tv Senate Foreign Relations Committee on U.S.- Russia Relations CSPAN August 21, 2018 10:02am-12:01pm EDT
about people who fought for this nation in uniform and outside of uniform. it is all about america together. st: the former deputy assistant to the president and national security advisory staff member for the trump administration. thank you very much. we are taking you right now to the senate foreign relations committee. i hear he taking a look at u.s.-russia relations. that hearing set to take place momentarily.
>> foreign relations committee will come to order. we want to thank our witnesses for being here today for the second in a series of hearings on russia. this committee is attempting to get a clearer sense of the administration's overall posture on russia. we thank you both for being here. we have outstanding witnesses today. we would like to understand what was agreed to when the leaders of our two countries sat down in helsinki. discussionse were about future arms agreements. today, we have received no real readout, even in a classified setting of this meeting. we would like to understand the administration's assessment of the threat posed by russia to us, to our allies and other countries and institutions around the world.
finally, we need a better understanding of how russian , despite strong objections from the white house, are being implemented. russia has annexed crimea and occupied parts of georgia, interfered with elections, including our own, violated the ins treaty, used chemical weapons into poison individuals in the united kingdom, and even reportedly hacked u.s. utilities. these offenses are bad enough, believe us wondering what is next? what does the administration believed they will next do? the past teaches us that even worse things may lay just over the horizon if we fail to push back now, and make clear to president putin that our nation is united from the very top to the bottom. standing against his destabilizing behavior both in
policy and in public posture. yous my hope that today, will reassure the members of this community that our executive branch is doing all theits power to convince russians not to continue testing our resolve. we thank you both for our forice to our country, being here today and look forward to your testimony. with that, i will turn to bob menendez. >> i join you in your words and concerns. i hope this is part of the series of hearings toward policy toward the u.s. and russia. more than a month after president trump's helsinki meeting, we remain in the dark about what the two leaders discussed. we continue to hear more information, accurate or not, from the russian government and from our own. it is not only embarrassing, but
i believe this lack of transparency has implications for our national security. i'm not convinced that those who need to know in our own executive branch have a full understanding of what happened. after more than three hours with secretary pompeo, this committee has little more insight and we did before the hearing. since the administration has failed to answer congressional information,rovide i am formally requesting the department to provide all classified and unclassified cable traffic related to the helsinki meeting. i won't spend time today running through russia's ongoing transgressions. i think president trump's and others have warned that russia continues to undermine our democracy. russia uses chemical weapons to attack its opponents abroad. it in vase its neighbors and illegally annexes territories.
learn from microsoft that russian hackers continue their attempts to attack the united states senate and the venerable thing takes. -- tanks. i've been disappointed by the cause of some on the other side of the aisle, sending mixed signals to the kremlin and its allies only serve to undermine our sanctions regime. i do not to the value of meeting with station members of the russian duma. remain on our sanctions list until crimea is returned to ukraine. i am sanctioned by the russian government. i would be happy to meet with the duma what each of the goals about law are accomplished. until then, they can stay in moscow. the administration often points to its record while ignoring the
president's damaging rhetoric on russian policy. with that said, i was pleased that secretary pompeo committed to work with us on new sanctions. today, i would like to hear in detail specific provisions of securityding american act. i want your views on how these the intendedimpact targets. the bill recognizes that our efforts to date have been insufficient. it includes tough measures which we recognize have implications for u.s. companies and our allies. do we really believe it is acceptable or in our national interest for u.s. companies are those of our allies to be doing business in russia, particularly supporting the very sector that has aided and abated kremlin's interference? it is ridiculous that president trump with --
i want to hear how you would support provisions to deepen cooperation with europe on russian sanctions implementations. third, i continue to believe that our government is not properly constituted to address the hyperthreading imposed by russia. i look forward to your thoughts on how we can structure our national security institutions to maximize our ability to stop threats. the administration has argued that mandatory new provisions per capita have not been invoked because it is easier to use established executive order authority. i would like to hear a clear reasoning for this and assurances.
225,nterested in sections 227, 228, 233 and 234. in response, i inserted a strong reporting requirement to manning the state department be more .orthcoming and transparent i hope the state can convince me otherwise. finally, i want to end with a note of thanks. i do understand that there are many within our government or dedicated to a more assertive approach with respect to russia that is clear eyed and well-intentioned. at the risk of making their jobs thoseifficult, i suggest individuals fall into that category. thank you for calling the hearing. >> thank you for your comments.
our first witness is wess mitchell. we thank you for being here and appreciate what you do for our country. our second witness is marshall billingslea. we thank you for the same. we appreciate the fact that you are sharing your thoughts and the points with us. gslea, i understand you have returned early from travel to be here. we thank you for that. we were asked that chris be available to testify before the senate banking committee. hearinga simultaneous happening. we allowed chris to go over to the banking committee.
he likely will be before us again the future to talk about other issues he is responsible for. again, we thank you. you know the order here. if you can summarize your order in about five minutes. any written material to have -- with unanimous unanimous consent will be entered into the record. if you sec. mitchell: will indulge me, i want to start with a piece of welcome news unrelated to this morning's testimony. yesterday, the u.s. government removed a former nazi camp guard. this process took far longer than we wanted, the removal of this individual can bring some comfort to holocaust survivors and others who suffered at the hands of the inhuman nazi regime.
i will use my prepared comments today to outline and brief form the overarching strategy of the united states towards the russian federation. the foundation for this strategy is provided by three documents as directed an approved by the president. the national security tragedy -- which is the recognition that america has entered a power -- period of big power competition. the central aim of the administration's foreign policy is to prepare our nation to confront this challenge by systematically strengthening the military, economic and political fundament of american power. to be effective, u.s. diplomacy must be act by military power -- backed by military power that is second to none. to be effective, u.s. diplomacy mustwe have reduced years of cuo
requestede budget, close to $11 billion for the initiative, and worked with the nato to bring about new defense spending. at the nato summit, we established two new nato command, new hyper threat response teams, and new multiyear initiatives. in tandem, we have worked to degrade vladimir putin's ability to conduct aggression by imposing costs on the russian state and the oligarchy that sustains it. i'm submitting for the record is administration has taken. these include 217 individuals nctionedties sa and 60 spies removed from american soil. on average, sanctioned russian firms see their operating revenue fall by a quarter, their
total asset evaluation fall by half. one russian company lost about economy.s the ruble depreciated to its lowest against the dollar in two years. we have been clear that the door to dialog is open should putin to to take credible steps. channels we instituted to avoid collisions with our two countries. in all of these areas, it is up to russia, not america to take the next step. we have placed particular emphasis on the states of frontline europe. ukraine and--
georgia we have taken steps. from the caucasus to central europe, we are promoting energy diversification and fighting corruption. our strategy is animated by the realization that the threat from russia has evolved beyond being simply an external a military one. it includes influence operations, orchestrated by the kremlin at the very heart of the western world. these activities are extensively resourced and directed from the highest levels of the russian state. it is important to state clearly what these campaigns are and are not about. what they are not about is a particular attachment to domestic political causes. they're not about right or left, not about american political philosophy. the russian state has promoted french voices on the political left and right, including groups who advocate violence, the storming --
putin's thesis is that the american constitution is an experiment that will fail if challenged from the right way from within. he wants to break apart the american public by systematically inflaming the faultlines within our society. excepting this fact is absolutely essential for developing a long-term response to the problem. the most dangerous thing in the world we can do is politicize the challenge, which in itself would be a gift of. -- putin. as stated by a handbook of the russian armed forces, the goal is to carry out mass psychological campaigns against the population of the state in order to destabilize society and the government and force that state to make decisions in the interest of its opponents. doing so involves an involved -- caps of subversive
covert andit in both is the goal of the eurasian affairs. leadership, all 49 leadership missions are required to develop and coordinate tailored action plans for rebuffing russian influence plans in those countries. we recruited one of the architects of the global engagement center from the staff of a member of this committee, we formed a new position, the senior for russian malign activities or trends to develop cross regional strategies across offices. eur has created a dedicated team that is called out the kremlin on 112 occasions. we are now working with the u.k.
