on this. i do have some questions. to you a minute about the benefits and potentially assisting the ukraine, not with u.s. lng but with world source lng. hasstate department repeatedly inserted that it's for helping option ukraine in the near term because

lng exports are such a long way away. i'm going to have a conversation about that when i finish with you. but while this is true, it's my that ukraine has been in discussions with at aboutone u.s. company constructing an lnger the natural in the ukraine and --nging turkey is denying access to the passage lng tankers. the state department view of this. and what are your thoughts on this?

a when we talk about lng as solution, i don't think it's a solution for all problems. we're not the only supplier. there are others and in fact some of the european countries that are localing lng terminals in contact with other supplies for more immediate gas. as far as ukraine, we've had for quite aation while. about the interest in ukraine to lng facility, and it's not necessarily to build a bring in at's to floating lng facility, a boat that would come online. it's a little different. the concern and what's blocking said in the black sea, is exactly what you said. lngey does not allow tankers to cross through the basras. maintain that is a national security issue, this has been a long standing position that came in several years ago. >> are you working with them on it? working to educate them on the

fact that these things are not going to blow up the way they think they are? >> we have frank, open and honest conversations with our turkey about lng trade and in general about open access trade. but their positions are theirs to have and they have concerns. >> certainly we don't control turkey. but we also, turkey has been a good friend and ally to this country, and hopefully we can bring them along. a previous hearing we've heard from the department of energy on the process for getting lng export facilities permitted. one of the things that i've heard that the d.o.e. considers right, we don't want to get too many of these because we be profitable.o seems to me, is that the an appropriate role for the government to decide how many to have so they're going to be profitable? is that something that should be left up to the market?

if the market has a demand for 20lng export terminals, and 25 are built, the theat's in governments money that's going to be lost, that's those investors' money that's going to be lost for making a bad investment. talk a little about that? how big of a consideration that process. >> thank you very much for that question, congressman. that is not a point of disagreement. the department does not take consideration whether or not a company is going to be profitable or not. it's not our job to protect companies from themselves. >> why has it taken so long to out?hese permits >> well, i think it was instructed to hear the dialogue between the ranking member and in terms of the issues that we're dealing with. onre are very strong views both sides of the equation about the need to balance the increased production and balance of trade and job creation, and

terminals aree being built, with the impact on consumers and prices and impact sector,acturing environmental factors. >> i'll concede some environmental factors to you, but seems like when the regulating,tarts based on marketplace factors and think we're getting out of line. but we could have a debate about that between the sides on this, and probably the administration. but i'm out of time on this. the potential is so much there, and the delays are just frustrating to me. but i'm out of time, so i'll quit preaching. >> thank you, mr. chairman. maybe i can take on the preaching, thank you very much being here and thank you very much, mr. chairman, for the hearing, and we're all looking investments and balances wanting to move forward

weckly enough that experience the right kind of results from those investments. in my state, i'm from new mexico, the energy industry is ourainly critical to economic success. a significant component of our current economic base and in fact i think it's responsible for about 30% of our state's revenue.und and in a poor state like new mexico that is the only way we for education. it's also clear to me that the gas revolution has national security implications, and according to the international energy agency, the u.s. has enough natural gas to meet all of its energy needs domestic resources by 2035. and that allows us to be left the middle east and other countries for energy. with that said, i know this has discussed already, we have a responsibility to make sure

that we manage the resource of states in a responsible manner and want to protect public health, wildlife, the waternment and our resources. but i think it's important to explore ways to ensure that the and our allies have access to reliable supplies of energy for their own national reasons. and it's certainly all of our ukrainending that the faces numerous energy security vulnerabilities including a lack to an adequate energy infrastructure, which i just heard you talk about, which i appreciate several times. but i would love it if you would that wee, i know started that conversation with representative holmes norton, do want to talk about specifically if you could elaborate on what those are and give me a please.it more depth, >> in securing the security in europe. working on a number of factors simultaneously.

