amounts of money politically in order to make sure people listen to them. i'm not saying people are bought by them, but they have laid the foundation and now congress is listening to them. that's why that bill passed. the american people have to counter that and we counter that by making sure our voice is heard, making sure the voice of the little guy is heard and making sure that the people who believe in the constitution of the united states, that their voice is heard over some mega multinational corporation board mbers who are out wining and dining people. . we've had the fundamentals working for us. we've had a patent system and a constitution working for us. so, what we need to do, and if indeed there is a problem with trolls, let's admit to these corporations, yes, there are

some frivolous lawsuits in your area of the economy just like in all the other areas of the economy, there are frivolous lawsuits by people who shouldn't be filing them who are trying just to get paid off because the cost -- because the cost of the litigation will be so high. ok, we -- let's admit that to them and then let's say, let's fix that problem. let's go and fix the problem of frivolous lawsuits and let's make sure that if there's a frivolous lawsuit it's easier for people to counteract a frivolous lawsuit, in the technology area. if they want to do it for just technology people, fine, if they've got the ear of the congress now, let's work and change that law, the laws that will then make it easier to counteract the frivolous wsuits by these sinister people who are actually aimed, the trolls that are aimed at

putting pressure on when it really isn't legitimate. we can do that. but the legislation that's passed here last year and the legislation in the senate does just the opposite. it only focuses on regular, on people who are doing things and creating things themselves, not trolls. what it is is it's the old theory of how we are going to make america better. this is way back when our country was being founded, we had to decide. are we going to have a system in which the government can control everybody in order to prevent the bad people from doing things? or are we going to give everybody freedom and then really punish the bad people? well, this legislation that we have now before us, what has just passed the house and is now lingering in the senate, is an eament to supposedly control the -- is an attempt to supposedly control the bad

people in our country by controlling all of us. by making rules that will take away the rights of every inventor. no, no, that's not what you do. that's inconsistent with american tradition. it's inconsistent with our constitution. it's inconsistent with what our founding fathers had in mind. let's go down and say, what specifically will -- if you have frivolous lawsuits coming at large electronic corporations, how can we handle that without undermining the rights of those inventers who are coming up with the apps and the new creation, the three dimensional printers, and the wonderful things that we're on the verge of today. well, that's not going to happen unless the american people rise up. that's not going to happen unless the voice of these giants that are out there, the goliaths of our -- of the industry world, google and the rest of them who are now

rampaging and stepping on the rights of individual american inventors, unless we speak up, unless our voice is heard at least as loud as theirs, we're going to lose our freedom. we're going to lose our edge. it has been the american technology and our inventiveness over the years that has made us a secure country. it's the technology that we've developed for our nation's defense. you take away the patent rights of our american people, we will neuter that and we will be vulnerable. you take away the patent protections that we've had for our inventors that have come up with newer ways to compete, we can't compete with the world. how can american workers compete with a world filled with cheap labor? i'll tell you how we can do it. we can make sure that they have the best technology and the newest ideas and are the greatest innovators because they can outcompete people who are just working with their muscles and their sweat. we can do that.

but that's not the direction our government's going in. that's not the direction our multinational corporations want us to go in. let me alert you. we have a bill in the senate. if it passes the senate it will totally undermine the little guys, independent inventors. it will undermine the universities, it will undermine everybody but the big multinational electronics corporations that needs to be thwarted. something else is happening. something else again being snuck through. just like they tried to sneak hrough 25 years ago in the gap implementation legislation. the gap is again a trade treaty we're getting into. they tried to do this where we would publish all of america's patent applications, even before they were issued to our inventors. they tried that. the other thing they tried to do was, what? is if someone applies for a patent, at that moment the

clock starts ticking and 20 years later they'd have no more patent protection. but of course until their patent is issued, they have no patent protection anyway. and quite often patents take five to 10 years. thus they're cutting in half the time the patent -- the inventor has for patent protection. they were trying to push that through. we stopped that. well, guess what? we now have several trade treaties that are -- people are negotiating for this congress. look real close at what's happening. these big multinational corporations, from what i understand, are trying to put provisions into those trade treaties that will change the fundamental law of intellectual property rights here in this country. beware, be aware and beware of what will happen if that comes about. you put this into a treaty, it's snuck through, they tried