to form an international coalition for coordinating efforts. congress hasthat an important role to play in providing the told and resources needed to deal effectively with the russian problem set. we are committed to working with all of you to make headway against this problem and align our efforts in support of the president's strategy. i look forward to your questions. >> thank you. -- assist.llingslea sec. billingslea: first of all, it is great to be back. i got my start in washington sitting back on the bench back there. thank you for the opportunity. i will say that those of us in the treasury department share the views that you and the ranking member and many of the senate have expressed regarding the significant and continuing national security threat posed
to the u.s. by the russian federation. continuing occupation of crimea, current military operations in ukraine, malicious cyber attacks, illicit regiment of restricted u.s. technologies, violation of crucial arms treaties, support to the assad theme's barbarism, impossible use of the nerve agent in the u.k., and ongoing interfere in our election process are some of the unacceptable behaviors of the putin regime. countering russian aggression is the top priority for the treasury department. the net effect of our actions is .n unprecedented level to date, this administration has
applied sanctions on 223 russia related entities and individuals ranging from social media troll farms to cyber actors to russia's state owned conglomerate which has been supplying billions of dollars worth of weaponry to the assad regime. additionally, treasury has issued findings pursuant to the patriot act against a major latvia bank laundering money for illicit activities based out of russia. we have engaged globally with partner nations to apply their anti-laundering. russian aggression is ongoing. the treasury department has demonstrated to putin and his and her circle -- inner circle that their behavior will not be tolerated. we sanctioned seven oligarchs
part of the innermost circle, along with 12 countries they own or control. included putin's son-in-law. unlike the previous administration, we have gone after the big fish. as a result of sanctions, the net worth of one of the oligarchs has dropped more than half. the share price of the holding company that controls the company was dropped likewise on the day we took our actions. has oligarch's net worth dropped by an estimated $3 billion and his company has been forced to divest from ventures in italy and switzerland. its weakestated to position since two and still has not recovered from that. in all, our measures are taking a direct toll on the wealthy
elite who service proxies to the russian economy. foreign direct investment is down. there is limited willingness to invest in their gas sector, which is fundamental to their society. the central bank is increasingly forced to step in and prop up russian institutions. we will not ease up for as long as this malign behavior persists. as an example, we have imposed additional costs on russian entities. we sanctioned a russian bank. we designated a major russian port operator for providing services to north korean flagged vessels helping to evade sanctions. this morning, we took further measures. we are designating two russia-based shipping companies who have been conducting ship to oils, and we of
are blocking six russian flagged vessels. as part of our ongoing effort to activitiesian cyber -- i think it is clear the treasury has been given a straightforward mandate to combat russian aggression at every turn. i sure the committee we will continue to do so. i appreciate the opportunity to testify before this committee and answer additional questions on this matter. with your permission, i ask that my longer prepared remarks, together with a copy of a report on russian financial behavior be submitted for the record. objection,: without i'm going to ask a couple of questions. i think that the vast majority of this committee, in listening to the testimony of the two of you, would say that this is a very fact-based, realistic view
of what is happening. presented by two very sober individuals who understand russia and their actions to be as they are. isould ask the question, your testimony today representative of the main stream of the administration from top to bottom? assist. sec. mitchell: yes. assist. sec. billingslea: i agree with that. sen. corker: we obviously are putting tough measures in place. we are seeing no behavior change, is that correct? they are still doing the same things that they have been doing for years. have we seen any behavior change as a result of what it is we are doing?
assist. sec. mitchell: what i would say is that by the net weight of our actions and sanctions, i think we are forcing the russians, and specifically proven to reconsider his preferred strategy. the combined effect of our sanctions, together with our larger defense establishment is a cost strategy. cost in position is what won the cold war. i would argue very clearly by increasing the cost and forcing them to up their game in developing military technological advances to keep pace with the united states, we are having an impact on his preferred strategy. again, i'm not being critical of what it is we you are doing -- you are doing, it seems there are discussions about what we might do to prevent further involvement in
our elections, which look like there is no way to stop involvement in our elections. we see it happening today. we see it happening with fringe groups. is there something that is being discussed within the administration that you believe may have even greater impact in what we are doing that might possibly change their behavior, which is the point of all of this? we are sec. billingslea: constantly evaluating additional pressure tactics and sanctions. there are active discussions underway on those matters. i wouldn't want to telegraph those at this stage because if we do act, we want it to have impact.financial had we not been applying the kind of massive a pressure we are applying on the regime, their behavior would be even further off the charts. we are at least circumscribing their freedom to act, and the
amount of resources they have on hand to counter us and serve as a spoiler as they are attempting to do in so many cases across the globe, whether we are talking about venezuela or the iranians and assad. we are forcing them to make some pretty tough resource changes. a number of the oligarchs who thought they would simply get bailed out by the regime for the hit they have taken have in fact not been made whole. i reserve the rest of my time. menendez: i would like to take up the secretary's position that we should have -- i know we had one , maybe we should
have that for this committee also. menendez: even listening to your response to the chairman's questions, i think we can generally agree that despite our best efforts, both congress's intentions to the laws it has passed, that russia continues both in destabilizing our democracy, other western democracies, continues to have a frozen conflict in eastern ukraine, continues to occupy crimea, is engaged actively in syria and away that i think undermines our national interests. is that a fair statement? assist. sec. mitchell: i think that is a fair statement. i would add that the assessment of the committee is that there is a pattern of pervasive
influence. levels.t at 2016 the administration is responding to that with a clear strategy. agree, thatz: so we it is course of conduct. do you support stronger sanctions on the russian energy and banking sectors? assist. sec. mitchell: i support a continuation of the administration's current approach wishes to use the sanction authorities we have. menendez: if you have the ability to have stronger sanctions, would you welcome it? assist. sec. mitchell: we make full review and use of all of the authorities at our disposal, and are always assessing new targets. we have thez: secretary of state here, who is welcomed, who said he sanctions as it
relates towards russia. i assume you are in agreement with them? assist. sec. mitchell: i am. as i said, i would continue using the authorities we have. sanctions as it relates towardswe always use tht congress gives us. what i would say from the executive branch perspective and for effective diplomacy is that we need discretion with those sanctions. discretion isout the antithesis of strategy. we have to have the flexibility to use them in a manner that reflects diplomatic realities. i get concerned with i.s. is seen both this and previous administrations use waiver authority and away far beyond discretion and undermines the attention of congress. establishment the of a sanction coordination office of the state department? assist. sec. mitchell: i would reserve opinion on that matter. i think we are internally at how best to coordinate sanctions. sen. menendez: we have heard a lot of complaints from the european government. let me ask you both.
