is a red hearing long as sharing we cant do anything how we can best move forward to continue their progress under new start and negotiate a broader agreement. Ambassador hail iam concerned about the repercussions and what that means of increase sheet one increasing russias influence what that withdrawal has done to strengthen the position in syria quex. We deal one do still have troops in line with all the news we have seen in october and to continue to have a dialogue. So whats happening in that part of syria. The envoy handling these matters. And the secretary has engaged as well and then to cooperate well with the russians unless they do so. Thats the only leverage we have and that potential revenue could go down. That we have not suggested that is an option in syria. I have not had that discussion myself. The president was just in afghanistan and planning to resolve talks with the taliban has there been any discussions with russia with respect to syria or afghanistan over a potential role they can play to address that resurgence vices on isys. Those talks to the russian counterparts we would like to see stronger russian cooperation to help the political process. What is the response quex. They have not offered the only support not to be engaged fullblown in the fight against isys and as we think about restarting talks with the television on the taliban and what are the discussions around the resurgence of isys or the growing presence in what we will be asking the taliban and to do with respect to isys isis. This is a growing concern i was ambassador to pakistan of my last assignment and we were ringing the alarm bills effectively we need to make sure all elements are prepared to come into the process to focus on that problem. I would hope you would consider a classified hearing because isis is a problem in negotiations with the taliban and in afghanistan thats a huge threat we need to be concerned about. I agree with that. Senator paul. Ambassador hail, sanctions are intended to change behavior can you name specific changes in russia because of sanctions . Its a work in process to have russia withdraw from ukraine to violate human rights and continue to see interference and elections. Are there any changes quex. Its hard to measure. It will take time. For those specific behaviors we dont like her there is no change and russias behavior are there discussions saying if you do ask we will remove the sanctions . Every back to that level. I think they are well aware of what they need to do. But no specific discussions quex. Not if you do this then it will be asked. I think this illustrates the problem its easy to put sanctions on and change behavior but if its not working then we need to reconsider exactly what we are doing we also put sanctions on congress we know better than the president so do you think that makes it easier or harder to negotiate Behavioral Changes that the president does have the means or the power to remove quex. It makes it harder you put your thumb on the important point with the flexibility the threat could be more effective. The only time i could think of when sanctions appeared to work to put on threatening sanctions on air to one erdogan but then they have almost no leverage in and leave them on for decades and then it does appear anything is changing. We actually get the opposite it solidify the behavior because once they get the backup we will never do that. But the contrary argument to be engaged and sign the agreement so as we look at the world we can tell them what to good do but it doesnt seem evidence of it working but at least the argument can be made with a longstanding embargo with cuba that is the opposite of the intended effect because for decades they say the economy sucks because of the embargo so at least to be open to the argument if sanctions work but we should also have an additional effort to say we want to have this talk with you if you do ask we will do ask. The problem is so many things with an unrealistic proposition with russia when you leave crimea than we are relieving your sanctions. I dont agree with the policy its very unlikely they ever leave unless somebody pushes them out. That eventually the russians will say we have no effect so we have to look at if we believe they work and have negotiations with their adversaries if you do ask we will do ask. Three had to relieve sanctions and members of the legislature we are sanctioning diplomacy but thats a very small sanction that could be exchange thats what the russians want to exchange Little Things for Little Things instead of for everything as a consequence nothing ever happens because our goals are too large and unreasonable. That are targeted and specific in nature. And thats the key. And i would just make a general point we should not look at them in isolation. Thank you senator there are valid points without the thought process that you need. But to say how effective because you cant measure something they did not do so the ability of the administration it is important thank you very much. Thank you Ranking Member menendez under secretary hail for your testimony today. Under secretary hail russia attacked our elections has every intention of doing so of the director of National Intelligence as you use self said moscow ingle engages and well resourced operations directed by the highest levels of the russian government and under the threat it is essential for developing a longterm response testify before the house Intelligence