that's our general policy. >> so if 6103 is in place and there's currently a process that requires reasonable cause, i guess my question would be why then propose a new concept that -- does it improve on protections for u.s. citizens or is it removing protections for u.s. citizens? >> i'm happy to take a look at that blog post and respond in more detail to you. >> okay. i guess just for clarity, do you think it's the administration's expectation that congress will curtail the protections in the current law as it relates to 6103 and as we look ahead and we're going through the process of some of the other questions dealing with 501-cs and such? >> i think that the protection of individual privacy and information and making sure our system is a fair one and

transparent where it should be transparent but not transparent on personal matters where it shouldn't be is one of our very highest obligations. i'm not aware of any effort for us to change that. i'm happy to look at this particular matter. >> okay. i would hope that the administration would not be proposing any kind of concept that would allow the internal revenue service to share freely information to other agencies without reasonable cause. that's what i'll be looking forward to your response on. >> thank you. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. mr. secretary, good to see you, sir. a few issues. i wasn't going to bring this up but chairman rogers brought it up and i think it got me thinking, obviously. it's your responsibility to enforce federal law. my understanding is it hasn't changed that marijuana is

illegal under federal law. yet i understand now your department is doing these guidelines or guidance, giving guidance to banks as to how to deal with something that is illegal under federal law. are those guidelines going to at least have a very clear statement that marijuana is illegal under federal law? >> our guidelines in no way change federal law. the department of justice -- >> is there going to be -- my question is this, sir. i apologize. in those guidelines, is there a statement stating that, hey, folks, this is illegal under federal law? which is the federal law, correct? >> we are in no way telling people things illegal under federal law are legal. the exact language i have to go back and look. >> it would be interesting to note in fact since your responsibility is to enforce

federal law and you're giving guidelines on something that is against, is illegal according to federal law that at least there should be an indication that it is illegal under federal law which is what your obligation is. >> to be clear, the department of justice guidelines make clear what their prosecutorial priorities are. it does not say things that are illegal are legal. i don't think any of the activities confuse the question of federal and state law. our concern is that in a very complicated situation where states have made certain activities legal, where there will be transactions, to have those be cash transactions rather than banked transactions creates more risk of illegal behavior than we need to see. we tried to put out guidelines to be clarity for banks to be able to provide transparency into these transactions. >> i understand. i think if somebody receiving, a

banker receives guidelines on how to deal with certain entities from the federal government, i think that in itself will make it very unclear whether it is something that is illegal under federal law. i think making that very clear would be something that would be helpful. >> i actually think they very much understand they are in an area where they're at risk. and they're filing suspicious activity reports. a lot of banks are not taking these accounts. i don't think there is any ambiguity in the banking world that they have to work a very narrow line. >> you do believe they are at risk if they do so. >> they are filing suspicious activity reports for behavior that warrants suspicious activity reports. >> mr. secretary, let me bring you to a couple of points brought up and one not brought up. last week, mexico i heard was considering filing an amicus brief with the u.s. supreme court taking the side of argentina. we had the secretary of state, i

asked him whether the department of state would intervene even if asked, he said absolutely not. now we know by press reports that last july, junior officials in your department urged imf to file a similar brief before they were overruled by the senior department officials. the u.s. then obviously withdrew such support. again, that would have been an unprecedented move by the imf. can you tell us with respect to this mexican brief, has any official in your department encouraged mexico, expressed approval to mexico, contacted mexico at any point in the last year regarding them filing that brief? >> congressman, be clear we did file in the lower court proceedings a brief. i am not going to defend argentina's behavior in any general way but this narrow issue of banking, of law, we do think that the rights of

creditors warrants attention an we filed a brief. there is a general policy in the executive branch to only file amicus brief. we didn't feel amicus brief. >> i had conversations with my counterparts. i told them exactly what i told you, which makes it clear what we think the right legal outcome would be. i think the conversations with the imf last year kind of reflected them just conforming to the fact we weren't filing a brief, they didn't file a brief. >> mr. secretary, my question is separate. my question is have folks in your department as far as you know, have any contact or have contact with mexico asking or encouraging them to do that. >> i said i had conversations with my counterparts. >> in mexico.

>> yes. >> so you have had those. >> no. i just told you they asked us our views. i told them what i told you. >> i think i'm out of time, mr. chairman. thank you, sir. >> thank you. mr. yoder. >> thank you. mr. secretary, welcome back to the committee. i have a couple of different areas i would like to ask you about this morning. first of all is the designation that the fsoc is going forward with and i'm concerned they are not taking a deliberate and thorough process reviewing the asset management industry for potential sifi designations. the only public report was criticized for failing to demonstrate a complete understanding of the asset management business and differentiate it from banks and other financial institutions. it does not define what risks it is concerned about with asset managers or confirm specific

methods and thresh holds used to evaluate asset managers. fsoc said it would hold a round table may 19th. last week "wall street journal" reported two asset managers have been moved to stage two of the sifi designation process. can you explain why the fsoc is advancing asset managers when they are gathering information and what can be done to ensure proper decisions are made here and all voices are heard to make sure we don't make problems worse through improper designations? >> congressman, i think if you look at this issue, it is one of many issues that fsoc will be considering. it was created to look not in the rear view mirror but forward. what are the potential risks to financial stability? ofr was asked to do some analysis here. it was not a regulatory action. it was a piece of analysis. i won't discuss any specific conversations regarding any one entity. i'm just speaking to the review