to do that in gap and it took a herk lean effort of a part of -- heculean effort on a part of a few of us to stop that 20 years ago with that said, i would like to put into the record -- ago. with that said, i would like to put into the record at this point, mr. speaker, a list of those things that would be very detrimental to the small inventor, that are provisions of the bill that is now in the senate. and i would ask permission to put this into the record at this point. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. rohrabacher: thank you very much. so, i would suggest that the american people read this and at what ok at the -- the impact of these changes that they're proposing will be. they're going to claim it's a patent troll, there's a monster behind the curtain, but who that person is behind the curtain is the inventor, the person who is coming up with the innovation, the edisons, the teslas, the other people

who have improved our standard of living. the people who have come up -- even this bill would have a serious impact on the development of new medicines and new health care technologies. these people need to be protected in their creation and encouraged. not controlled. and not to have their rights for ownership of what they've created to be trimmed. so, mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that that -- that the rest of that be included but also i now yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman yields back. does the gentleman have a motion? mr. rohrabacher: i now do move that the house do adjourn. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion to adjourn. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is adopted.

the fcc. we will talk to kate tummarello. first, taking a look at a new .ook on c-span joining us is emmanuel touhey. guest: it is our eighth collection here. it is to share the stories c-span has covered over the years. and sunday evening program became it q and 15 years later. the stories that have been told are worth ringing from the

screen to the printed page. what stories are you telling here? guest: there is a step in breath but have not been in previous books. we have five sections in the book beginning with stories. we have american history. have media and society, money and politics in post 9-11 america. the book formed its and shape itself. the books themselves and stories are kind of a reflection of the times and that in breath of book notes and to a day over the years. lex what is the format of the book and how did it come together? > guest: you have one guest for one hour and you go through an in-depth discussion and on whether it is up public policy issue or what have you.

what we did is we took out the questions. they are there to facilitate answers. they fade away at a certain point. the answers are what matters. a minimal amount of editing we have allowed the guest in their own words to articulate their own story or viewpoint. whatever the issue or story is and let it speak for itself. what the viewer will get is basically the answers and and guest in their own words. host: what are some of your favorite stories? guest: it was a path of discovery for me and the team working on this. so many fascinating stories. just to mention one in particular, crystal right, the editor and publisher of wasrvativeblackchick.com talking about her politics and

upbringing in virginia and how she was influenced by her parents. one thing we all know about this from american history is the isa parks moment where she forced to give up her seat and then you have history unfolding before you in the south. she said her mother said to her, before that happened i had my own rosa parks moment. she said what do you mean? she said i got on the bus in richmond and went to the back of and sat down and an older white gentleman got on the bus and asked me to give up my seat and she said what he wants me to do? i am rad at the back of the bus. what you have wrapped up in that moment was personal history, politics of public private policy. ofs is an extension everything we do here. a candid moment in an extended

interview and revealed something about the guest that was fascinating and something about the country and the country's history. where can people learn more about the book and watch the interviews that have taken place over the years? guest: you can go to all the interviews at www.c-span.org /sundayat8 you can click on any of the toes or images and be able watch the transcript. watch clips. you can watch those and read about the authors themselves. if they have websites you can look at that. quite a lot of information there. i think people will find it useful and interesting. 8:00.sunday at people can buy it now. what happens to the loyalties.

they go to the educational foundation here at c-span. there are no profits. this was a collaborative effort. hats.ar a lot of there were a lot of people involved in the process from people who make the program-two people who edited the interviews and work with brian to make it all come together. all of the proceeds go back into the continuation of the work that c-span does, and that is basically the educational foundation. emmanuel touhey, [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] >> student cam is c-span's annual competition that encourages middle and high school students to think critically about issues. students were ask toed could

create their dumentary based on the question, what's the most important issue the u.s. congress should consider in 2014? our grand prize winners are freshmen from long beach polly technic high school in long beach, california. they believe regulating hydraulic oil and gas drilling is congress' most important issue for 2014. >> in 2010, youing, congress, ordered the environmental protection agency to look into dangers posed to drinking water sources due to hydraulic fracturing. >> work was expected to be completed in 2014. the e.p.a. announced it was delaying studies until 2016. can we really wait that long, congress? >> welcome to our study, long beach, california. population, 465,000 people.