Committee the Russian Intelligence Service has promoted a false narrative and you told senator menendez that you are not aware of any credible evidence that ukraine interfered in our election so where do you agree that understanding the russian threat it is clear there is no evidence of ukraine interfering in the elections have you seen any intelligence assessment that would support the idea ukraine interfered in the 2016 election quex. Ive seen nothing thats incredible one credible. What about executive Branch Officials that asserted ukraine interfered in the 2016 election . Anyone other than President Trump. Thats correct so if a politician of either branch repeats this information falsely does that promote our diplomatic interest for National Security quex. They can debate any ideas that they want proven with russian interference. So word it be in the interest of securing our election with the American Public and american legislatures quex. I said i see no credible evidence so from a policy practitioner its not a pressure problem. I worked with colleagues from both parties to secure 250 million this year Election Security funding and the appropriation bill that has not passed yet to produce on prevent future cyberattacks is that a wise domestic investment for Election Security . Should we do that and more to secure against russian aggression quex. I am not familiar with the details of the legislation but in principle we should do everything we can to defend against these attacks here at home and our allies. But russia needs to pay a price and the ongoing support for separatist to undermine democracy and the support for aside and the list goes on. One where russia has stepped up is in africa. To have those ties with african countries is top policy goals he convened 40 african heads of state to demonstrate their influence. Recent elections in madagascar are in congo in zimbabwe so last month i introduce the deportation that include sanction on russian intervention with that strategy to push back in libya and according to reports there are hundreds of mercenaries in libya. What is a state department doing to the countries i just mentioned quex. I dont think that has a yielding result. But then two. 2 policy towards africa. We are trying our best to make sure our relationships with africa are wellmaintained but also increasing the assistance levels and thats an important area of the security. Thats very important. And the strategy there is to bring about a ceasefire in compliance with the Security Council resolution and then to put a spotlight on russia and their presence but it is most unsatisfactory. I look forward to our work to keep the line of communication with this administration because continuing to cooperate standing up to aggression for our election is very important for our future. Biggie for your testimony today. Secretary undersecretary hale focusing on the russia problem the Administration Needs a far more focus i want to focus where the administration can do better. Start that in your judgment if russia completes the pipeline what is the effect for russia and europe and the United States quex. Negative its another tool for the kremlin to use resources to undermine and destabilize ukraine. And the last regulatory barrier to look at those rules to complete. My understanding now we are away from the completion of that pipeline. I offer her Bipartisan Legislation by the overwhelming bipartisan vote 20 two to stop the pipeline it is like a scalpel designed specifically to lay the pipeline to complete the pipeline. So even in this bizarre partisan time can manage to Work Together to pass that legislation as part of the National Defense authorization act. And try to make that happen with the bipartisan victory for the senate and the United States. That being said come at the end of the day we dont need to pass that legislation. The administration has full authority right now today to impose those same sanctions to shut down to stop it right now today. Why has the administration not yet acted quex. This is something we share. Has that succeeded is there a snowballs chance in hell that talking to the german ambassador will suddenly magic stopped the pipeline. Not with the german ambassador we have leadership on this and it is still unfolding. We do still have some time. And if we come to the conclusion and to take that to have multiple conversations on this topic time is of the essence. The strategy to pursue our options at this point with 100 percent certainty where the pipeline to be completed and europe made Energy Defendant and weaken the position in the world. The administration can stop it it is only inertia. And those trend judgments and then to stop this pipeline i want to be very clear. And those who sat on the rear end and did not exercise that you have the overwhelming bipartisan mandate it is clear and achievable. And with the inertia within the administration. And then to exercise the Clear Authority before it is completed next month. And talk about the open skies because it startled me. It is my understanding it is directly contrary the assessment of the Intelligence Community than the director of the ant Defense Intelligence agency told congress the construct is designed for a different area to go foundational intelligence and then gives putin significant advantage. That ahead of strack calm said it gives russia a capability to parts of our countries and other nations forgo the chairman joint chief of staff told