do you support the establishment of a national fusion center to coordinate policy against malign actors across the whole government? assist. sec. mitchell: i think there is something to the idea for a mechanized them is increasing coordination within government. it is a problem with a lot of different aspects. there's a diplomatic and messaging aspect, an informational aspect. i think it is important to go about this in a way that does not get in the swim lane of current lines of effort. i would argue are doing a good job. i think our team is preparing some structured feedback on the legislation that, the ideas we have seen in the bill. sen. menendez: it is still a policy of the united states to not recognize the illegal annexation of crimea? assist. sec. mitchell: indeed. sen. menendez: i appreciate you saying that because then i go
ahead and see the president veto elements or say that parts of rejected --ere he that is worrisome for some. i don't know why you would do that when it is the state policy of the administration. also the secretary of state has said that, and the needed a different message sent by the president. let me ask you one more question. the administration imposed sanctions on north korea for using chemical weapons against one of its own people. the administration also designated a state-sponsored tariff on that act. earlier this month, they sanctioned russia for using those chemical weapons against one of their own. not said that russia is
in a state of terrorism. why not? assist. sec. mitchell: i think the administration has been crystal clear on crimea. i would prefer you to the president's comments yesterday when he said that every time he discusses ukraine, he talks about crimea. i think that speaks for itself and we have been strong in that regard. sen. menendez: i don't know why you reject the provision of the ndaa. it creates confusion in the world. go ahead. assist. sec. mitchell: on the second part, i don't want to get process.the i think it is something to always keep in our pocket. i think we're looking very carefully and sober mindedly at russian behavior in all regards. process. cbw sanctions speak for themselves. there could be a follow on to per the law.law --
i say we reserve to ourselves all options. there is noz: differentiation between what happened north korea and the action did menstruation took, and the russian administration. there is no reason we should employ all the uses we have because we need to deter the russian administration from undermining our elections. let me start by reiterating what was set of both of you. i thought you gave us a sober but very thoughtful fact-based presentation today. reallytion is to you about why given all the things we are doing, including sanctions, are we not making better progress? let me start by saying i appreciate that a couple of weeks ago the secretary was able to make clear the findings of the investigation into the
russian attempt of the of sergei and his daughter. i think that is a type of thing where we need to hold russia accountable. i appreciate the fact that that triggered some of the sanctions we talked about today. there is so much more. the question was just raised as to how we continue to feel about crimea. you talked about espionage, cyber attacks, this information. -- disinformation. you talked about the russian invasion of the north korean sanctions. the influence operations at facebook recently talked about destabilization. it is not about right or left politics. i think you make a good point that when we break this down on a partisan basis here, in this body and country, that only comes to help russia, not us.
i hope that we in this committee have been able to avoid that and will continue to. today, microsoft announced it thwarted russian cyber attacks , the international republican institute and also on the hudson institution. this is ongoing, even as we talk your today. i think sanctions are necessary. you talked about how firms are sanctioned or impacted. the ruble has been the valued. -- devalued. but it is obviously not working the way we would like it to. i'm not saying it doesn't have impact. my question to you is what would be more effective? either additional sanction pressures or non-sanction pressures.
specifically, i would like you, secretary mitchell to talk about the global engagement center. center.set up the at leastthere was, with regard to push back on the disinformation and propaganda to be able to have better coordination and be more effective in pushing back. we have much less resources than s use every day. thank you for those questions. let me just respond in brief to the three things you asked. part, i'm not sure i would characterize the efforts
in quite the way you have in terms of impact. the chilling effect on the russian economy has been significant and measurable. since 2014, foreign investment in russia has fallen by 80%. at this point, we're looking at an impact through the chilling effect of use of 231 of $8 billion-$10 billion in foreclosed arms deals. i think your broader point on putin and his view of the united states not having a partisan axe to grind is apt. i don't think that putin is a student of jefferson or adams. question were for minting violence from a fringe left perspective. think we have to understand that we have a competitor who sees a strategic competition. it is a strategy of chaos for
strategic effect. it is incumbent for us to not make it partisan. in terms of the gec, we work very closely. the department has put $20 million of our own resources toward this effort in the period when we're waiting for the additional funds. we are really looking forward to seeing our colleagues at the department offense moving an additional $40 million so we can see the gc up and running in the areas intended. >> do you think you have the right staff on board? sec. mitchell: i do. some very capable and knowledgable russia hands. when our colleagues in russia weged and came back --
take the problem seriously. >> in general, the measurements theare using, i appreciate measurements, the question is what are the consequences that with regard to russia's overt and covert propaganda avoiding sanctions and so on. can we see a measurable result in terms of the actual problems that we hope to be able to address? i just want to concur with the leadership of this committee and thank both of you for your service and your testimonies today. i think it is what we want to hear, so i applaud your service. it has been 93 weeks since the presidential elections. our intelligence community made it pretty quick assessment as to
mr. putin's involvement in our elections. bipartisan support in congress to very quick action, recognizing the threat. i agree with senator portman, this committee and this congress is active in a very bipartisan manner, recognizing the threat of russia. the want to make that clear. mr. mitchell, i appreciate the fact that the policy that you are enumerating, one that i personally support, the way you articulated, indicating it was directed by the president. the problem is, the president hasn't followed. that is the concern. when the been times president has made this a very partisan issue. we haven't, he has. i think we need to drill down a little bit more on how this policy is being implemented. you point out, in a very sobering way, that mr. putin
wants to break apart the american republic. that is a pretty sobering statement you made. totally consistent with reports i authored on behalf of members of this committee in january that said that mr. putin is not only trying to compromise our democratic system here in america, but he has his eyes on democratic nations of europe, trying to bring them down as well. that is pretty sobering. our report pointed out that to counter that, you need strong leadership. i appreciate the fact that we have had arguments as to the effect of sanctions. one thing is clear to me. if you don't stand up to mr. payton, he will take -- pl utin, he will take the situation and move even further. could there have been more activity by mr. putin? probably, yes. he will fill a void.
i think it is important for us to be very super about mr. putin's activities and what he is trying to do. lummi get to this one point because it concerns me about the president's actions. i saw helsinki. fillingrivate meetings, into the narrative about mr. putin and his concept of how governments operate. compromising our democratic system in the manner of what's that meeting took place. -- which that meeting took place. they were scurrying in washington to try and handle some of the statements that were made. --st, try to assure me that you say sanctions the discussion. i understand that. the problem is, one person can exercise that discretion. the president of the united states.
we saw that the president might very well -- we know there have been discussions about sanctions and with mr. putin, etc. have you been briefed as to what happened in helsinki in regards to discussions on sanctions? sec. mitchell: i have been briefed on the appropriate information i need to carry out my job in regards to russia. the president was also clear in an interview yesterday. the question you are asking, he was very clear about this. i would say he was very clear with regard to raising with vladimir putin the except ability of interacting in our elections. with all due respect, i'm not going to litigate the specifics of every, the president has made.