of the sector. there is no one on fsoc who knows the outcome of this process because we are still in the fact-finding stages. there is going to be a public session where there will be views presented and some will disagree with the ofr study, i'm sure. some will support it. our challenge is to make sure we ask hard questions and we are not afraid to ask questions when we don't know whether the answer is yes or no. that's the only way we are going to be able to detect the threats of the future. i think this is an area where it warrants attention. it is way premature for anyone to be speculating on what the outcome is. i can tell you as chairman of fsoc, i don't know the outcome and i shouldn't know the outcome until we are fully informed. >> appreciate that. returning to the national deficit for a minute, my colleague mr. womak asked

pertinent questions. anyone who pats himself on the back for a $6 million deficit knows that is not an achievement that is going to create the fiscal responsibility this country needs to get back to. we now have revenue coming in over our 40-year average into this government. i believe we have more revenue coming in dollarwise than any time in american history. we are running the sixth largest deficit in history only because the last five were the five largest, were larger, all within this current administration. cbo projects another $1.5 trillion in debt the next ten years. i can't find anyone in my district that want to see us borrow another $6 trillion to $7 trillion. we have president's budget increasing spending beyond that, ai attempting to increases deficits

greater and deficits going up attributed to health care costs, affordable health care act, debt and interest, payments. many of our colleagues are tired of sending more money to washington, d.c. they are tired of the constant request of additional taxes that washington can't live within its means. there is $3 trillion in new taxes because of tax increases that occurred in the last couple of years. my question is will the administration, i know we talked about the short term, congratulations that the administration feels $600 billion is an achievement in a deficit. that's short term. long term will the administration get serious about our long-term debt challenges or does it intend to leave this for the next administration? if so, what are the specific ideas that the administration is going to put forward? >> congressman, i think that you have to look at where we started. we made enormous progress. i have not said that i'm happy that there is a $600 billion

deficit. i'm happy we reduced the deficit and on a path towards keeping it coming down so it will shrink as a percentage of gdp. affordable care on net is reducing the deficit not increasing it. the thing that is driving entitlements up, baby booms are retiring and claiming social security and medicare they are entitled to. these are challenging areas. unless somebody wants to say they are going to do something other than pay social security and medicare, the solutions are very hard. we tried over a number of years to work on a bipartisan budget agreement. the president put his every beth effort into it we are with not able to get an agreement on a bipartisan basis. not the with standing that, we made enormous progress. incrementally doing it on discretionary spending, doing it with the tax bill the beginning of last year. i think that right now, the most urgent thing facing americans is what can we do to promote more

growth and more job creation in this economy? what do we do to get construction and housing moving again? i think we have a little bit of time, not decades, but it's not today's crisis to deal with the deficit. i think today for most middle class families, what they want to know is what are we doing to grow the economy? the things we've been talking about in terms of helping small businesses and helping to make job creation more robust is frankly what we should be paying our current attention to. >> thank you, mr. secretary. thank you, mr. chair. >> thank you. mrs. butler. >> thank you. i have a couple of questions. the first one has to do with debt collection. "the washington post" reported on a couple of weeks ago that the government was seizing state and federal tax refunds that are, i think they were on their way to about 400,000 americans

who have relatives who owe money to social security and refunds intercepted never heard of the debt and the debts were as far back as the mid century. it was the farm bill in 2008 that set up the authority to go get back taxes, but i wanted to ask, in my understanding of it, i don't see anywhere where we have given you the authority to offset payments from an individual to pay debts that are not in his or her name. where did you get that authority? >> so the issue here, treasury's role is really as an agent of other federal agencies. the 2008 form bill did create an authority here. social security administration certified valid claims. treasury executes on those claims. it doesn't create them. the social security administration has said they're changing their policy, so this

is not going to be happening going forward. i think the concerns raised are frankly concerns that i share in terms of how some of these issues developed. >> so those folks who had, you now, assets seized on behalf of a debt that his or her father had before they perhaps even perished when they war a kid, is that money going to be returned then or how do you move forward with that? >> i'm not aware of how social security is handling retro actively. i'm happy to look up on that and get back to you. >> i find it concerning with your direction or under your permission a federal agent would see fit to read what is beyond

the law saying you can go back appropriately when people owe money to get it, but take it a step beyond and say we'll get it from your kids and grandkids without them having been permission in the law. >> just to be clear, the specific collection item is not something the treasury exercised judgment over or would exercise judgment over. i'm not the right person to answer some of the questions how the climb was determined. once a claim is certified by a serial agent system. >> you do the collection? >> it triggers a responsibility, yes. it's not an independent action. >> i understand it's not independent, but if you're the one taking the money then there is some shared responsibility for ensuring you're taking it appropriately, no? >> i think we all collectively have the responsibility we do business in a way we are

comfortable with. >> and abides by the law. >> different direct lines of responsibility. that's why i'm not the right person to answer some of these questions. >> switching gears. treasury inspection general announced an investigation from october of 2010 to december 2012. more than 2,800 employees with recent subantated issued received $2.8 billion in bonus awards. more than 1,100 irs employees with substantiated federal compliance problems received more than $1 million in cash awards with more than 10,000 hours in time off. do you believe that poor performance and especially the failure to pay taxes should be rewarded through bonuses to irs

employees? >> congresswoman, our position is individuals found to engaged in significant misconduct, including nonpayment of taxes should not be eligible for performance awards during the relevant time period. the irs already had discussions with the union. this is a collective bargaining agreement this bonus program, about the eligibility standards, poor performance awards, and i understand the union agreed to work with the irs to address this issue. clearly, this has to change. >> any chance you are going to go back and collect that money paid if you believe it shouldn't have been given? >> let's first make the policy going forward, then we can look at questions whether or not there is any retro activity to it. the most important thing is -- these bonuses were for several years ago. the question is what happens with future bonuses and this will govern that. we've already changed the policy