number one is to make sure, and whatoing to separate out we're doing, there's ukraine and there's the rest of europe. baltics orly the south central eastern europe. in ukraine it's about making if there's a shutoff of gas in the near term that we flow capability in hungry and poland and slow vanning what and to expand that possible that it takes care of the portion of gas that they import. help them, that we become a more efficient and more ownble producer of their gas. they are quite an impressive producer of natural gas, but a that technology is 1970's soviet technology that can be and they could be producing more natural gas on their own. we're also working with them on their unconventional gas areas, we're working with them to make sure that the suchm of the sector is that the they'll be able to not end up in the same situation today.ey are in and to make sure that efficiency

rates are there so they can do less, that includes subsidy reform, et cetera. in europe, we have to make sure the infrastructure is there, that the regulatory started continue. we are working very closely with them on that, and to look and energyre that there's no islands in europe, which is a stated goal of the e.u. so the baltics are a good example of that. lng is going to be a key factor that, lithuania has gone a long way. mentioned the investor at large for hungry who is a good friend and we work as theytogether represent and chair the v4 plus romania and bulgaria to make sure that as the southern corridor is have mored that we infrastructure to supply europe. as can you see, there's not one any of these and it's unfortunate that you can't fit into a headline, here's what we him it's a lot of different aspects.

>> given that you have to have a broad approach so it's sustainable over the long haul, i certainly can appreciate that and recognize, given that we have our own natural gas exploration issues in new mexico recapture the't cost and until a lot of this gets balanced, and i'm very moving so that we've got more export opportunities, because that will create an environment in my to further that exploration and do exactly what looking athich is tertiary recovery that is cost thective and we've got infrastructure to do. but what of those strategies in 15 seconds are quick, so i'm of the stability issues in ukraine, can you pick two that have more of an immediate relief? >> i think the reverse flow thatility and making sure ukraine is able to pay the arrears so the gases continue to flow. but the reverse flow is very and we've made progress on that and we need to make more. seconds on say 15 one thing, that's what it would be. >> thank you.

>> if you want to tbead and fine, if youthat's have additional responses. about don't you speak energy efficiency or the lack there of. >> sure. before, and i'll finish the answer, mr. chairman, it is critical as we look at a bige, it's such problem, and getting to, but if we look at the numbers and look at the production rates and the imfor rates and what is in the as made available by the regulatory change in europe, we reverse flowsse considerably so that maybe not fully for in winter, but in the ukraine cane, choose whether or not to imfor gas from europe, from russia, or otherit through mechanisms. so it is very important. as far as the efficiency rates, ma'am, there, you crane is very inefficient. and the department of energy together with us is working on ukraines to work with to see what we can do to increase efficiency rates.

as many haves addressed the subsidy issue where gas is so cheap that don't want to conserve, but also to put in place the kind of mechanisms and will allow for more conservation, so they can do far more with less or with same amount. that's a program that we've done in other countries, d.o.e. and department of state work together on these issues and i think we have a number much proposals that could work rewell for ukraine. >> mr. smith, can we talk about ferk and the process there is i understand is under cumbersome and takes longer how the that interrelate with process that you have ongoing? >> thank you. to get too far into the details of the ferk process, i would not be able to characterize it appropriately, but in general the ferk has an important

theof managing environmental process of evaluating the environmental itselfof the terminal and they get the authorization to build the terminal. they have a very detailed and important role to play in this process. is kind of larger, bigger picture looking at the impact of exporting, but they have to go through the very detailed process of looking at the specific impact. so we work closely with them. ofshare information in terms making sure that we know where the different projects are in cue. but the process is separate from ours. >> i under that. but i've been told that the is cumbersome and long and that they have huge, a huge backlog. that true? >> i wouldn't characterize the process as cumbersome. i think it is appropriately detailed, because it is a key part of the decision making

process. >> can i ask a question on that are some of the applicants in the permit progress says now even before d.o.e. permit? >> yes. we do see applicants going forward with the ferk process, is also a significant expenditure of funds, that's, you have to do a lot of work in your initial engineering and your environmental studies, so we do ahead.panies moving >> what happens when they get a ferk permit and the d.o.e. process is not complete, if they and have gone through the whole process and they've completed that, but they d.o.e. permit, what happens? >> there are two types of authorization that we give. conditional authorizations, which is giving sort of confidence to investors that their approval will be granted and there's the