i would point you toward our policies directed by the president. i disagree with your overall characterization that the wedsident had has an follo his policies. these are his policies. he directed a russia strategy. the previous administration did not. i would point you to the 2010 national security to russia and compared to ours. obama called russia a mighty river and said that america wanted to ensure its rightful place among the great powers. >> i understand the policy right now. you are assuring this committee that unless russia changes its behavior, we will not only maintain all of our sanctions, you are looking for ways to strengthen those sanctions against russia and are prepared to work with this committee to give you additional tools in order to make it clear that without tangible, specific
results, these sanctions will be maintained and expanded? sec. mitchell: yes. i think that is also clear from our actions in the past year and a half. >> thank you. sen. corker: i'm going to make one and are josh and. my observation would be that some of the undisciplined comments that the president makes creates just as much trouble for these people as they do for us and the rest of our country. let me just give an example. issue, which i believe is an abuse of the president's authority, were you involved at all in discussing the use of a national security waiver to put terrorists in place, whichffs in usually affects the portfolio you are working on. -- were you was asked? sec. mitchell: there was an
extensive and her agency process and not matter. sen. corker: did you support it? sec. mitchell: what i supported was the president's trade policy overall. i think as you see from the current u.s.-eu dynamic in trade, it is a strategy that is working. take arker: i will little more of my time. how is it working? sec. mitchell: we currently have a structure dialogue with the european union about a lowering of eu barriers to american products and services. it is ourr: understanding that the european union asked to go to zero tariffs on automobiles, and he did not do that. it is us. sec. mitchell: the president has repeatedly and publicly pledged to go to zero-zero if the
europeans were willing to do this. they haven't been willing to engage in a process until the president used to 32. -- 232. sen. corker: you support the idea of using a national security waiver to put tariffs on steel and aluminum? sec. mitchell: i support the policies of the president. this is one administration. process an interagency to everything you are asking about and we are on the same page. paul: think we have asked some really important questions. do sanctions change behavior? without the answer to that, i don't think we can decide whether or not we want more sanctions unless we see if they work. when therd to iran
world has sanctions, there were obviously evidence that it works to bring them to the negotiation table. the question is do these sanctions work? one possibility is that they don't work. if they don't work, what is the result of sanctions? one result might be that it draws russia more into the sphere of china and drives countries such as turkey into this fear of either russia or china. i think there are arguments it to be made that perhaps more sanctions aren't the way to go. sanctions are sort of the stick. the question is what is the caret? that one of the carrots might be considering whether or not we continue to insist that ukraine and georgia be in nato. i think that if you really wanted to influence russia's behavior, and you are talking at a one-to-one basis with russia, you were able to have some sort of agreement, i think an agreement not to have georgia in to lessht tlead
conflict in both ukraine and georgia. they do seriously fear and worry having them in nato. if the west insist on pushing nato into eastern europe, and into the surrounding countries around russia, that it will lead to the rise of militarism, nationalism, and ultimately an aggressive leader in russia. this was said in 1998 and i think the words had great presidents in the sense that -- dents in the sense of what is happening. to having the sanctions but also showing an openness to dialogue, one of the
things that we could and ought to consider is whether there is any element of the sanctions we would be willing to negotiate lessening of sanctions in exchange for maybe a smaller change in behavior. if we wait for russia to leave crimea to lift any sanctions. we may well be waiting until the end of time. perhaps there are some sanctions that we make cr counterproductive. -- see are counterproductive. i think even in the midst of adding more sanctions, we ought to consider whether it is productive to dialogue not have dialogue, even if you want to complain about election modeling. you would think that you would want to meet with the russian legislatures to talk about russian meddling. if we cut off dialogue between the legislatures in russia and here, i don't necessarily see that that is going to change their behavior, but it does block off the ability for us to
have dialogue with russia from their foreign relations to our foreign relations. i would ask that the members of the committee at least think about it as a push is towards more sanctions, whether or not we ought to at least think about whether or not we want to prevent their legislators from traveling here, and then dated -- then they do the same. wasnew start treaty completed in 2010, expires at the end of 2020. where do we stand on discussions with russia? discussions,going negotiators, what is the status of the new start treaty and our discussions with russia? sec. mitchell: discussions, if i could respond briefly to the first part of what you said. i agree with you that sanctions are a tool of strategic statecraft.
right now, the united states has 4190 sanctions worldwide and 580 against the russian federation. that point us toward the need for sanctions to always be in a clear strategy. the role is for congress to be very specific about what changed behaviors is needed in order for sanctions to be lifted. with regard to new start, we have been very clear that russia's violation of the inf treaty has created a deficit of trust. that extends across the arms control ecosystem in all of our conversations with the russians. we are looking both carefully and closely at the question of the future of new start. i would say at this point, any decision regarding a potential extension be made at the appropriate time. paul: we don't have a formal dialogue on inf or new start with actual negotiators, or do we? sec. mitchell: what we have at
present, is a line of sight to continue the process instability talks. we will only know about that when mr. bolton comes back this week. i would make the senator paul aware, and appreciate your perspective that we were in conversation with the former ambassador here from russia about potentially reestablishing the parliamentary discussions. ,n lieu of waiting sanctions what we had suggested was meeting them -- waving sanctions, what we had discussed was meeting them in a neutral place. i did want you to know that those conversations had taken place in the past. there were no discussions that i remember of waiving sanctions, but certainly meetin -- needing a neutral territory to dialogue.
those have taken place in the past. e: i applaud the policy positions you have outlined today. i think the concern and confusion among americans and the world have come because of ory statements of the president. failure tohis consistently acknowledge russia's actions to influence the 2016 elections and their ongoing modeling and 2018. i've -- meddling in 2018. see ank until we d change in that behavior, we are going to continue to see --
that was a statement, not a question. can you tell me the status of the sanctions announced on august 8. have actually been imposed? the sanctionsea: in response to the use of the nerve agent in the united kingdom, those have been imposed. they were imposed under a state department authority. i would defer to secretary mitchell on that. we were in close consultation with the state department in the run-up to that. as secretary mitchell has indicated, depending on how russia reacts, there is a menu of additional follow-on options at that range of potential severity, which we are in close discussion on as well. supportingn: are we forforeign minister's call
stronger sanctions on russia and are we working to try and encourage the eu to do that? sec. mitchell: very much so. we are in close consultation with our british counterparts on an almost daily basis. i would add, we were encouraged to see that the europeans, partly because of u.s. engagement, created their own distinct chemical weapons related sanctions authorities, which was a new and important step. shaheen: i agree. as we have discussed before, i had the opportunity to visit syria and see the stabilization efforts of that taken place in northeast syria along the turkish border, and how much the people have benefited from that, from throwing isis out of that, and continue to be there a troubled by the fact that the
administration has withheld the stabilization funds. how does continuing to deny efforts to support stabilization in that area fit with our russia policy? doesn't that give russia and a and assadthiran -- and iran and turkey, to go into that part of syria who has a where now to be a place the syrians can enjoy some level of freedom from violence and from assad and his regime, and from all of the other actors in the region? how does that make sense in terms of a policy for russia? sec. mitchell: i appreciate the question.
i would say nothing would be better from a russian perspective than to see u.s. aid flowing in syria in many different regards prior to a clear commitment to a political process in geneva. this is part of the stock russian approach to next steps the unitedo see states bankroll various forms of stabilization reconstruction before we see the russians do their part in committing to a political process. : i'm not talking about all of russia. sec. miitchell: i appreciate that. senator shaheen: how does to gong foreign influence into that area and undermine everything we have done to center that stabilize the region post isis to work with the syrian democratic forces, how does that benefit policy that says we would like to get people to the table? if anything, i would think it
would encourage the russians to go to the table because they have seen the heaven able to do working with the syrian people. i would say that we take very seriously taxpayer resources as they relate to the syria problem in its entirety, cognizant of how that fits with the russia strategy and it's not new to me that the actions we are having are creating a vacuum for other players. sen. shaheen: have you been there? sec. miitchell: no, ma'am. sen. shaheen: i would encourage you to go, i think it would be very illuminating in terms of the difference we have been able to make with our military on the ground there, with other coalition horses, and to give up the playing field there and to other influences to go back in is not in our interest or the interest of the syrian people. thank you, mr. chairman. >> secretary mitchell, welcome. i would like to return to what you have indicated in your
written statement is the putin thesis. he wants to break apart the american republic, you say, not by influencing the american republic of by systematic the inflaming the perceived faultlines that exist with our society. this is a serious point. can you elaborate on that point? sec. miitchell: i think that what we see in russian strategic behavior, as it relates to influence operations is more or less consistent with standard russian operating procedure and influence back to the 1930's. the bolsheviks, later the soviet state, look, even within the united states before the social media age, russians have been at this since the 1960 plosser 70's . this is not particularly new in that regard. what's new is the tools and the scale, the digitization of this,
the social media. this is beinghat directed from a high level with state media resources behind it. i think that what we have seen in the russian approach the united states influence operation is very much not a partisan effort. i think it's a very cynical effort to pit pre-existing political camps against one another. i would just refer you to some of the groups that they spoke made the decision to shut down. look at what they were promoting . look at what they stood for. these particular groups were on the far left and were aware very much of the media from the far right. these were from the far left. they were putting money and organizational efforts behind groups that stood for really heinous and hideous causes inside of the american polity. sincejanuary of last year the president was elected the russians have put money behind groups that have fomented anti-trump protest, including the one in madison square garden
that drew thousands immediately after the election. the point is that from our competitors standpoint, the goal is to divide us internally. there's not any reflective political philosophy as it relates to american politics. it's an effort to divide us. we have heard from members, from various documents produced in the past that the difference here is not in the attempt to influence the united states, but it is indeed in the tools. the breadth and extent of to which the influence operations and it may also have something to do with the interaction between those tools and a particular moment in political history as well. secretary billingsley, i welcome you as well to this committee. in your prepared written statement you write that russia 's continuing occupation of crimea and illicit procurement
of intel technologies, election interference, and other influence efforts, as well as their support to the assad regime, the massacre of its own citizens, are all acceptable. my colleagues have already asked in a couple of different ways whether or not the sanctions are working. there has been an acknowledgment of the purpose of the sanctions is not just to influence the russian economy. it's to deal with these other objectives. these continuing problems that we have. have we seen improvement with respect to any of these? crimea? human rights? cyber attacks? procurement of sensitive technologies, so on and so forth ? election interference on account of our implementation of sanctions? sir, that's aea: great question. there's a difference between
working and having an effect. they are working to the extent that they are integrated into a larger strategy that the administration is executing to deal with these russian malign behaviors. but they are also having a clear measurable effect. i will give you some examples. on export, the huge defense conglomerate sending the fighter jets dropping the barrel bombs of karine on the populations in syria, they are having a hard time getting paid for a number of the deals. so, we are pairing -- we are pairing the effect of this and constraining the regime and their freedom to maneuver, but the extent to which it is all working depends on the synchronization of a lot of other measures. sec. billingslea: i and -- sen. young: i understand that there should be a broader strategy, so can you name the other tools being implemented in you lies to affect change in these many continuing areas of challenge?