for things discretionary bonuses at executive levels that performed with this kind of performance and misconduct are taking into consideration. now will be taken into consideration for all bonuses. >> thank you. yield back. >> one thought, mr. secretary. someone mentioned the fsoc. i would just leave you with one of the concerns i hear from time to time that there are complex issues that are dealt with fsoc that would would argue, other regulators didn't have the expertise in those areas, so i just want to share that concern that you not reinvent the wheel and duplicate regulatory aspects. that is something we heard from time to time. thank you very much for being here today, working with us to reschedule this hiring, being here under less than ideal

circumstances. want to thank the members for their interest and their attendance today. so with that, the meeting is adjourned. >> thank you, mr. chair. -- on therepublican middle wage bill that would increase the minimum wage to $10.10 over 31 spirit a procedural vote on the measure is expected at noon eastern. senator john thune spoke about the bill on the senate floor tuesday. here is a look. >> i come to the floor today to discuss the proposed minimum wage hike and the job that will cost americans. with more than 10 million americans unemployed, the last thing that this body should be doing is considering legislation

that would jeopardize jobs. yet this week we are back in session with another one of the democrats' election-year gimmicks. a 41% minimum wage hike. it is estimated it would result in the loss of one million jobs in this country. minimum wage hikes are a favorite democratic proposal when election-year prospects are dim. hiking wages sound good and democrats figure it is a surefire way to appeal to americans. the truth is, when the consequences of the hike is explained to them, americans do not want that. why is that? americans want jobs and a minimum wage hike during a weak economic recovery would not result in job gains. it would result in job losses. it is simple. when you make something more expensive, people can afford less of it every when you drive up the cost of hiring, workers,

employers cannot afford to as hire as many of them. especially when you consider minimum wage owners are often small business owners. right now, democrats are proposing a 40% hike in an economy where job growth is weak. a massive minimum wage hike under the worst possible conditions. it should surprise no one that the congressional budget office has estimated this would cost up to one million jobs. who would be hurt most by these lost jobs? women, for one. the congressional budget office estimates that 57% of the roughly 500,000 jobs that would be lost by the end of 2016 thanks to this bill would be jobs held by women. young people would also be hit particularly hard. our economy's overall unemployment rate is not good, but the rate for 16-24-year-olds is even worse. more than twice the national average.

the unemployment rate for african-americans from 16-24 is worse than that. a staggering 23.6%. almost four times the national average. the cane university economist anthony davis estimates that the proposed minimum wage increase would hike unemployment for those under 25 years old without a high school diploma by 7%-10%. so if you are under 25 without a diploma, the unemployment rate which is already staggeringly high could go up by 10% according to a duquesne university economist. finally, the democrats' proposed minimum wage hike would harm the lowest skilled worker. in other words, the people it is supposed to help. when businesses are faced with the reality of higher employment cost from a minimum wage hike, who are they going to let go? low-skilled workers. the same workers who are most

likely to be making the minimum wage. in a march 2014 survey of businesses employing minimum wage workers, 38% reported they would have to let some employees go to cover the cost of the hike, while 54% reported they would reduce hiring. south dakota business owners told me the same thing at a recent roundtable. multiple business owners told me that they would stop hiring younger, less experienced workers and would reduce the hours of their current employees. others spoke of the devastating impact the cost would have on their businesses. one gentleman who employs 30 workers at a dairy queen in south dakota told me that a $3 increase in the minimum wage would cost his business and additional $100,000 a year. that is a huge amount for a small business in a rural area of south dakota.

to deal with this, this owner, like so many other owners around the country, will be forced to hike prices on the products he offers. that will affect families across the country. middle-class families have already seen their incomes fall by almost $3500 on this president's watch. the congressional budget office makes clear that a minimum wage hike means their purchasing power will be further reduced and eroded. mr. president, the evidence is clear. minimum wage hikes cost jobs. a strong majority of americans reject the hikes. but democrats have a habit of ignoring the evidence and the american people. take obamacare. democrats jammed the bill through congress over the objections of the american people. despite plenty of evidence to

suggest it would not work. by committing their liberal fantasy of government-run health care, they ignored the evidence to the contrary and forced the bill through. the american people are suffering as a result. you have canceled health care plans. lost doctors and hospitals. higher prices, fewer choices. reduced access to medications. the list goes on and on. last week, the fifth small business survey reported that businesses now rank health care as their number one concern. more than 60% of them now say the long-term impacts of the affordable care act will be negative on their business. another article reported that health insurers are preparing to raise rates for plans issued under the affordable care act.

that is from a weekend article. another article from the hill. democrats in competitive elections generally regard obamacare as a four letter word. omittingpaign websites reference to the law. democrats know that obamacare has failed, but instead of trying to replace the law, they are trying to distract with more bad policies that make it harder to create jobs. american families are hurting. they need jobs. steady, good paying jobs. democrats are ignoring this priority in favor of pet projects that pander to their political base. there is a clear contrast developing in the senate. democrats are offering distractions, republicans are offering proposals that would spur job creation and help

middle-class family. proposals like the bill to force approval of the keystone pipeline and the 42,000 jobs that the president's state department says it would support. or senator collins' proposal to amend me work week provision that is causing employees to cut hours. or a proposal to repeal obamacare's tax on medical devices, a tax that has damaged tens of thousands of jobs. it stands ready to damage many more. a built to require branch agencies to revive a cost benefit analysis so fewer regulations emerge from the administration. senator lee and mcconnell's bill to give parents more flexibility so they can make it to soccer games and dance recitals. while maintaining steady jobs.

senator rubio's bill. to amend the national labor relations act to allow employers to get raises for deserving employees. and my own bill to help long-term unemploymed workers. it provides him with a one-time low interest loan to start a new job. >> the time has expired. >> those are the things we ought to be focused on, mr. president. i hope we will start. and start grading jobs and opportunities for the american people. up, they examine u.s. russian new sugar negotiations. a discussion on the future of u.s. defense policy. by democraticed governor association chair and vermont governor peter shumlin on the 2014 elections.