congress we believe that treaty should be in place of the russians are not complying. You told this Committee Russia is in chronic noncompliance. We are allowing them to fly over the United States with defense infrastructure new york city we are making ourselves vulnerable and doing little to nothing because what we gain from our Satellite Technology and russia is not completing with the treaty how is that in our interest to benefit the Russia Military by exposing our differences while not gaining serious actionable intelligence on the other side but in the course of the open skies review. And clearly as you try to point out the relevant question is between the benefits that it offers and the challenges it presents. And that they are trying to assess and that they seem to feel they are confidence building benefits. And at the end of the day as to in those elements on both sides. Thank you to both of you for coming its good to see you again. I want to begin with a policy toward russia you have preferences toward nato and start with a direct question how important is the future of us policy to russia . I say is absolutely essential that it is inconceivable what the world would be like to support that until today. But i take your testimony that nato remains important the important element of us policy toward russia. But a strong vibrant continuous faceoff. I believe so there is intensity at that point that i would support that. I would have no quarrel with the administration pressing nato allies to only feel the commitment and the benefit but to contribute proportionately is a smart thing to do. I have a piece of legislation pending before the committee to the energyrelated bill and i hope we can take it up at the next business meeting the piece of legislation to say in honor of the nato 70th anniversary no president could withdraw from nato but it would have to be accomplished either by the Senate Ratification or through an act of congress. With Something Like that provide assurance to our allies United States intends to stay as a partner as we view that structure to benefit not only the United States but other nations of the world quex. To address the specifics to the legal authorities and privileges with my meetings of nato allies there is no alarm over the us position they are focused on appropriate sharing. The french president said nato has concerns among european allies to back away from nato. I dont want to characterize the comments to make us not an expression . He has legitimate concerns to make sure it is relevant and clear in our commitments. This piece of legislation is bipartisan to send a strong message the United States whichever partys dominance that is a legal question and nato is ratified the constitution from the treaties and that is silent for someone like that that congress is free to legislate. And this is an ambiguity congress one congress can legislate to provide reassurance to our nato allies. This is very important to your own testimony it is my hope but would require some congressional action so that the 70th anniversary what does university and what we can attest to and i yelled back. And to be aggressively outspoken by russia but i am fascinated with the tactical Nuclear Weapons and then to take a big breath how totally consumed american policy has become within a nation of gdp was less than the state of texas and brazil. And earlier i was watching and that they dont fully appreciate or understand those groups and entire lead domestically but that sense of injustice and inequality and in many ways around the world with Vladimir Putin to position himself as a great historic father. And then to invade crimea. And the argument to all these different groups that he was the one bringing them together and to do around the world and is designed to remind people. Much of this is as anything else to distract from the domestic problems and isnt that a significant driver to rally around the sense of pride with domestic policies as the indispensable leader which they are not economically but can project in smart and creative ways to about to pull off the charade. And as much of that to distract from those internal problems that they are experiencing. Not that we shouldnt look into things but it would be my sense he is greatly enjoying watching politics and be consumed by it. It is consistent what we know what the russians try to do through social media. Is not because i dont want us to focus on that is a very good bipartisan report but to figure out how to do two things. On the one hand address and pass the act which would put in place sanctions that would kick in because i do think putin is a costbenefit analyzer if the cost outweighs the benefits but also we need to be cautious or aware of these ongoing efforts. So for example the whole impeachment situation playing out nationally but i will tell you just in back and watch how they are using this as a way that america is completely dysfunctional the second argument that it doesnt work they also viewed it as a relationship with ukraine and the goal to exacerbate the domestic tensions and also to argue our system is corrupt sometimes we get tunnel vision and think this is supporting one single individual this is long after any of us are gone to weaken us get us to fight one another and to come apart at the seams because as a person who has a smile on his face because it strengthens the argument as a Global Player thats my comment. [laughter] so if we harm ourselves more