perhaps you can tell us what additional steps we might take vis-a-vis the russians to implement that change. if i might,slea: and i will sneak in what i wanted to say to senator's shaheen as well. in the capacity of this committee, the work that you do, it's incredibly important that we message clearly to a number of european allies, particularly your eastern european allies, it's critical they shore up the anti-money laundering regime's and that they tighten down on how they regulate money coming out of russia. there's an enormous amount of money still being x for russia by both organized crime and cronies surrounding vladimir putin. to the extent that you have parliamentary relations with latvia, or you engage with cyprus and malta or other offshore jurisdictions, reinforcing the message would be incredibly helpful. we really need to clamp down globally on the money flows associated with the movement of
the large amounts of money of out of russia. sec. billingslea: thank you -- sen. young: thank you both. senator murphy? sen. murphy: and i thought the hearing was extraordinary and i wish it had gotten more attention. the argument that the secretary was making to us, that we should ignore what the president says and pay attention only to what the state , we're hearing a string of that today. the argument is extraordinary, because it essentially admits that there are two been different foreign policies today. one articulated by the president in a statement that he makes standing next to president putin or on his twitter feed. just yesterday to reuters the itsident once again said might not have been the russians that injure. in u.s. elections. and then there is the much more mainstream foreign policy being
administered in part by the two incredibly patriotic representatives of the american government standing here today. so, i wanted to pose a question .o you, secretary mitchell in the context of how this plays out on the issue of propaganda, building on the question that , you havertman asked gone and worked with secretary , making a difference, there was a really interesting poll of about one week ago in this country that showed that 43% of republican voters believe the president should have the authority to close news outlets engaged in bad behavior. which is reflective of this obsession, especially over the past few weeks, that the president has with what he calls the enemy of the people.
which is a really, really terrible term given the fact that it is rooted in a stalin era murderous campaign against journalists and anyone that opposed the russian government at that point. doing some you are great stuff on the gdc, some innovative work to perfect russia and the, but then the president is handing the russian government you through his regular attacks on the free press that seem to endorse the same kind of work that vladimir putin is doing in his own country and around the periphery . i guess the question is, isn't the free andn independent press inside russia and in the russian periphery emboldened by president trump's regurgitation of the stalin era attacks on american media?
>> thank you for your questions, senator. first i want to push back on this idea that there is a strategy that is the separate from the views of the president. national defense strategy, the directives that we have for policy come from the president. the strategy overall i would characterize on russia in one theence, continue raising cost until aggression ceases while keeping the door open to dialogue. if you look at the last 18 months, this is exactly what we have done. i look at the president's efforts of dialogue within the context of an administration that is recapitalizing a nuclear arsenal and has had 222 sanctions on russian individuals and entities. in contrast to the previous administration that sought dialogue but did so while gutting our military, talking about global zero in nuclear weapons -- i think the context matters. i think the strategy documents send a clear signal about what
we are trying to accomplish with russia and i think it's the right approach. sen. murphy: yesterday the president said it might not have been russia. that is not the policy of the state department, right? but that is not what the statement -- the president said yesterday? sec. miitchell: i have a listed front of me on the instances in which the president has been clear in a treating to russia interference in our elections. sen. murphy: got it. yesterday. tell me how it plays out in the context of top again do, specifically talk about whether you have any fears about the president's rhetoric on the american free press being an enemy of the people and it has on your work. i think you are trying to do the right thing here in trying to work with us, but if you think it's no problem, tell me it's no problem. sec. miitchell: in point of fact, what the president had said is that the fake news was the enemy of the people.
it's a fundamental role work of a representational republic. i think that today's media, we would agree it's all unprecedentedly polemical and the debate has gone beyond the pale of what we have seen on the part of the media in a long time . it's part of a healthy democracy. if what you're asking me to do is comment on politics, i will stick to my job, which is policy. sen. murphy: i don't want to lead you down this road because i frankly know what you believe, i know that you don't believe the president is the enemy of the people -- the press is the enemy of the people and i want to make sure that this committee understands that we have a tough job giving you the resources are you are being compromised by the statements of the president. i think we are all very appreciative of the work that you are doing, but it's important in these hearings to a knowledge this separation between the president's rhetoric and the policies of the state department. the foreignll:
policy of the united states, we are executing the policy directives of the president,. . could, we do appreciate the work that you both do and you know that. i think that what we see is what george cannon said in his telegram back in 1946. this is what russia has been carrying out for years. to fall meant this in our own country, but also to this unity , thisther western powers has been a long-term -- we had some glimmers of hope at points in time and it has been a long time since we have had those but it has hope, been the same policy and i think sometimes the president's comments help to create with thel disunity west. i think that is what people are referring to hear. we know that makes your job difficult.
we're unified behind those policies. our commander-in-chief continues to undermine those. >> they have talked to me more about the news and they have talked to me about my comments with the president. secretary mitchell, let me ask you a question. statement onred refiling, in quotation marks, "military power second to none, fully integrated with our allies , referring to the strength of america's foreign policy lies in military power that is second to none. is that correct? i agree with that.