>> and discussion on suicide prevention. our guests from the american foundation for suicide onvention and mary jo gibson suicide education and prevention. about iraqg elections in the country's stability since the withdrawal of u.s. troops. later, the spotlight on magazines from "scientific american" about a recent article on the safety of the cigarettes. "washington journal" is live every morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. you can join the conversation on facebook and twitter. the inspectors general from homeland security, the cia, and lookingice department at information sharing leading up to the boston marathon

bombings which took lace one year ago. they met morning, before the senate homeland security on c-span 3. likes i stand here with my colleagues from the arizona .elegation we are very close friends of congress among gabrielle giffords to remember a tragic event that the place three years ago today. 2011, at 10:10 a.m., in 19.6 seconds, people were shot during a congress and a corner in tucson, arizona. this event was democracy in

action. a member of this body, the people's house, meeting one-on-one with her constituents. six wonderful people died that day including my friend gabe zimmerman. my go to guy on the congresswoman's staff. you know, tucson and southern arizona have definitely not been .efined by that terrible act instead we are defined by how the community responded. the compassion, the love, the prayers and the goodwill have poured out and help all of us heal our broken hearts. bringing some good out of that horrific day.

the sensational needs of children to prevent bullying in the stigma of mental illness to improve those services. while congresswoman giffords continues her recovery, her determination gives hope to mothers and she is a true inspiration to the country and to the world. you might have noted that earlier today, she jumped out of an airplane and took a tandem dive. this woman's resilience has no bounds. sadly, and the last three years, other communities have been senseless actsar of violence. the most fitting memorial would be to take action to prevent another such tragedy. as a shooting survivor, a grandfather, a member of congress, i am determined to do

so and i know many others in this body and the senate have the same aspiration. let us never forget the six people who died that fateful day . nine-year-old christina taylor green, dorothy morris, u.s. ,istrict judge john role phyllis schneck, bolan stoddard, and gabe zimmerman. like toker, i would now ask that the house have a moment of silence in remembrance of these good people. >> if members would rise and observe a moment of silence. [silence] from 35more highlights years of house coverage on our c-span a page. c-span, created by america's

cable company 35 years ago and brought to you today by your local cable or satellite provider. like state department officials testified before a joint house foreign affairs subcommittee about russian intervention in ukraine and nuclear arms negotiations. this is one hour and 20 minutes. >> 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. in a matter of weeks, putin and his commandos stole crimea. now he's on to eastern ukraine. i and other members of congress

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 pay 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 concerned about the insurgents 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 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 kowtowing to putin and i will now turn to the ranking member from california for his opening statement, 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. i'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 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. 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 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. these exchanges provide much-needed stability and 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 atheistic 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 theory of marxism, leninism, 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 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 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 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. phillip garber 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. we look at crimea as an effort 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 seceded. so we have been on both sides of territorial integrity and self-determination, both on our territory in the first 150 years of our existence and in 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 parliament 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 are fooling themselves. the allegations are twofold. one, 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. 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. 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 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 state'' 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 mechanism 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 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 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. soon as we come back. we have two 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 actions of recent weeks, 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 allies. 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 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 paratroopers 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 wales, 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 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 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 because it gives them yet a purpose in 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 going on in ukraine as as a outcome of the communist ideology but instead you have a very important international power there, russia, that is governed by someone who is looking out for its national interests and who that leadership of that country obviously believes that what was going on in ukraine was contrary to their national interests and that they were not being treated fairly in a way in which a pro-russian leader was removed from office by street violence rather than by elections, which was going to result in their

losing -- what they had was access to crimea and a port for their fleet. that said, i'd like to go back to the original purpose that we came here today, to talk about arms control and how that will be impacted by this new shift in our relations with russia and i say that no matter what i should have said the bottom line is, it is in recognition that we are now not in as positive a relationship or neutral relationship that we are in two years ago with russia. we were in fact -- things -- our relationship with russia has the deteriorated. whose fault that is, and does the russian government with putin have all the blame or do we share some of it, or was there a power grab by the e.u., that's something to discuss but

e fact is we know that relationship has deteriorated. what i would like to ask the panel is, does this mean that what we negotiated with, and i'm very proud of what ronald reagan accomplished in eliminating a whole classification of nuclear weapons and brought down the number of nuclear weapon this is a threaten the world, does that mean we can no longer work with russia in this area? should we postpone our efforts or pull back from cooperation with the current russian government on those issues? should we then also pull back from economic cooperation, should we declare the space program that we are partners with russia, now to be not something that we believe we can count on and thus we should go the opposite direction? what about that? should -- what are the

implications for arms control, what are the implications for cooperating in other areas of russia and the whole ukrainian situation? >> thank you, mr. chairman. i'll be pleased to answer that question. first of all, i would say that this administration has made it very clear that it is important to continue to cooperate with russia where we can, where our national security interests coincide, but then when we disagree, we disagree and we make our disagreements very clear. so there's no question that it is in our national security interest to continue to work with russia and international partners in multilateral efforts that are key to global security. such efforts as elimination of syria's chemical weapons, for example. our work together on iran. and i would add also our work together in the arms control field that means continued implementation of --

>> so you're not advocating, the administration and what you're suggesting today a good policy would be not to punish russia in those areas. for what they're doing in the ukraine? i would not say punish. we have a very clear position on the events of ukraine -- >> so we should not let cooperation be a tool then. mr. hartley, could you answer that? i've already taken too much time, i'm sorry. >> yes, sir, thank you for that question. as anita said, we -- terror areas where both we and the russians perceive our national interests to coincide and anita outlined a number of them. one area where we now have a profound difference is over what the -- what the post-cold war european security environment should be, what the ground rules are. coming out of the cold war we

had, we thought, some very clear rules based on the helsinki final act of 1975 and other agreements that european borders would not be chamed by force. the russians have undertaken to do that with regard to crimea. we believe that they are actively involved using their special forces and other agents to destabilize eastern ukraine and it's for that reason, because of this behavior contrary -- >> thank you very much. mr. chairman, again, as we discuss this, china is still in the world and in the picture and i would hope that as we look, as we work these problems out, that we keep in mind that china has to be part of the equation or the world will be less secure. thank you very much, mr. chairman. >> i thank the gentleman. i recognize the ranking member of the subcommittee from california, mr. sherman, for five minutes.