approval. someone who did go through the entire process without a conditional approval, they could conceivably come back for a final authorization from d.o.e. waituld they still have to in line on the cue, let's say they're number 15, just make up they have a ferk permit done, but they're still waiting on dch o. evident on have to waithey until number 12, 13, 14 is complete before they get it? they move up the cue? >> that hasn't occurred yet, so definitive answer to that question. but conceivably if they were done with the process, then we'd to come up with some process for dealing with an applicant who did all that work without having gone through the approval process. but i don't have a precedent. if they are holding the ferk process in place,

shows aready to go, it seriousness that others may not have. know howoned i don't many to the that have already started on that process. is?ou know what that number >> i don't know, i could probably tally that up, i don't know off the top of my head. there are a number of projects that even though they are not gotten up in the queue d.o.e., they have started with the ferk process. guessing based on the preliminary report i have that about seven companies have ferk to geting with the approval process but they don't have d.o.e. yet. so the concern is if they end up waiting ond they're the other one, what mr. jordan and mr. hoctsteen had this conversation about, they're in unique position where they're just waiting. that's the difficulty of all side and a business also our foreign partners and

allies around the country. when they have come to talk to me, their one statement is when will we get an answer. and the difficulty is i can't that.hem i can't look at them and say here's when the answer is noing, because there's predictable answer. because it could be two weeks orore the next permit comes it could be two years. it might be 20 years. it could be five and a half and still discussing it. so there's no predict ability in this and that's terrible for and that's terrible for our allies. so at some point we have to give ability inf predict this process to know yes we're working through the process, here's how many weeks it's going take, and it's not a red flag to people say if you'll just write more letters to us, then the process even more, which is what it seems to be now. >> i'll make a couple points on that. the department of energy has established a track record of done.g authorizations again these are all very complex complicated evaluations that we have to do

where we have to balance a sometimes conflicting interests. the department has established, credible and reliable track record of moving through the cue. don have a clock that says time for the next application. when the team is writing the application, the am case is released by the department. second part of that answer, if someone says what is going to be the availability of natural gas from the united states, as my colleague from the state department has pointed out, we've already authorized per dayion cubic feet of exports, which is equal to all the lng that goes into europe, it's equal to half the lng that europeans import from there's already been a tremendous amount lng that we've authorized, even going through this determination, and there will be a question that you posed earlier about how many of these built, at what rate will the private sector build the

that we've already authorized. so there is, i think, certainly, thatdemonstrated progress we've made. it's a tremendous amount of gas we've already authorized, and that we are no longer importing large quantities of lng has already impacted global markets dramatically. >> when you talk about amounts already been permitted, is there some cap amount that you're saying we're going to get to this to the and any more to permit beyond that? >> no, there is not. we have not determined a level toond which we are not going permit. so that is not something that the department of energy has determined. >> so best interests continues for eachubjective location based on the letters that come in in response for area, looking at did you fill out the application correctly and that type of thing, getting a chance to see who the partners are and how

demanded from around the country, obviously the study that d.o.e. commissioned gave a objective look at the economic benefits of this. so while i understand you've got in that say we don't want this or we do want this, you've also got an study that you commissioned, that says this is the bestea and interest of the united states. >> yes, there was a study receive bid the department that was consider as part of all our applicationings to date. point out that as we go forward in time, conditions do outge, as was pointed earlier. a couple months ago we would not have foreseen sitting in this room talking about issues in the ukraine because it wasn't -- 100% true sure that's since, like i said, almost two years ago members of the amount wereartment already knocking on my door saying how quickly can we get. was a prettythis predictable crisis in central

europe. to ukraine,pecific but we knew it was coming somewhere. would you agree or disagree with that? would agree that we've been working on the vulnerability identified the vulnerability that europe has with its reliance on a single cases and we've been trying to reduce that. so this is a crisis that is a surprise to some but not to others. >> i don't know if we ever got clarification of how much natural gas is going to be generate bid these other countries that you had mentioned mr. hochstein? >> a lot of this was early in process. israel has already taken care of with the first two fields that the first bigine, entires addressed their domestic needs. they've come up with an export policy, so it's not only about to much you're going produce, but how much you're going to put on the market, that