do you feel like at this point in time in history we are at the point where we are fully integrated and working towards nda, where we are on the right track? sec. miitchell: we are, but i think we disagree with allies on a lot of areas of policy but on a daily basis we see more commonality between the u.s. and european allies than we see differences. sen. isakson: seems to me that there is no policy that will work unless america's military is the ultimate fallback position. you don't wanted to be opening hand, but the acing your whole. sec. miitchell: it provides the basis of conflict -- context for every thing you do in the strategy. a previous this with administration, if you have got an attempted dialogue with russia while you have sequestration under way, you are operating from a position of weakness. trying to go to nuclear zero is a position of weakness. if you have a dialogue with the
russian federation in the context of a strong national defense establishment where you have a tremendous 700 ill dollar increase underway in your recapitalized arsenal i think you are operating from a position of strength. you are sending the right signal, no doubt about it, in my opinion. on the new treaty, i was in the senate in 2010, mr. chairman, when we did the new start treaty. i think that treaty expires in 2021? is that correct? 2020? a minute ago you were asked by senator paul if the administration had taken a position yet on renegotiating that reauthorization of the new start treaty. have you? sec. miitchell: we have not. sen. isakson: have the russians engaged in conversation about it? sec. miitchell: the russians cancel the previous attempt at which is where, we see broader implications on arms control. there are questions on various
aspects of american compliance that we see as being nefarious. short answer to your question, at this point there is not an administrative position on what we will do and we will make it at the appropriate time consistent with national interests. how has the unique identifier worked since implementation? i would want to provide a full or response in a classified setting. i would like to have that, if we could. if we ever go far enough with north korea that we are in effect moving towards nuclear weapons we will need systems like that to make sure that we can trust and verify. wet was a good program that established. lastly, i have seen the horrible pictures on tv almost every night and the last week about the gas and chemical weapons used in syria. i know the russians have pretty established on
the port, is that correct? they were meddling there for a lot of reasons but one of them was access to a port, if i'm not mistaken? sec. miitchell: i'm sorry, could you repeat the question? sen. isakson: russians were seeking a port very badly so they could get out of the conflict with syria? is that correct? sec. miitchell: sorry, i don't fully understand -- understand the question. syria? that's correct. sen. isakson: did i say some wrong? sec. miitchell: no, i just misunderstood. sen. isakson: what are the future prospects for continued russian engagement and engagement with iran and syria. it appears to be going from a situation that one from a reasonable case of hope to an unreasonable position of that being for filled. what do you see? to bring things. some modest constructive steps on the part of the russians, i would call particular attention to the engagement with israel. looking at the israeli security
with regards to syria. on the other hand, you see vladimir putin aiding and abetting a murderous regime. not supporting the legitimate process of geneva and creating a parallel process. on balance the russians are not in constructive actors. sec. miitchell: thank you both for your service. -- sen. isakson: thank you both for your service. >> senator volker? let's not here. >> senator buckley? thank you, mr. chairman, thank you both for your testimony. in february the state department put out a statement that new start enhances the safety and security of the u.s.. all you haven't reached a decision on whether it will be extended, is that a statement that you feel comfortable continuing to assert? sec. miitchell: yes, sir. senator merkley: thank you.
on the conversations that took place in the one-on-one meeting with president putin, has there been, for the assistance of the departmental interagency process , a sense of a clear memo of what was discussed in those discussions? sec. miitchell: both secretary pompeo in the national security advisor received extensive debriefings about the president that have trickled through in the form of policy directives. there has been extensive interagency processes regarding communication with all the posts. sen. merkley: can you share a couple of those directives that flowed from the meeting? sec. miitchell: they are a continuation of -- a previous policy and with regards to ukraine the centrality of those agreements is the gateway to any forward movement. sen. merkley: specifically these things were discussed by the president? sec. miitchell: human thing
discussed there was an agreement for the tubing national security council's to meet. sen. merkley: that wasn't the question, but you can go on in confusing the situation between the one-on-one meeting and the broader meeting. but that's not helpful when that is not what we are asking. now, let's turn to myanmar. this saturday is the one year of thesary of the launch massive ethnic cleansing that took place. right now we understand the state department has a report that is being held and is possibly going to be released. is it going to be released? i'm not sure which one of you would like to respond to that. sec. miitchell: i would be happy to get you more information. it doesn't follow in my area of responsibility. i would be happy to follow up with you. treasury we are tracking this closely and we have just last week sanctioned a number --
two of the army units involved and a number of the officials who have been -- four specifically, but not the heads, which both canada and europe have sanctioned. we haven't reached the same point that canada and europe reached far earlier. is it your sense that the state department report will be released on the anniversary? let me share with you that bipartisan numbers of this committee weighed in with a letter to the state department saying specifically to seize the opportunity with this one year anniversary. sees the anniversary to release the report. sees the opportunity to provide more aggressive sanctions. sees this opportunity to reinforce support for bangladesh , which is struggling in the middle of a monsoon with housing and refugee camps for 700,000 additional rolling a. sees the opportunity for the
president to speak specifically to this issue, because outside of a confidential setting, he hasn't done so. this really is a place in the world where there is massive genocide, ethnic cleansing. if america is to be respected in the world, our president needs to speak to the issue. i will ask each of you -- do you support the idea that the united states show some leadership in response to this ethnic cleansing? thank you. challengengslea: the -- sen. merkley: the challenge that we face on election hacking continues to be substantial but there is a lot of discussion about how russia is continuing to aggravate social divisions in this country. to basically set americans against americans on a host of social issues. do you feel like we are doing all we can to take on this to tear bigssia
holes in the social fabric of our nation? sec. miitchell: i do. we have a whole of government approach and a strong agency process but i will add, as you heard from secretary pompeo, we welcome additional tools from congress and use them with all the appropriate authorities. >> on top of that, as we continue to refine this unacceptable behavior and the individual behind it, we will continue to go after them. question woman, thank you for your service and this has been very productive. i hope the american people will take note of the direct effect of our sanctions so far. i think that was a really good explanation of this effect, which really isn't reported very widely in the national media and
i expect it will be this time, but the more exposure we can give them is really important. sanctions have tubing purposes. one is the direct effect to inflict pain. but the real objective is to change conduct. you also did a good job, i think, of talking about the aboutt we are talking changing, a stunning list of some awful things that the russians are doing and continue to do. the pointst one of that has been made here is the frustration that everyone has, that the sanctions aren't causing immediate change in conduct. i think the experience over the years that -- is that sanctions are not a kinetic action. they don't spur a median change in conduct, but take time. the best example of that right now is the sanctions placed on a run.
they have been in place for a long, long time. one of the underreported stories is the effect that the sanctions are having internally on the financial affairs in iran. this -- weng what discover the details and that, but for whatever reason it is not being reported and i think the same thing is going to take place here. the question that i have for you do doyou know, when you these sanctions and it does inflict pain on a populous, it takes time for the pain to trickle up, if you will, and the populists start to pressure the people that are actually in charge. obviously, when you are in a country that is influenced more , like itgious fervor is in iran, that is different
from russia, where the dollar, where money is really important. i would like to hear each of your opinions on the time that this is going to take. over the years i know we have sat in this room and talk about the patient's it takes as we attempted to influence iran. i would like to hear your thoughts on the time that this is going to take for it does actually start to pressure the people at the top, where there will be some change in behavior. mr. billingsley? could we start with you, these? sec. billingslea: thank you, senator. you raised exactly the key point, which is that sanctions are designed to induce a change in behavior. i think, do we see that sanctions have an instantaneous effect in that respect. but the cumulative effect over time can in fact be a noteworthy change in behavior. that is what we are seeking to accomplish with all the
different sanctions regimes we are implementing, whether we are talking about executive orders related to venezuela or the north korea campaign, the iranian campaign, or in the case of russia. the challenge that we face with russia is that we are dealing with a markedly different scale here in terms of the size of the economy. world's 13th largest economy, a $13 trillion economy. they are the foremost oil producer, second largest oil exporter. they hold europe in effect hostage to energy supply in so many respects. they are also deeply into the copper and titanium supply chains. it's a different calculus and calibration than we would be dealing with, like with the hermit kingdom of north korea or the iranians. i recommend the way that we, i will say attack, the russian
challenge, has to take this into it -- into account. sec. miitchell: i would concur with that and i appreciate your raising that point. we always differentiate between the russian people, the russian state, and oligarchy. enormously.ffered we often look to engage the russian people. it's often difficult. was recently at the russian embassy and i think it's important to keep up that engagement. your broader question is apt. there is a certain calculus i think on the part of vladimir putin that he and those around him can weather, to some extent, sanctions because of the insularity of the regime. a fairly insulated regime and oligarchy. we have gone more deeply into the territory of going after those individuals than previous administrations. we have gone after the vladimir putin son-in-law. my own view of this is that when
you see vladimir putin's popularity ratings falling since he was elected, that doesn't mean that change comes immediately, but it does underscore that the pain is starting to have an effect. this administration has been clear that we are prepared to take additional steps. there is an escalator or a letter of sanctions. we are aware of the additional steps needed to make a bigger point. if you look at our actions over the last year and a half, they have an escalator and progressive. we are willing to take the sets necessary to further penalize russian behavior. thank you both for what you are doing. >> the russian spokesperson this advisedsaid they were that there is no evidence of collusion. between russia and the united states in the election. so, they are clearly in denial. that continues to be their posture.