with our famous 11 miles of coast line and booming tourism, you wouldn't believe hydraulic fracturing takes place right underneathory streets. you have ever heard of fracking? hydraulic fracturing? fracturing. >> of what? >> i'm the director of long beach gas and oil. in this past year we did about 13 oil wells in long beach. these are offshore, oil operations, on the islands and of those we did about 8% or about 10 of the wells were -- involved fracking. >> to truly whandsfracking is we took a trip -- what fracking is, we took a trip. >> a mile away, drill a well down and into that. so this was the layer, we come down, down, down, down, a mile deep. and it goes sideways. the next thing we want to do is we want to open the fractures. >> the company shoots down a mixture of water, sand and

chemicals. there's explosions and then the high pressure of the fluids break apart and allow the gas and the oil to escape and flow up to the surface. >> hydraulic fracturing is kick-starting our entire energy industry. >> but the new technology called hydraulic fracturing is allowing drillers to get at these previously unaccessible reserves. >> the u.s. just passed russia as number two. we are going to pass saudi arabia, we are going to be number one. >> there's so much interest in more domestic production, so many more jobs are being created. i think they've run out of workers. i'm not even sure we can build their roads fast enough to help us get this production under way. it is revitalizing the manufacturing base of america. >> i'm adam scott. we're a registered investment advisor and we invest in oil

and gas ships on behalf of our clients. so what are the benefits of fracking? well, it's going to save america's youth from the burden of debt built up by their parents and their grandparents. fracking and the energy industries are going to create an additional 3.5 million jobs by 2020. >> but it is not that simple. there are many real concerns of the impact on our environment and these need to be addressed. >> ♪ one day i lit a match and the water caught on fire i thought about a lawsuit then stumbled upon the fact that fracking is exempted from the clean water act ♪ >> under what is called to be known as the halliburton loophole, companies extracting oil or gas through the hydraulic fracturing are exempt from disclosing the chemicals involved in their operations. normally under the clean water act, this would be required. >> there are i think 1,260

something chemicals that could e added to these things. >> i've never had no problems until the gas company came and that's when i started having these problems. all my calves that were born for 2008, i had eight live one, 10 dead ones. one was still born and one had a cleft pallet. that's when they drank that water, when they drilled up here. >> a calf died there. the mother didn't even clean it off. and the gas company says, there's nothing wrong with the waters. but it killed the cattle and it will kill the people next. > there are other real issues. a study released, fracking wells using two to five million gals of freshwater for each fracking activity. the scary part is that 90% of the water injected underground

to frack wells never returns to the surface so it is permanently removed from the water cycle. >> practicaling required millions and millions and millions of gallons of water per well. >> there also seems to be a strong correlation between hydraulic fracturing and seismic activities. >> a good example would be youngstown, ohio, just before christmas eve two years ago they were pumping water into the canadian shield, really hard rocks with no holes, kept pushing more and more pressure and the rocks went -- created a little earthquake. >> another issue is that the oil acquired by fracking is often proving to be more flammable than traditional forms of oil. >> for example, the baseline product of oil -- [inaudible] 30% to 40% of what's going in those rail cars are explosive, volatiles coming from beneath the earth.

inaudible] >> techniques need to be regulated. we have to do them responsibly. we need to understand the chemicals that are being utilized here. we need to make sure that water supplies are protected. >> dear congress, kear congress, dear congress, hydraulic fracturing could be really important for the growth of our economy. but if you want the critical support of the american people, some things you should change. you need to invest -- investigate the impact of hydraulic fracturing on seismic activities and the use of recycled water instead of freshwater. you need to mandate testing of water near fracking sites and you need to ensure the safe transportation of fracked oil and gas. most importantly, the halliburton loophole needs to be closed. and you need to require public disclosure of hydraulic fracturing fluids.

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] >> to watch all of the winning videos and to learn more about our competition, go to c-span.org and click on student cam. and tell us what you think about the issues these students want congress to consider. post your comment on student cam's facebook page or tweet us using #studentcam. >> with ongoing unrest in ukraine, foreign affairs subcommittees today held a hearing on u.s.-russia relations. state department officials testified about u.s.-russia cooperation on nuclear arms

agreements, terrorist threats and the space program. >> the subcommittees will come to order. without objection, all members may have five days to submit statements. questions, extraneous materials for the record. and subject to the length of limitation in the rules. in a matter of weeks, putin and his commandos stole crimea. now he's on to eastern ukraine. i and other members of congress were in ukraine last week and the people were rightfully concerned about putin's next move into their nation. according to press reports this morning, secretary kerry said that we now have intelligence revealing that operatives in ukraine are taking orders directly from moscow. secretary kerry also said some of the same russian operatives from crimea and georgia have

shown up in eastern ukraine. when i went to eastern ukraine, one of the officials gave me a wanted poster for what he called russian saab tours. it is in ukrainian and he's on the screen. i'll hold this up. this is a copy of the wanted poster and he was willing to y out of his own money for russian equipment that had been -- if it was confiscated by ukrainians, everything from machine guns, rifles, to anybody that's occupying one of the ukrainian buildings without permission. he's willing to offer rewards for that. so i thought that was quite interesting, that they are insurgents ut the in his own part of the state. i believe these actions should -- we should understand that we