internally can espouse the very essence so secretary hail on a different matter the way that the state Operation Center participates we are concerned with the lack of transparency and record one recordkeeping and keeping the American Public at a time we know the president Senior State Department officials can carry official policy on cell phones. Not looking for an answer 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 an effort to keep the American Public, congress from understanding our governments communications with foreign leaders. I urge you to bring this back to the secretary if there was ever a time as disconcerting as we are right now. Im not aware of any proposed change i understand your concerns and questions and well get back to the committee. Very briefly you repeated to the first rounds of questions that detractors repeatedly bring up and how they cannot constrain those systems by russia has already stated with the icbm and the hypersonic vehicle will find followed to the new start. They have said that that turns out to be the case the poseidon and to others would not be covered in that respect. So cannot imagine where the systems would be covered. And then you cannot dismiss that and with those other systems of concerns cannot even reach deployment during the lifespan that has been extended. So why join the echoes of concerns first on the china angle it is dramatically under the us ability of a Nuclear Arsenal. So that creates a real dilemma from what senator merkley pointed out in the russian systems are reason not to is also alarming when we have seen that they have agreed to do. So i would urge the administration looking at new start in a totally different way and even some of our allies. And then to purchase you had meetings with the egyptians quex. I am not permitted to speak about any specific information we have about any russian or to say we are very active. I dont know why we what we are talking about it was out there in the public realm. But we are active around the world around moscow and egypt to understand the potential section 231 and to have conversations with those points of the importance to avoid that exposure as well as elsewhere. These are the engagements that are successful around the world and essential to turn off to dissuade. I would like to get a classified briefing and other items as to what one where were pursuing other entities you have all the authorities of the under secretary for arms control and interNational Security. Is that correct quex. On the 21st of october to delegate the authorities of that officer. Okay. Here is an example you have been nominated for such a position this is a case of the state department playing fast and loose hoping nobody will notice in order to do that you should be nominated for the position and if you were nominated under the law you would serve for only 210 days. This is another concern from the state department that seems to circumvent this jurisdiction of the committee. Of course there is no intent that recognition to have those duties. I agree. Nominated at the end of the day dont circumvent the committee you all think we are asleep at the switch. We are not. We are not. Thats right. And then i will try to make this as quex as i can. So in regards to ukraine the occupation was happening falls into the russia playbook and to apply for membership to have many questions during this hearing that the press accounts of ukraine being involved in our election is stoked by some individuals works into russias playbook even though there is no fax at all from the security people of the Intelligence Committee that ukraine was involved at all in the 2016 elections. I want to proceed with the peace talk first at minsk with the minsk protocols in russia was very as well excited but never complied. Now we have the formation and i would love to hear undersecretary hale your thoughts how is russia winning the debate how we will resolve conflict in ukraine with the formula to ignore the occupation of crimea and still keep a divided country cracks what is going on in this process . We are united with their allies in europe and leadership with ukraine to get the russians out of ukraine. Eastern ukraine is part of ukraine thats part of the objective and with those initiatives it is good and i dont want to predict anything that hasnt fully formed but we have seen president zelensky with some success has been able to engage in dialogue but we need to see much more on the security front prior to any Political Activities and that gets to the heart of the issue of the occupation. And with the star meyer formation . It looks like ukraine is following that russia seems to be excited about it from what we have been told, are we assured we will not end up with a legitimacy . I thank you have a lot of support here in congress obviously we would like to ease the tensions wherever we can thats a positive step but it doesnt play by any organized playbook the objective is to keep us divided its hard to imagine that it does not extend the vision of ukraine. Thank you mister chairman. Thank you to both witnesses we appreciate your testimony here today the record will remain open and witnesses could respond rapidly and the committee is adjourned. [inaudible conversations] the hearing will come to order. Senate Armed Services subcommittee will receive testimony about servicemember family veteran suicide to learn about evidencebased Suicide Prevention strategies. Are fortunate to experts from