we are hearing that their behavior continues. maybe intensifying 10 weeks an election in the united states of america. if that is the case, how, how much authority do you need to ratchet up the sanctions against russia? 10 weeks to go, time is of the essence. do you intend on doing that, given the evidence that you have right now? we don't have time for a long deliberative process. we have to make sure in the final four week the sanctions are in place. >> the first part of what you said, i would just say that i think that public statements from the russian government are deliberately a few skit for a. revoked immediately after the facebook expulsion and i think that the general russian official posture is one that deliberately misleads and says we have no idea what you're
talking about. in response i would say -- sen. markey: it just says to me that they are not responding, not listening. only the infliction of sanctions pain will get them to change their behavior. we need an intervention in the underlying pathology here. obfuscation in defense of interjection of a foreign power into our elections is an obvious strategy. what do we do now? sec. miitchell: i understand your point and i agree, but i wouldn't confuse the statements being made by the russian foreign ministry publicly with whether they are having an impact. we have the authority that we need and we're using it. sen. markey: i'm asking you, is it working right now? sec. miitchell: i would reference what the directors said. this is wrought into deep, ongoing, we are not at the levels of the 2016 election. it's an ongoing threat.
we have a process to confront it. well i think it's time to have the interagency meeting, 10 weeks out, that makes the decision as to whether or not we increase those sanctions. with regards to the discussion between mr. putin and mr. trump and the new stock treaty, can you tell us what happened in that discussion between the two of them? these were not deeply substantive discussions. the only agreement was that the councils would meet again, which they are doing this week. sen. markey: you are saying that there was no extensive discussion about a new start between the two of them? sec. miitchell: i think that the secretary and the president have been were -- clear on that publicly. regarding the inf treaty, was there a discussion on that issue? sec. miitchell: i'm not sure what has been said publicly
about that by the president and i want to respect executive prerogative. sen. markey: have you been briefed on any conversation that took place between trump and putin on the inf treaty? i receive the: question and i need to do my job as it relates to russia. sen. markey: does that mean that you have been briefed on the inf treaty? putine president say to that russia is in violation of a treaty that deals with nuclear weapons, threats to the united states quiet -- united states question market he say those words? i'm not aware of anything that was devoted to imf. sen. markey: you are not. sec. miitchell: no. sen. markey: do you think that inf is important to u.s. security? sec. miitchell: i do. similar copy a.
caveat.at -- in terms of russia, aiding north korea, that was a positive step and i still worry about enforcing existing sanctions. for example, on north korean slave labor, recent reports indicate that russia is using north korea is regularly. mr. billingsley, are you considering additional sanctions against russia? because of their use of that north korean labor? thanks for thea: question. thanks for thework question. we continue to work with russia in the department of state to abide by un security council resolutions that call for a wind up of the labor licenses and the return of those workers out of russia and we are concerned about the slow roll we are observing in connection with that.
also extremely concerned about other invasion behaviors. sen. markey: are you considering new sanctions? sec. billingslea: on russia, we are. sen. markey: because of this labor issue? sec. billingslea: senator, i will get back to a net. i don't want to telegraph punches, probably, but we are actively looking at is asian scenarios across the board. -- looking at either asian scenarios -- invasion -- evasion scenarios across the board. >> you are saying that the scenarios are less intense? let's correct, i was referencing the directors comments. garner: following up on comments, the's
continue trade violations when it comes to north korea, i would point out additional articles from "the wall street journal" and comments, others that talk e depths of continued acceptance into russia of north korean laborers. it seems to be increasing. i would hope that you would take --ook, secretary owings lee, sec. billingslea, at the names of businesses asking for korean translators in order to deal with the number of foreign workers in north korea. salary that the north korean worker is supposed receive is being siphoned off and going to prop up the kim jong-un regime for a total of $2 billion, going in directly to the nefarious activities that he continues to pursue, including reports today from the u.n. is noog that there indication that north korea is
slowing down or stopping its nuclear program. if we are going to have a doctrine of maximum pressure, perhaps it's time that we start saying publicly that we are going to sanction these companies in russia, china, and around the globe who continue to violate sanctions when it comes to north korea. if we are going to be serious about trying to your russia and china to follow through on their commitments to u.n. sanctions, perhaps we can take a look at these companies and start sanctioning them. here's is one right here, i won't be able to pronounce it, but [indiscernible] these are all companies that continue to take north korean labor and it would be nice to see that treasury start to sanction them. august 2, you know that cats are it signed last year, but requires predetermination of 90 days and whether they should be designated as a state sponsor of terrorism and it was made on november 20. thatdent trump announced
north korea has repeatedly supported acts of international terrorism, including assassinations on foreign soil. biological under the control warfare in illumination act of 1991 that the government warfare agent vx to actively assassinate kim jong-un passat other internet. they subsequently imposed sanctions on north korea for that attack and the russian government attempted to assassinate the nationals in salisbury, the united kingdom. then the state department determined that the russian federation chemical or biological weapons in violation of international law or has used lethal or biological weapons against its own nationals. sanctions against russia for that attack, and on april 24 i know we have talked regarding the
department making a designation as a state sponsor of terror. from the kremlin aggression act, from the kremlin aggression i wo that the moral designation is sound as a state sponsor of terror. russia has invaded its neighbors, georgia and ukraine and supports the murderous isime of bazaar al-assad and engaged in active information warfare against western democracies, putting meddling in the 2016 united states election. and is continuing to attempt to influence the elections going forward. to both of you, do you believe the russian federation has supported acts of international terrorism, including assassinations on foreign soil? mr. -- mr. billingsley? sec. billingslea: they have
engaged. more than once. sen. gardner: secretary mitchell? sec. miitchell: i agree with the premise. i don't want to get ahead of our deliberative ross as about what to do about it, but there is no contesting the fact. sen. gardner: do you agree that the cells very attack is not the only instance? sec. miitchell: i would not be prepared to answer that definitively in this setting. sec. billingslea: i think we would need to go into closed session, but i would be comfortable to say that i have engaged in this behavior more than once. sen. gardner: do you agree that they are a malign actor that undermine peace and security in the united states? sec. billingslea: i do. sec. miitchell: assuredly. sen. gardner: do you believe the kremlin has violated international law? both of you, yes. would you support a process that would allow the state department 90 days to determine whether or not russia should be designated state sponsors of terror? sec. miitchell: i would need more information and need to start
with -- speak with our team. i understand the direction you are going and the appropriate way to go about it would be when our team in the next week or so comes over, consider. sec. billingslea: that is the state department's call on the designation, however it is important to know that if we have any evidence that a russian actor is supporting a terrorist, we will go after them regardless of the state-sponsored level designation. what additional sanctions with a face of such a department were made? sec. billingslea: state sponsor? i would say that there would not be in immediate wave of actions. we would have to work with the department of state to identify which prongs in the russian government are viewed as the enablers. much the way we have done in other cases. sen. gardner: thank you. senator rubio? senator rubio: i want to lay out
the framework embedded in your testimony. we are struggling with two things that we have debated broadly here and even beyond. the first is that we haven't accepted that we are back to historically normal areas of great competition. we had difficulties with certain countries, but now we have competitors in china and in the military realm we have a near." competitor in certain spheres geopolitically in russia. in that realm i think the second thing that we struggle with is the notion that informational warfare is not warfare. it's warfare by different means. the difference now is the propaganda and the efforts to divide, demoralize, confuse the enemy, you can do it electronically now. i think what's happening now is not a part of an effort to help republicans, the democrats, vegetarians, it is an effort to help divide us against each other and we can us internally