have to re-evaluate our agreements with the russians because of their failure to abide by international law, in that they have entered crimea, ukraine and even other baltic states are concerned and so reflected that in conversations with them. in my opinion the russians are not our allies, or friends, and we certainly can't take them for their word. exhibit a is the intermediate range nuclear forces treaty, i.n.f. this treaty between the united states and russia places limits on ground-launched ballistic and cruise missiles with ranges between 500 and 5,500 kilometers. the united states has held up our agreement in the treaty. it appears the russians have not. according to press reports, it appears the russians have tested a ground launch cruise missile from an operational launcher. the russians have responded, this is a sea-based missile which does not fall under the treaty. there's no way to know if it's a sea-based missile until it's

deployed but even so, if it was a sea-based missile and the russians tested on land using an operational launcher, it's in violation of the treaty. either way the russians are violating this treaty. according to press reports, the administration knew about the violation back in 2008. six years later the state department says, the violation is still under review and is not officially classified as a violation or not. time for the state department to pick a horse and ride it. either it's a violation or it's not a violation. i've introduced h.con.res. 94 with representative rogers and joe heck calling the russians out for their violation, and the administration for its refusal to tell it like it is. we had hoped that a formal determination would be in this year's arms control compliance report but the report itself due in april is already late. apparently the state department needs more time to figure out what the rest of us already believe. the russians do not have to worry about violations as much as the new start treaty. during negotiations they gutted

the verifications that were in the old treaty. the most significant changes were the elimination of verification measures for some icbm's and reduction of total number of inspections. when the senate was debating approval in 2010, critics argued the treaty was nonsensical because the russians were already at or below the required levels or we had delivery vehicles that were way above these new vehicle levels. just like the critics warned -- these new levels. just like the critics warned, russians have undergone modernization, all without violating the new treaty. we had a reason to be suspicious of the russians and we have more reasons today. the fact is russians willing to treat these treaties is less than binding when it suits them. that's not how treaties are supposed to work. despite this, the administration has pledged to seek deeper cuts in nuclear arms. in june, 2013, the president called for the reduction of our deployed strategic nuclear

weapons by up to 1/3. my personal opinion is this would be dangerous and is misguided based on the information we have about the russians. fortunately putin may have saved us from ourselves. the russians have, quote, no apparent interest in further arms reductions before 2017, according to numerous arms control experts. the united states should not continue to seek agreements with the russians when they either cheat or show no interest in those agreements. i don't think -- it's not now the time to be cowtowing to putin and i will now turn to the ranking member from california for his opening statement, mr. slerm -- mr. sherman, for five minutes. the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. keating, is recognized for five minutes. >> i thank the chairman for allowing me to attend a meeting where my presence is required for a quorum. and i thank chairman poe and chairman rohrabacher for convening this important

hearing. d like to begin thanking the people appearing today. both witnesses have extensive experience on russia and on european security interests. i'm looking forward to hearing their assessments of the long-term strategic implication of russia's illegal invasion of crimea, its subsequent efforts to destabilize ukraine's interim government, and other matters. despite its april 17 pledge to help de-escalate the crisis in ukraine, russia has done exactly the opposite. the goal that russian -- the role that russian special forces have played is indisputable, in supporting so-called separatist coordinated armed attacks on government buildings and in orchestrating kidnaps and violence against local politicians, reporters and even monitors. russian -- this information campaign has only made matters worse. russian forces use the masked warfare and other covert

attacks seen to signal a strategic shift in its approach to the region and to european security. it's essential that the united states and nato allies respond. i welcome the administration's decision yesterday to impose a third round of sanctions on individuals and entities closely linked to the russian leadership's inner circle. i also welcome the decision to impose export restrictions on 13 russian companies and the additional restrictive measures on defense exports. the goal of these targeted sanctions is to send a clear signal that russian aggression against ukraine comes at a price. i share the president's hope that these measures will persuade president putin to reverse course. unfortunately i'm not optimistic that the steps taken today will be sufficient. i therefore fully support the administration's readiness to impose additional penalties if russia continues to press forward, including targeted sanctions against specific sectors of the russian economy. as the united states moves