>> this has intock some extent a ukraine hearing and we are honored by the pence of the deputy assistant secretary from the relevant bureau. mr. hartley, has the ukrainian government been successful in disarming anti-russia militias? >> thank you, sir, for that question. my expertise falls more on the nato, the o.c.e. and bilateral security assistance side. it is my impression that they've made some progress there but i would be happy to take that question for more authoritative response. >> while you take that question, the other question is what are we doing to urge the government in kiev to honor and even make less subject to alteration

statutes adopted in the past to assure the russian language would be an official language in the south and east of ukraine? what are we doing to say, yes, there may be forces, political forces in kiev that say let's impose the ukrainian language on everyone, and there may be forces on the other side. i for one understand america's spending its treasure and taking riskers in territorial integrity of the ukraine. i'm an ags no i -- agnostic as to what lang watch -- language should be spoken in the east and i would hate to think we find ourselves exposed to risk and cost because the noncompromising elements reprail in kiev on these issues. ms. freed, what -- has russia put forward any argument this is

a we are in violation of any of the arms control agreeps we've entered into with russia or its predecessor government? >> thank you for that question, sir. yes, as a matter of fact, russia, when we issue our annual compliant report every year, the russians regularly hi come back with some -- >> so they have their own compliance report which may even be issued on time. sorry about that. sorry. go ahead. and what do you think is their strongest complaint? >> strongest complaint, the one i would say, i can't give you all their complaints right new because i haven't looked at them recently but certainly our missile defenses is what they focus on. >> and which treaty do they believe the missile defense

efforts are in violation of? >> well it would be more than likely the i.n.f. treaty. >> ok. now as -- i'm trying to understand what is the legal obligation of russia with troord interimmediate yalt missile this is a they claim will be used only in naval warfare. as i understand it, they're allowed to test these missiles from a ground-based launcher but not if that ground-based launcher would be the effective launcher to use in case hostilities broke out. what are they allowed to do on land in order to test weapons that they say are exclusively for naval use? >> sir, quite -- thank you for your question. i'm not prepared right now to go into technical details, the focus -- >> i'm asking what the treaty provides.

i'm asking for you to just inform us what the treaty provides. what is the -- what is the united states allowed to do? i'm not asking for a secret here. >> not at all a secret, but let me just briefly state that as i mentioned before we have very serious concerns and as you have stated that russia is developing a ground launched cruise missile that's inconsistent with the i.n.f. treaty and we have made those concern clears to the russians. >> i am hoping you would make them clear to us. is the mere testing of -- mr. hartley, i don't know if you have a comment on this but is the mere testing of this missile a violation if they can claim that they only plan to deploy it on ships? >> sir, that would go into the specific range and such that it is tested. >> it's being tested for -- it's

an intermediate range missile. the question is, is it a naval intermediate range missile or are they creating a ground-based missile? >> i can't get into details here on that topic, i'd be happy to talk -- >> the details i want are, what are the provisions of the treaty but my time has more than expired, thank you for your time. >> thank the gentleman. mrs. friedt it's taken five years for the state department to reach a verdict on this treaty in my opinion. my question is, are the russians, in our point of view, in violation of the treaty? i see one of only three answers. yes, no, or you don't know. which one of those is the answer? >> sir we're in the process of finalizing the annual compliance report and we'll have a finding shortly. >> so you can't tell me whether it's yes or no you don't know? >> i can't at this point.

>> when will you have this report ready? it's like the ranking member said, it's overdue. >> sir -- >> five years it's take ton get a report here, either they're in compliance or they're not. we've got to make foreign policy decisions and we don't know if the russians are cheating or not. when are we going to get a verdict on the are eport? >> we report on this issue every year on the i.n.f. treaty and at this point, as the annual compliance report is in the process -- >> when will it be finalized? >> later this spring. >> you don't know. each of you have said that the actions by putin are illegal. you've seen there's some disagreement here as to whether russia can to what they're doing internationally or not. why is the action of russia going into crimea and now eastern europe -- ukraine,

illegal in the united states' point of view? you both said it was illegal, so why is it illegal? >> yes, sir. thank you for that question. the -- by undertaking the actions they did, the russians have violated their commitments under the u.n. charter. that's from a legal standpoint from a political standpoint, they've violated -- well, they have broken commitments made under the 1994 budapest memorandum as well as the commitments thurnt ehelsinki final act, among others. >> ms. friedt, do you have any other comments other than what mr. hartley has said on why the action is illegal? >> no, sir, i think mr. hartley is -- has answered the question. >> when i was in ukraine, in recent weeks, talked to other heads of state in the areas, they're not the only country that's concerned about their

territorial integrity. mull doe va, other form -- moldova, other former soviet republics, not yet in nato and some that are in nato, are there concerns warranted? mr. hartley? >> yes, sir, if i may, the -- of course >> i'm talking about concerns of russia coming in and taking over their territory. >> yes, sir. the actions of the russians have undertaken with regard to crimea and what they're doing in eastern ukraine gives deep cause for concern. on the part of those nations. any couldn't that ry that has a russian minority or russian-speaking minority, at least according to mr. putin in his april 18 speech, according to mr. putin's public statements is -- would seem at risk of

being at risk of russian intervention. >> the ukrainian government on the interest of russians in the east, there's no definition as to what a russian is. is it a russian that was born in russia? is it a russian that's moved to eastern ukraine? is it a russian who wants to be russian? there's no definition as to what a russian is. do we have a definition of what a russian is in the eastern part of the ukraine? >> i don't know that we do, sir. >> it means different things to different people. >> that's true. and mr. putin defines it as a native russian or russian speaker. >> the elections in ukraine are coming up on may 26, i believe. i think it's important for stability in ukraine that they have these elections. that they are fair, people vote.