israeliheir production, production, will go onto exports. we don't know the amount out of cypress, we have one feel that's been proven, but there will be drilling threw the summer and by three companies. mozambique is about double the israeli find, but nay need to get their act together as well. so a lot of the gas from eastern will end up going to asia. this is not just about ukraine and europe. this is about a global demand. and as we're putting more market in ahe variety of places there is demand that's rising as well, in asia, at an impressive pace ands that those be addressed. so what happens to europe, not entirely at their own, you know decision making, market forcesof that will come into play. aas we see what the prices are around asia, that will determine what the supplies are available

for europe. that pressure is already there, as a result of our production and not importing, the first time actually went out and renegotiated and forced the rush shaps into renegotiation of price. and were able to get better terms for the russian is a ago in a way that they weren't able to do that in the past. so these dynamics are having a real impact. i'm with my colleague here, it's very difficult to make this because if you read any predictions in 2009 into global supplies and trade natural gas they would have been very, very mistaken today in hindsight. >> you mentioned before that the department is helping some of the folks in europe with exploration of oil and gas, and you made the comment that you're helping them emotion.science, not can you clarify that? >> i didn't say i'm helping recommendid that we that when you're going to make a decision on whether or not to

explore unconventional and they'll, it's important to look at -- to look at important what the science is and what is and isn't true. experience inay the united states with a regulatory system of both federal and the states of that.g at what we like to do is to brief them and educate and show what been able to learn from the experience here. we've brought a variety of statesions to the united together with e.p.a., department of interior, department of thegy, to learn from process here. what's great about it is that it's not a monolithic here's how do it. here's how we do it at the federal law, but look at what versus new doing york, pennsylvania or texas. i think that's been very useful actually been, there's a larger interest in that program. there are some countries that announced moratoriums on shale development and exploration. and if that's their decision to toit, and if they don't want

explore it that's fine. we continue these conversations even with those countries but have programs with them to important the process if they're going to have a moratorium. one thing if i could, mr. chairman, to that observation. traveled tors ago i warsaw with the principal deputy assistant secretary for the for energy and natural resources, where mr. hochstein works. participated in what was called the session that was held i.e.a., called the golden golden age, and it was a subject for experts from around the world convening to their experiences in shale gas and unconventional gas development. i'll reiterate, it's not our job to tell other sovereign nations what to do with their resources, but we think it is in the best interest of the united states to be as open and transparent in the best practices that we learned here to help build

scientific basis for decision making. so we see that as being positive that wething affirmatively support. clarification on this, state department is working with other countries that have shale, to be able to to the united states, someo be able to look at of the science out of this, how you can do it, do fracking, do drilling, to be able to take this on. because obviously their country, thending on the nature of country and whether they own their own oil companies, some some don't, basically exposing them to what we're doing in the united states saying this is a good idea for this on so you can provide your own energy resources in your own country. with everything except the last sentence. it's not for you to encourage so.to do it's not our decision, it's a sovereign decision. want to goide they ahead and exploit it, we'll be

there to support them with this program. if they're interested. to show them all the other things you just said, yes. a country toforce say i want to be independent. but most country was say if they have the opportunity to not be dependent on someone else for energy they would most likely take that. >> mr. chairman at times there are also external forces that countries to encourage them not to explore those resources. >> oklahoma would be welcome to receive folks from around the world to show them how we to natural gas exploration, how we do it well, and clean, and our scheme inller to oklahoma and how we regulate things is exemplary. current people to come drink our water and breathe our beautiful air and see our wonderful land, and to be able to see how you can do this and do it clean. tracks inover 100,000 oklahoma -- fracks in oklahoma and it's a beautiful state with very clean water and clean air. so that the, as you mentioned