forward, it's imperative that we do so in a coordinated effort with our european aliles. i applaud today's announcement -- allies. i applaud today's announcement of further e.u. sanctions on russia. i look forward to hearing from mr. hartley about the status of the administration's ongoing discussions with the e.u. as well as plans within nato to counter russian aggression and reassure our central european and baltic allies. i also look forward to hearing from ms. friedt about the status of existing arms and existing control agreements between the united states and russia. while further arms control reductions seem unlikely in the current environment, i'm relieved that the united states and russia have continued to implement the new start agreement, included by exchanging notifications and conducting onsite inspections -- inspections. these exchanges provide much-needed stability and prohibit blingt -- predictability at a time of increasing mistrust and uncertainty. i also support the administration's efforts to

work through i.n.f. treaties compliance review mechanisms to address concerns that russian activities may be inconsistent with its treaty obligations. i strongly support the administration's decisions to cut off defense cooperation with russia. i've consistently called on our european allies to follow suit and to exercise similar scrutiny with respect to defense exports to russia. however, we're when it comes to nuclear security, the stakes are much too high to break off communication. continued implementation of our arms control agreements with russia is essential, especially given the unprecedented and unpredictable nature of the crisis in ukraine. the last thing we need is another nuclear arms race in europe. with that i thank you and yield back the balance of my time. >> the gentleman yields back his time. i now will turn to the chairman of the europe, eurasia and emerging threats security committee, mr. rohrabacher from california, for five minutes. >> thank you very much,

chairman poe, for calling this hearing and -- which we are -- is jointly being held in your terrorism, nonproliferation and trade subcommittee and the subcommittee which i chair of europe, eurasia and emerging threats. during the 1980's i had the honor of working with and for president ronald reagan. through his leadership and strength, the united states brought about the collapse of the evil empire, the soviet union. i would add that there are many people who i worked with during that time period who can't seem to get over that the cold war is over and are still treating the current russian government as if it was the soviet government. we are thankful however that the world no longer lives in fear of annihilation and no longer lives with a soviet

union that is controlled by a diabolical philosophy of marxism, leninism which motivated people to attempt to put on the world a marxist, an eighth yiss tick dictatorship in the name of perfecting human kind. we are thankful that that world has been changed and that reality no longer is present and that we no longer live in fear of annihilation between -- of a nuclear exchange between those motivated by this evil ism, of marxism, lenon communism and the people of the free world. one of reagan's greatest accomplishments was negotiating and signing the intermediate range nuclear forces treaty which banned two entire categories of horrific weapons. i look forward to this hearing

today from witnesses about the current efforts to maintain and verify the provisions of that agreement. i look forward in the future to be discussing with my colleagues some of the fundamental information that they have gleaned from their visits to ukraine and other places and to have a broader discussion of the nature of the government in russia today and the threat that it poses or does not pose to the free world as compared to what it was like when i worked for ronald reagan in the 19 0s -- 1980's. i also want to speak about another power, however, which i think we shouldn't, when we're discussing this issue, mr. chairman, we should not lose sight that we're not just talking about russia and the united states. we are talking about other nuclear weapons and other

countries in relationship to what we're doing with the russians. and that is what's commine you have the -- communist china doing and what are we doing with russia and other countries that relate to this very issue of strategic weapons with communist china? i fear that by continuing to focus our arms control efforts only on russia, while excluding china, we are making a grave miscalculation. our negotiations with russia dictate our nuclear posture and define our military capabilities. it should be a major concern that china is not included in these limits. including caps set by the new strategic arms limitation treaty signed into -- signed in 2010. over the past two decades, the people's liberation army, the armed wing of the communist party of china, i might add, has engaged in a massive arms buildup. the capability has increased in

every area. it is illogical to believe that china's strategic forces and their nuclear stockpile have not also likewise been expanded and improved. the united states-china economic security review commission stated in 2012, the p.l.a. continues to modernize and expand its nuclear stockpile. china is now on the cusp of obtaining a credible nuclear triad of land-based, intercontinental ballistic missiles and submarine-launched ballistic missiles and air dropped nuclear bombs. end of quote. we also know, thanks to the research by dr. phil ingarber of georgetown, university -- of georgetown university, that china has built some 3,000 miles of underground tunnels to store and to transport their nuclear missiles and war heads. this secret effort by the

chinese military is so massive it is known as the underground great wall. beyond this incredible infrastructure, china is also researching hypersonic missiles, icbm's, with maneuvering war heads which can outmaneuver our defensive systems. communist china must be included in any discussion of arms control. and if we focus only on russia, we are doing a great disservice to the security of our country. addressing concerns and priorities with russia does remain important and the things that are being said today need to be taken into consideration. ignoring china's strategic weapons is not an option and will lead us to a much more dangerous world. they must be part of this discussion today and hopefully in the weeks ahead. thank you, mr. chairman. >> the chair recognizes the ranking member from the terrorism subcommittee, mr.