do you see, i'm asking you to do you see, i'm asking you to look 26 days in the future. do you see that the russians may cause a disturbance a crisis to try to postpone these elections? it seems like to me, if they cause a crisis, they want to solve a crisis by moving in their troops. are we expecting a possible crisis to try to get these leches postponed? -- these elections postponed? >> thank you for that. i would be hesitant to speculate too far into the future. the conditions are such that that is a legitimate concern. in the negotiation of the geneva statement, the u.s., the e.u., and the ukrainians all urged the inclusion of a sentence that

referred to the may 25 elections and the need that they be carried out in an orderly and transparent way. the russians refused to include that in the text of the statementle. the disruptions were already taking place in the ukraine that are bound to complicated the election efforts and we believe that those -- that the instability there is being fomented by the russians. >> thank you, mr. hartley, ms. friedt. the chair will yield to the gentleman from new york, mr. meeks, for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. let me, you know, there was a beginning where we thought that we'd be entering a new world, we would be able to have with the new stark treaty, not abolishing ewe near -- nuclear weapons altogether, we were moving in the right direction the senate ratified the treaty and the russian federation ratified the treaty.

there's a lot of things going on. it seems when we're dealing with crimea and the east, ukraining we've got to balance a number of issues also. our nato allies. i believe that sanctions work but only when they're multilateral sanctions and we do sanctions individually and not as strong as they would be multilaterally yet a number of our nato allies have concerns and we've got to make sure they're part of whatever we do. we can't separate ourselves, in my viewpoint, from them. and that's -- our nato allies are tremendously important. some control experts continue to report that russia could potentially withdraw from treaties such as the i.n.f. and that they may further -- any further expansion of arms control efforts will likely make no headway for the foreseeable future system of, some of my colleagues, some of the pun -- i

hear some pundits saying, give weapons, more sanctions, very few people are talking about diplomatic solutions. my first question is, do either of you still see, i believe there's still hope, we should talk and have conversations with nations we don't disagree with. is diplomacy an option here? do you seedy employee macy having an a chance here? or it has no chance? what role do you think diplomacy has in this. >> thank you, sir. we -- we believe that diplomacy is a critical aspect of of this. that's why secretary kerry has had, i forget, six, eight, 10 conversations with the russian foreign minister over the last couple of weeks. that's why he went to geneva to negotiate the terms of the geneva statement that laid out a pathway for de-escalation and so we very much believe that the --

that that is the -- that diplomacy is the way to resolve this, to find a political solution. the sanctions that we're imposing have been imposed only after those efforts have so far proven fruitless. but sanctions are scaleable, they're flexible. if the russians make the decision that they want to de-escalate the situation and return to behavior consistent with international norms, then we can reslers the sanctions but we -- reverse the sanctions but even as we go forward, taking a harder line on those, we want to keap the door open for -- keep the door open for a diplomatic solution. >> that being the case, try to prevent a scenario that we clearly have, and i do see some of the other regions, whether it's in the caucuses, the

baltic, eastern europe, we've got to focus on some of those countries now, i've got friends in those countries, mr. poe may have said something, what should we say to them now? what should we do? you look at ukraine, its economy was in the tank, some say crimea will be a big burden on russia as it seems right now, but we've got to help economically, what do you see that we can do? you said there are huge concerns right now about russia, in some of these countries about russia coming in. what can we do now before there's any possibility of russia invading? what can we do to help those countries now to ensure them that we're there, that nato is there, what do you think we can do right now? >> thank you, sir.

with regard to nato allies, particularly those on -- we've now come to call frontline state the three baltic countries, poland, romania, bulgaria, we have already deployed u.s. forces on land, sea, and air and nato allies are deploying at this point, principally sea and air assets in a measured way to underscore that the article 5 commitment to collective defense is credible and has teeth. so we are in constant consultation with our nato allies with nato headquarters. >> i want to ask one last question. do you think russia is backing down from its arms agreement with the united states, preparing to have a continued military escalation? that's what some are saying that -- in other words, people are saying that russia is building up and they're strong and kind of daring the united states to

have a militariest talation -- escalation for nato to come up and meet them militarily, do you see that's part and parcel of what's going on here? >> thank you for that question. that is precisely why the new start treaty is so important,s the fact that it's been successfully implemented since it was signed and inspections began in 2011. russians are implementing the new start treaty and it sets the limits on their ability to build up nuclear forces. >> and you don't see them violating that right now? >> no, sir. >> so there's still cooperation in that regard? >> yes, sir. >> and there's a number of other things they're still cooperating with? >> yes, sir. >> the gentleman yields back. >> may i add to that, sir? >> you need to make it brief. >> on the conventional side the russians have been modernizing but -- and it has been a source of some concern but we feel as though the assets available of