and from within. that's the tactic. in terms of our policies, you see the simplistic way we are approached. one group argues we should be talking to them at all. which i think is, despite my deep antagonism towards vladimir putin for what he represents and the things he's done, i do want to see a shooting war, it would be catastrophic for the world. at a minimum it should keep you engaging, talking, working where possible within the context of understanding the you are in a competition worth his making than ours, but one that he believes is a zero-sum game where he can only get stronger if we get weaker and the flipside is that if we just talked and were nicer to each other, we would be able to get along better, which is also false because in the end it goes back to what i said, it's the zero-sum competition and the only way that he can be stronger and restore russia to his vision of greatness is by us being weaker. so, in that competition
everything we are debating here is about the tactics they are using. they can't compete economically and can't necessarily militarily in terms of projecting power around the world, but intelligently what they do is a low investment in military intervention in exchange for influence in the middle, so he's now becoming a power broker in syria and libya and other parts of the world because he has enough troops on the ground to make a difference there. he's even trying to finagle his way into the north korea talks. he wants to be a player in that. in europe there was an article yesterday about a growing number of european countries after the elections, far left and right parties coming to power potentially moving those countries closer to -- i think he went to the wedding of -- was it an austrian prime minister? to them it's a very low-cost way -- getting ino
her heads in in our society, dividing us against each other. if we can finally accept the fact that we are in a sort of -- we are in a great power competition with china and in some way a similar competition with russia. they don't pose the same economic pressures, but nonetheless enough, if we can wrap brains around the fact that we are in a competition and the one thing we want to do is what we did in the cold war, avoid a third world war, then we can begin to design what we do. punish what they have done, but deter what they have done. it was a key component of the cold war, the fact that both parties understood the price was exchange,r nuclear neither pursued it, despite close calls. it is why i, along with senator van hollen have put out this idea of laying out ahead of time if heically the price
does this again. the notion is that if you know ahead of time how much it will cost, less likely to do it. i can't guarantee that he won't, but i can guarantee that he doesn't think the rice is high enough, he will. and that realm the you have any views about the role that deterrence can play in terms of changing the cost-benefit analysis of vladimir putin? that in terms of what he did beyond? >> i agree with the premise, deterrence is critical. when the administration went after derek oscar gut and his son-in-law, that's a clear message. it sends a strong message. i think that we could do more collectively to look at cyber deterrence. i think there is a growing awareness that we have not done enough in that regard.
brought tohat can be our disposal to increase the message of deterrence, we are supportive of that. there is a lot there that is very positive. it moves in the right direction. there are aspects that we are not comfortable with. there are new mandates from a single intelligence official coming from senate confirmed officials, that's problematic. take the earlier, we view that national security waivers are important to the pharmacy. our team is -- has structured responses in the in coming days and we look forward to engaging with you more closely. i agree overhead, deterrence is critical. sen. rubio: as far as deterrence is are concerned, speaking for myself, if we want to pass it and turn it into law, immediate and itation to sign it
needs to be long enough. >> senator menendez? senator menendez: thank you, i have a few other questions. the expectation among the senate was that you would continue to impose sanctions on oligarchs, but clearly you have decided to diminish pressure. you haven't designated and oligarchs since april 6 and you have delisted estonian banks send to the that kremlin a signal that we judge by actions but not by words, but these actions seem to be more accommodating and disturbing rhetoric the president has a versus the tougher approach. sec. billingslea: if anything we are pushing forward to see dara posta completely removed from ownership or control of those companies.
as a way forward. we are far from easing up, we are continuing to excel arete. if we just look at the cyber sanctions -- sen. menendez: let me interrupt you, i want to focus on oligarchs and unless i'm wrong, there has been no designation since april. you have delisted estonian banks. one of the elements, you don't become an oligarchy in russia must vladimir putin makes you one. at the end of the day, this is his satellite universe of people that support him. hope you will create a greater focus on that, i think it's critical to the goals here. , directing ask you questions to you, the obama administration imposed sanctions on the fsb and g are you
following the election. officer of those accounts of been frozen, do you know? i don't havelea: that information. sen. menendez: how much money did those individuals lose as a result of any sanctions, if there are any that relates them? sec. billingslea: i will have to take that for the record. secretary michel, i have a high regard for you, but it gets diminished when you do things that i think are political in nature. you mentioned the mighty river comment as relates to the previous administration in 2009. , that wasefore crimea before the invasion. that was before the of mom -- obama administration levied sanctions against russia for its invasion of crimea. that was before, when the president ultimately went ahead and that is why russia is not part of the g7 today.
it is also when we became aware that russia was interfering with our elections and that they did pursue sanctions against the gruma fsb. that is why they made a membershipconfirming to georgia. i could go through a long list. i'm not sure that that type of comparison that you attempted to make is in our collective interests at the end of the day. -- thent to ask you president at the helsinki press conference announced the establishment of a high-level working group to include business and economic leaders from russia and the united states. i thought it was our policy to put economic pressure on the kremlin to stop attacking our elections. the illegal occupation of her crane, wore ties with syria. why are we promoting business ties with a regime that we are
trying to severely sanction? sec. miitchell: let me respond to some of the things you said. sen. menendez: you can respond to my one question. i have limited time. i thinktchell: look, that what came out of helsinki, other than an agreement for the national security council's to concept to explore the of two things, a business council of some kind, details to be determined, with an academic exchange of track to dartmouth type things like did during the cold war. right now we are assessing what if anything would be the composition or way forward on any of these. just seemsez: it counterintuitive that we are trying to affect the russian economy and then trying to create business ties. let me ask you this -- , russia provides a vital source for oil, aviation, fuel in north korea. there have been reports that at times when china slowed exports, russia has, russia provides a vital source for stepped up to l the breach. whether it is part of a broader
strategy in asia or merely an effect to make missions that complicate our efforts to deal with constraints, it's clear that moscow intends to play a role in north korea and not one that is helpful. what are your thoughts on how we best deal with that? ivory with that characterization. look, on the one hand they are part of the u.n. security council consensus that is critical in maximal pressure. on the other hand, they appear to be working against many of the measures that they have supported. i would say that an on -- on an ongoing basis we are looking carefully of whether it is russian behavior, syria, across the board we are looking on an ongoing basis at all of these things and the authorities are at our disposal to respond to it. sen. menendez: finally, congratulations, i just got notification the you have been nominated to be the undersecretary for civilian sip terry of democracy and human rights. i will look forward to that
conversation as it relates to your new role. thank you, chairman. your testimony. we hold lots and lots of hearings here. get as clearo we and direct answers as we have gotten from you. -- both great representatives of the united states of america and this committee sincerely appreciate your service. on behalf of the american people, thank you for that. that concludes this hearing. the record will stay open for questions until 5 p.m. tomorrow evening. with that, committee's adjourned. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2018]
that's live right now on c-span3. if you missed any of this discussion by the foreign affairs committee, you can find it online, c-span.org. an update from the hill today, the manna for jerry is asking they cannotd since come to a conclusion on a single count. the jury in the criminal trial against former chum campaign chairman paul manafort sent a note asking what they should do, they cannot come to a consensus. it is suggested they are having difficulty coming to conclusion on at least one of 18 counts facing paul manafort, it does not mean they have not come to conclusions on other counts. you can read more at the hill.com. coming up in 30 minutes we will take you live to the floor of the u.s. house, members will gavel in for a brief pro forma session. until then we will take a look at some of our washington journal program from last week on gun policy and violence in the united states.