sherman from california. for five minutes. >> if you watch american television you'd think with foreign policies as simple as a cheap western. some people are in white hats, some cowboys are in black hats. if you watch russian television, you come to the same conclusion, only the hat colors have been changed. if you review what has happened, you see that this is far more complicated. a pro-russian president was elected in legitimate elections in the ukraine. that legitimately elected president broke his promises, turned his policy on a fundamental issue. democrat elected presidents have been known to do that. he was swept from power by an insurrection. those occupied and it is considered a criminal act to use armed forces, organized

government armed forces to dislodge them. now the government that has taken over in kiev is using armed government forces to dislodge eastern ukrainian occupiers of various government buildings. throughout foreign policy we're faced with the tension between territorial integrity and self-determination. those were the two greatest wars fought on our territory. our fight for self-determination from the british and our fight for our territorial integrity and against the self-determination objectives of the confederate states. an effort rimea as at the self-determination of the russian-speaking majority there as an illegal act. we used our air force to achieve the independence of kosovo which, like the crimea, was an autonomous region within a republic which was a

relatively newly independent republic having is he ceded from -- having is he seeded. so we have been on both sides of territorial integrity and self-determination, both on our territory in the first 150 in s of our existence and eastern europe more recently. the russians are interfering in the eastern ukraine, our friends in kiev are not without fault. they have adopted a change in law that would strip the russian language of its official status in its southern and eastern provinces. fortunately that law was vetoed. but clearly a parliament and i should point out a particlement in which many of the eastern ukrainian members felt unsafe and did not attend would be allowed to pass such a law, shows that this is not a

government dedicated to reaching out to all of its citizens. so we have the simplicity of westerns, we have the reality of foreign policy in eastern europe. it is overly simplistic to say that one side is entirely right and one is entirely wrong. just as it's even more simplistic to say that everything would go our way if only we had a president with a different personality. we had a president with a radically different personality just a decade ago, when georgia lost not one but two of its autonomous regions to russia. georgia being smaller, the regions being smaller, the issues being smaller. but you can say what you like about our last two presidents, the one thing everybody agrees on is they had different personalities. as to arms control agreements, we've got to trust but verify.

ronald reagan entered into agreements with a soviet union that clearly was less trustworthy than putin is today . those who enter into these agreements and rely on trust re fooling themselves. the allegations are twofold. one, that the -- that a russian missile that they call long range was tested at an intermediate range. it seems clear that it is a long range missile. the other is that a midrange missile that the russians say was for sea-based purposes was tested onground, which is allowed, but tested onground with what appears to be a operational, usable ground-based launcher, perhaps one, and i'd like to hear from our witnesses, that was mobile.

and so it appears as if they were developing a ground-based capacity for this intermediate missile. finally i will point out that four countries have given up their nuclear weapons or their nuclear programs. south africa, where it worked out well. saddam, gaddafi and the ukraine. two of them lost their lives. one of them lost the crimea. it may be more difficult in the future for us to convince dictators to give up nuclear weapons it. doesn't always work out well. -- weapons. it doesn't always work out well. i yield back. >> without objection, all the witnesses' prepared statements will be made part of the record. and i ask that each witness keep your presentation to no more than five minutes. we are in the middle of votes so we will see how far we can go before we recess for votes and we will resume immediately after the votes. i'll introduce both of the witnesses at this time.

ms. anita friedt is d. verification and compliance at the u.s. department of state. she has earned numerous awards for her work on u.s.-russian-european -- >> mr. chairman, are other members allowed to give opening statements? >> all members have five days to submit statements because we have votes and two subcommittees. they can make their comments during their questioning if they wish. mr. brent hartley. he has extensive experience in european security issues and has served in various roles related to arms control, counterterrorism and nato and more. ms. friedt, we'll start with you. you have five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. chairman poe, chairman rohrabacher, ranking members sherm understand and keating, and members -- sherman and keating, and members of this committee, i am grateful for the opportunity to speak to you

today about the administration's arms control policy toward russia. today i want to speak to you about three things. one, why arms control agreements with russia continue to be an important tool to enhance the security of the united states, our allies and partners. two, how we have used arms control tools since the crisis in ukraine began to increase transparency and stability in support of our broader regional efforts. and, three, the seriousness with which the administration takes compliance and arms control treaties. first, as it has been recognized for over four decades, arms control is a tool that can be used to enhance the security of the united states, our allies and our partners. the obama administration has continued the long standing bipartisan approach to arms control with russia that had its origins in the days of the cold war. the administrations of presidents ronald reagan, george h.w. bush were the