the nato alliance are sufficient to deter any incursions on nato territory. >> thank you, mr. hartley. the chair will recognize the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. perry. >> thanks, mr. chairman. ladies and gentlemen, appreciate your time. ms. friedt. the state department is aware that russia may have been in violation of the 1987 intermediate range nuclear forces treaty while negotiating the new start treaty. the first question is when, as far as cu -- as far as you understand it, did the administration first learn of the possible violation of the i.n.f. treaty by the russians? was it in 2008? >> sir, the -- the treaty -- the ratification of the treaty did not -- it was, at that time russia was inch e.menting the treaty successfully. at this point i would prefer to

go into closed session to deal with the circumstances, spe specific dates and specific questions you asked. >> ok, then, let me ask you this. when the president was overheard talking to medvedev at the time he said that after the election he could be more flexible. this is in the context of members of congress being concerned about our national security posture and our ability to secure our nation in light of adversaries and enemies if you want to call some folks that. what did he mean by that? what do you think he meant by that? >> what i can say here is that the united states and this administration will only pursue arms control agreements that are in the united states' national security interests. and that is something that this administration, that the president believes. >> if we know or suspect with some credibility that our partner in negotiation is

cheating, at the time we're negotiating a reduction in our capability, how is that -- and we don't take that into account and we continue to march forward with our reduction, how can -- can you explain to me how that is in our best interest? >> sir, as i mentioned in my statement this administration takes compliance with arms control treaties very seriously. during the negotiation of new start treaty, we took compliance with arms control treaties into consideration. >> but knee -- but we knew or suspected, we suspected while we were negotiating the treaty that they were cheating and we've continued forward and it's fine to continue forward with negotiation, we, as far as you know, and as far as russia is concerned, based on your testimony, have upheld our end of the bargain. we still don't know, according to your testimony, we won't know until late they are spring and by the way, spring is almost

over, the extent of their cheating. i recognize and act knowledge the sensitivity of the dates. i'd be happy to talk to you in closed session about that but my concern is we're unilaterally disarming america while we know or suspect with some certainty that russia is cheating on their end of the deal and i still don't understand how that's in our best interests. >> thank you for that question, sir. the united states -- arms control is in the united state'' national security interest. >> it's in our interest when we're controlling theirs, or they're controlling theirs within the paradigm as well as ours. but it's not in our interest when we're controlling ours and they're not controlling theirs to our satisfaction in accordance with the previous agreement, would you agree? >> sir, we take compliance, this administration takes compliance of arms control very seriously. i'm happy to discuss the

specifics in closed session. let me say with respect to the treaty, that was a carefully negotiated agreement based on the nuclear posture review, that was a document that received interagency, very close study by then secretary gates and by then chairman of the -- >> but did they have the knowledge at that time because we -- again, maybe you want to move to closed session but it's my understanding that we didn't report our suspicion our or knowledge of their breach of the previous treaty while the negotiation was happening to our nato allies. did our negotiators, did secretary gates, did he know at that time while he was in agreement with this accord that we had a very strong suspicion that they were cheating on the previous agreement. >> sir, i would like to take you up on your offer to do this in closed session. >> all right.

then moving on. based on recent actions in crimea, do you think the american people should trust the russians to adhere to a bilateral, multilateral arms control agreement? and if so, why? >> sir, this administration believes in trust but verify. verification of arms control treaties is very important. >> let me ask you one final question work due indulgence, mr. chairman. if we find out and prove, in the springtime, if it's determined and you report that they had indeed cheated for lack of a better phrase on the previous treaty, the previous agreement, what will be the ramifications? >> sir, i'm not prepared to discuss this at this point. when the report is finalized -- >> thank you, mr. chairman, i yield. >> the gentleman yields back his time. the chair recognizes the gentleman from florida, mr. owe

hoe for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and i appreciate your testimony today. why do you think russia has become so emboldened here going back to august, 2010? as far as invading other countries. that was a simple question, i'm sorry. >> thank you, sir. if only there were simple questions in this life. it is of course difficult to know precisely why the russians and mr. putin have taken the actions they have. there are factors related to history, factors related to concern about the influence that a successful democracy and market economy on its border by a land, a country that used to be part of russia might have on the part of the russian empire might have on the rest of the population of russia.

>> let me go in a different direction here. as you said, there's no simple questions but the answers aren't often simple. do you see the 2010 treaty with us reducing our weapons to 1,550 and the administration's willingness to reduce further cus to 1,000, do you think that's emboldened the rugs, mr. putin and the russians? >> thank you for that question, sir, no i do not. >> do you see russia viewing us as weak, indecisive, not willing -- our credibility has been damaged if you go back over the course of the last two or three years new york red lines, no redline regimes must change, we never said regimes must change, not fulfilling the missile defense system in poland and putting a stop to that, do you think they see us as kind of being weak and not with strong resolve?

>> sir i do not see u.s. foreign policy as weak. >> ok. how about you, mr. hartley? >> no, sir. i agree with anita. >> so with what's going on in venezuela and our own backyard, with what china is doing drawing an arbitrary no-fly zone with syria and iran and iran is closer to a nuclear weapon, we are told that iran would have enough material to develop five to six nuclear bombs within four to five months, i see -- what i'm seing from where i'm sitting, what i read, is the lone superpower that bill clinton talked about that america could no longer afford to be, becoming weaker, everybody else is becoming emboldened. i see people flexing their muscles buzz of our weakness and lack of resolve that we have. where do you think this will lead?

where do you think russia will end up? will they go into other areas? where there's a large russian-speaking population. do either of you see that? >> we see that there's a risk and the russians have influence in those areas but it is our policy to exact a coast -- a cost from the russians for their behavior that's in violation of international norms. >> and do you feel the sanction this is a we are talking about, that we've done, do you think they'll have any impact on russian's aggression? >> sir, the purpose of sanctions is to try to influence russian behavior, it's meant to bring it back within international norms. >> how is that working so far? ms. friedt? >> i couldn't -- >> if i may, sir. this could be a long process, sir.