architects of many of our most successful and enduring arms control efforts. let me affirm that the united states is committed to maintaining strategic stability between the united states and russia and to encouraging mutual steps to foster a more stable, resilient, predictable and transparent security relationship. that said, russia's illegal actions in ukraine have undermined trust. while diplomacy between the united states and russia continues, no one can ignore that russia's actions in ukraine have violated the very principles upon which cooperation is built. further, as we consider arms control priorities this year, or in any year, we will continue to consult closely with our allies and partners every step of the way. our security and defense, as well as that of our allies and partners, is nonnegotiable. we will only pursue arms control agreements that advance our national interest. during the cold war, washington

and moscow found it in our mutual interest to work together to cap and then to begin reducing the number of nuclear weapons in service in reversing the nuclear arms race and improving mutual security and stability. we judged that the new start treaty was in the united states' national security interest for the same reasons and that is why we continue to implement the new start treaty with russia today. we are now in the fourth year of implementation and despite the crisis in ukraine, we and russia continue to implement the treaty in a businesslike manner. since entry into force in 2011, the united states has inspected with boots on the ground russian nuclear weapons facilities 58 times. these inspections are the part of new start treaty verification regime which is a vital tool in ensuring transparency and predictability between the world's largest powers. in the realm of conventional

arms control, the united states and our allies have been using arms control neckism ins in an effort to promote stability in europe, provide transparency and russia's provocative actions, and ensure our allies and partners. i want to underscore that our nato allies and other partners in europe strongly support arms control in europe as well as our active participation and leadership in those efforts. since the ukraine crisis began, the united states and our treaty partners have used the open skies treaty to fly 11 missions over ukraine and western russia, yielding imagery of thousands of square miles of territory. these flights have resulted in valuable data and insights not only for the united states but our partners and allies as well. we also have confidence building measures in the vienna document to conduct inspections. let me now turn to the issue of compliance. first and foremost, the administration takes compliance with all arms control

agreements extremely seriously. for this reason, this administration worked hard to produce compliance report in 2010. the first compliance report delivered to the congress since 2005. and we have produced one every year since. we endeavor every year to produce a compliance report by april 15. this is admittedly challenging giving -- given the volume of information, the multiple agencies that must comment on it and the seriousness with which the administration conducts its annual compliance review. despite this, we plan to have the report fully coordinated and available later in the spring. as we've previously stated, we have concerns about russian compliance with the i.n.f. treaty. we have raised these concerns with russia and are pressing for clear answers in an effort to resolve these concerns because of the importance of the i.n.f. treaty to euro atlantic security. we've briefed our nato allies on our concerns and will continue to coordinate with

them on this and other mats that are affect our common security -- matters that affect our common security. we've kept congress informed on these matters and will continue to do so. we will continue to work with russia to resolve our concerns and to encourage mutual steps to help foster a more stable, resilient, transparent security relationship. we're not going to drop the issue until our concerns have been addressed. let me conclude by reiterating our strong belief that arms control treaties and agreements continue to be an important tool that can enhance the security of the united states and our friends and allies. the successful implementation of the new start treaty and the important contributions that open skies treaty and the vienna document have played recently in ukraine demonstrate the continued relevance of arms control for our national security. thank you very much. i look forward to your questions. >> thank you. mr. hartley, we just have a few minutes left in the voting process. so we will do your testimony as

soon as we come back. we have two votes after the second -- votes. after the second vote is concluded we will start immediately after that and we'll hear what you have to say. >> the second meeting will come to order. mr. hartley, have five minutes. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. members of the committees, i appreciate very much your inviting me to testify here today on our efforts to reassure allies and partners and to bolster security in ukraine and the region. and i would like to thank the members of both subcommittees or both committees for your engagement on european security in light of the ukraine cry sills. it is important to remember how we got to this point. russia's illegal annexation and occupation of crimea and its continued campaign to undermine and intimidate the government of ukraine have up ended the post-cold war security

structure. russia's maintaining a contention of 40,000 troops on ukraine's eastern border and conducting military activities that raise deep concerns. there is strong evidence demonstrating the aktses of recent wetion, the road blocks, building seizures, hostage takings and other violent acts in eastern ukraine have not been a spontaneous set of events but rather a well orchestrated campaign led by russian special services. we strongly condemn the abduction last friday of a german-led vienna document inspection team and their ukrainian escorts by pro-russian separatists. we are deeply disappointed that senior officials in moscow have not condemned the abduction of the team, nor have they demanded the team's immediate release. russia's aggressive actions in ukraine are in violation of international law and do not uphold the letter or the spirit of the april 17 geneva

statement. yesterday the united states acted imposing new sanctions on seven russian government officials, including two members of president putin's inner circle. and 17 companies linked to putin's inner circle. these steps demonstrate that the united states is committed to increasing the costs on russia, as it persists in its efforts to destabilize ukraine and that we will hold russia accountable for its actions. russia's actions have also forced the united states and nato allies to fundamentally re-examine our strategic engagement in europe. my testimony today will focus on three areas of this effort. first, i will talk about efforts to reassure nato's frontline allies and to bolster our other partners in the region. second, i will discuss the organization for security and cooperation in europe's important role in monitoring the security situation and facilitating dialogue in ukraine. third, i will address u.s. bilateral security assistance to ukraine. first, we are pursuing measures

through nato and bilaterally to reassure our allies and partners in the region and in particular to demonstrate our solemn commitment to our collective defense responsibilities to our nato aliles. we've deployed six additional f-15's to the air policing mission. we've deployed 12 f-16's and other aircraft and personnel for exercises, joint u.s.-polish exercises coordinated by the u.s. aviation training detachment in poland. nato's deployed awax to provide aerial surveillance over poland and romania, as well as a mine counter measure naval group into the baltic sea. the united states deployed -- has deployed ships into the black sea for exercises with romania and bulgaria. on april 16, nato allies agreed on additional measures to provide reassurance and demonstrate nato's resolve and solidarity. the u.s. army in europe has deployed over the last week

company-sized contingents of par troopers to poland, latvia, lithuania and estonia for exercises with those host governments' troops. these will be a first in a series of expanded land force training exercises in the region that will take place at least through the end of the year. as we prepare for nato summit in whales, it will be an opportunity to reassess the alliance's long-term priorities . that along with nato-ukraine relations, questions related to the open door and nato enlargement, afghanistan capabilities and enhancing nato partnerships. we're engaged with other frontline states like georgia and moldova. secondly, we see a vital role for the o.c.e. in this crisis. along with our allies in europe, we are committed to maintaining a large presence of

international monitors as part of the special monitoring mission. this mission is positioned to objectively assess the security situation and investigate claims of human rights abuses as well as to assist in de-escalating tensions in eastern ukraine. but for this mission to be properly implemented in accordance with the geneva statement, russia must take active and concrete steps immediately to de-escalate the crisis, including public and private messages to pro-russian elements engaged in illegal activities in ukraine, as well as active support for the monitoring mission's role. the o.c.e. is also involved in election observation for the may 25 election. the office for democratic institutions and human rights is laying the groundwork for the largest observation mission in its 40-year history, planning to deploy approximately 1,000 observers in the run-up to the election. third, we're working with the ukrainian government to provide

security assistance. as vice president biden announced last week, we're providing $8 million in assistance to allow the ukrainian armed forces and border guard service to fulfill core security missions. this is in addition to the $3 million of meals ready to eat, $3.5 million of health and welfare systems to the armed forces and $3 million in other security assistance to ukraine's state border guard service. looking forward, the united states will continue to reaffirm the security and stability of the region across multiple fronts, using mull approximately -- multiple tools at our disposal. in this effort we appreciate congress' bipartisan attention and support for ukraine and for stability across the region. and will continue to work in close coordination with you in all three of these areas. thank you very much and i look forward to your questions. >> thanks for yielding back time. the chair will now recognize the chairman of the subcommittee on europe, eurasia and emerging threats, mr. rohrabacher, for five minutes

of questions. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. as i say, perhaps the focus of this hearing, which we originally thought would be our weapons, nuclear weapons and the relationship between the united states and russia in terms of cooperating on reducing and restricting the number of nuclear weapons, the threat to human kind, we have gone beyond that and we of course, however, i believe the purpose of that is to put in perspective the decisions we must make in terms of weapons control, after the events that have happened in ukraine. let me just note that from my perspective, there's been two gleeful a -- too gleeful a response from so many of my former colleagues and i'm not talking about members of the house, i'm talking about people who worked with me over the years in various

administrations and various anticommunist causes, there seems to be a gleeful response to what's happened in ukraine yet e it then gives them purpose in -- a going back and beating up the old enemy. . frankly the soviet union was our enemy because it was directed by people with an ideology that was trying to supplant the rest of the world and doing so in a big way as well as building up their own military. russia is a powerful force in the world which we need to deal with as a major country, a major nation. major countries have their interests. i do not see what's