>> but again, do we have compliance with other nations? are they putting strong sanctions in place too or is it just us doing this unilaterally? >> yes yesterday -- yesterday as we announced our third round of sanctions we were joined by the g-7 which includesa pan, canada, and four other major e.u. members, but the entire e.u. also joined. you could -- we could -- the nor wee johns, who are not part of the e.u., also adhere to e.u. sanctions. we have a broad international coalition that is focused on bringing russia back into compliance with international norms. >> let me ask you, do we have troops on the ground in ukraine right now? >> sir, we do not combat troops, i mean, it depends on how you define it. we have a defense attache, we have defense officials the pentagon that visit but the simple answer is no.

>> mr. chairman, i yield back. thank you. >> the gentleman yields back. a couple more questions from the chair and then i'll give the ranking member time if he wishes. will the russians give crimea back, mr. hartley? >> sir, we're doing everything we can to encourage that. >> i know we're doing that, but are they going to give it back at the end they have day? will it be part of ukraine or russia? >> it's our policy that it remains to ukraine and should return to ukrainian control. >> so you done know. how about you? >> i agree with mr. hartley. >> you don't know. the kidnap watchers. who kidnapped them? >> they weren't election observers, it was a team composed of eight europeans led by thiermans and they had five ukrainian escorts with ep them. they were kidnapped by a pro -- by pro-russia individuals, a

pro-russia group in eastern ukraine. >> what were they doing in eastern ewe rain? you say they're inspectors, of what? >> they were there under the vienna document, all 57 nations that are participating states in the organization for security and cooperation in europe to include russia have agreed to a set of measures that are intended to build confidence among the partners, among the participants. part 1 mechanism of that is our inspections that each -- each participating state is obliged to receive a certain number of inspections every year but they can also offer voluntary inspections. >> so they went over there for inspections of what? >> they were there to inspect ukrainian military installations and deployments but also to --

>> they were kid napped by russian sympathizers? >> correct, sir. ? last question. is europe slow-walking saxes because they're concerned about the fact that many of them are totally dependent on russia for their energy and that russia may then just retaliate? is that one of their concerns about sanctions, mr. meeks asked about the europeans and their not being too supportive as we hoped in this. is that part of the reason, or do you know, mr. hartley? >> both we and the europeans are looking for ways for sanction this is a will maximize the impact on the russians while minimizing impact on our own economies and businesses so it is fair to say that that's a consideration for the europeans, sir. >> all right, thank you. i yield to the ranking member if he has any more questions. >> i want to thank both of our witnesses for their participation.

any other questions any members of the panel have will be put in writing and we would expect a response from you. thank you for being here. the subcommittee is adjourned. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014]

closetand here with friends of gabrielle giffords to remember a tragic event that took place. tucson, arizona. was democracy inaction. -- in action. of the people hostile

smith with her constituents. six wonderful people died. including gabe zimmerman. the go-to guy on the staff. tucson and arizona are not defined by the terrible act. defined by how are community responded. love, thesion, the prayers, the goodwill has helped all of us heal our broken hearts and bring some good out of that horrific day. organizations have been established to help the educational needs of children to prevent bullying and reduce the stigma of mental illness. and, to improve those services. gabrielle giffords continues her

remarkable recovery. and ises hope to others a true inspiration to the country and the world. you might have noted that, earlier today, she jumped out of an airplane. this resilience has no boundaries. years,in the last three communities have been instructed senseless acts of violence. the most fitting memorial would need to take action to prevent others. as a shooting survivor, a grandfather, and a member of congress, i am determined. i know that many others have the same aspirations. let us never forget the people who died that fateful day.

nine-year-old christina taylor green. dorothy morris. john. phyllis. and, my friend and colleague, david zimmerman. that theike to ask house have a moment of silence in honor of these people. >> members will rise and observe a moment of silence. >> find more highlights from house floor coverage on our facebook page. c-span, created by american cable companies and brought to you as a public service by your local public cable or satellite provider. coming up next, a discussion

on u.s. defense policy with foreign very and larson -- thornberry and larson. hearing on inky-drug trafficking measures. >> on the next washington journal, a discussion on suicide prevention. former u.s. ambassador to iraq, christopher hill, talks about the stability since the withdrawal of troops. later, scientific american wrote an article about the safety of

de-cigarettes. you can join the conversation on facebook and footer. -- twitter. live, wednesday morning, it is prime minister question time in the house of commons. you can see it on c-span two. >> we are at promontory summit at the golden spike historic site. i am walking you over to the spot where the transcontinental railroad was completed. within inches of where the original ceremony was held. the post that you see next to it

was placed when they resurveyed the exact location to establish the site and set things up. location, the exact within inches, of where the ceremony was held. this is a replica. all of the items that were were brought by central pacific in california, including a tie on this plaque that lists many of the dignitaries, including leland stanford. when the transcontinental railroad was completed, and had a major impact on the industrial development of the nation. it allowed it to grow in its

economy and its ability to build within the nation and to become more impactful throughout the world. at the end of the civil war, it was huge to build the country and settle other areas of our nation. the united states was able to become a world power. weekend, book tv and american history tv take over -- take a look at often, utah -- ogden, utah. future of u.s. defense policy and spending on monday. mack thornberry and rick larson of texas state were there. they serve on the arms committee.

>> good afternoon, i am from the 21st century intelligence and i would like to welcome you to this conversation. we are going to ask questions of the congressman and try to elicit conversation on strategic and various defense issues then turn to you for questions. eagle was on the independent panel assessing rerue view and worked on the hill and pentagon and she is esteemed and very