before, trying to deal with the science, not the emotion, when you're finished with the rest of the world i'd appreciate it if you'd come back to the united states and share it with us as well. other comment, i want to shift topics, i promise i would be stay long. want to bring up the issue of crude oil exports. from oure hearing international partners on that, we already export refined products around the world. we're currently not exporting crude. what are we hearing, we've heard bit from people that are very interested in our lng. hearing about crude and the request for that from our allies? >> i think just like in the states this is a conversation that is happening around the world and i think it logicalnext conversation that we were going to see happen. we are following that discussion means, we're very early stages of this conversation. what's been done here in congress both in the house and senate side of discussion on

this mean to have crew oil exports. i think this is a much bigger been soon, we've focused on the lng side that the oil side is next, so i think stages ofhe early understanding what i means and listening to the views that are being expressed. there's less of a drum beat in, as far as our partners, onre's more of a focus natural gas. but there's definitely an interest in the topic of what going tod states is do. moreess of independence, from the aspect of understanding andwill this impact the mid long-term oil markets and prices structures. we have talked a lot about gas today. but we have the same radical changes in the oil markets around the world today that are happening in gas. different.t slightly big changes from the days where opec dominated the market, new players, and with most opec

countries today producing at maximum capacity for a variety of reasons, some for sanctions, some for political instability, some for technical reasons and some because that's the most they can do. the question of what happens to if the united states starts exporting is one that is who follow these energy markets. >> so let me just complete that thought. drop worldwide, if we start exporting. correct?r not >> i think it would depend -- i've learned one thing in this that any prediction on oil prices those who maybe predictions usually regret them later. >> all it takes is a cross war in the middle east and it changes everyone's gas that., i do understand but is there an unease, boy say in the opec countries that the united states could become an exporter? >> i think they're watching our making process carefully. >> mr. smith, do you want to

that? comment about onthere's been more focus gas, obviously, because there's a statutory process for dealing natural gas and there is not a statutory process for dealing with oil. it's a topic we think is of interest, but we don't have a direct role in the current limited capability of exporting oil. so. >> is d.o.e. doing a study of capacities, what's coming online, our capability of production and what we'll actually use? >> that's something that the energy information agency very closely, and we a, that's part of the department of energy where analysis soers of we follow that very closely. >> semi autonomous, i'm enjoying conversation, we got boo that conversation about several

actually, semi autonomous the length of time, i have talked about often, as far as the permit, predictback to lng, ability is extremely important, not only for american companies and american production, but i think it's extremely important for our international partners. i don't know how we get there. on what you're saying your team is working on it, but there are no deadlines demands on certain time periods. it's wheel get it done when we get it done. is for ourern international partners, they need some certainty. visitx that have come to my office have all said the same thing. when. let mechairman, interject then. speediness,ne of and still doing the job, then question becomes, are the fees that are being charged to provide this evaluation adequate to do the job?

the office need more staff? maybe you can address that as well. you.ank i'll make a few points on that. at various about lng venues i'm often followed by a arket expert who will put up chart on the wall that shows the exact length of time between d.o.e. actions and construction that pose that -- against prices and all this analysis about why is it 10 days longer between than these other two' so those are always interesting allatch because there's this theorizing about what's the back story about the extra four days here. that there'sne is not a back story. all of these are slightly different, but what we can see is that we have established a record ofiable track

getting these propositionings reasonable amount of time. there has been a consistency so, ite past year or varies from order to order, but not the same. are so it's our intention to make sure that we are moving for in that manner. we've already authorized, again, 9.3, which is a considerable amount. and the biggest uncertainty now be aat is going to reaction of the private sector that's already received these areorizations, at what rate these terminals going to be built, because they are massive dollars investments that are complex to get built thethey'll be built if market determines that there's going to be a demand for u.s. gas. >> but if they have the ferc done, they are not loving in line or they are moving in line? ofagain, we've got a number applicants that have not yet

received a conditional authorization from the that aret of energy working through the process. we have not come to the position where someone has finished that in advance of having received a conditional authorization. don't have an answer to that question because it's still a hypothetical at this point. understand, but that will be a big issue. obviously this becomes very significant, i would hope that you're addressing this much that if someone is hope holding the in their hand, but it two and a half years of still the d.o.e. piece, that established a process has some predict ability, but that doesn't mean it will be done that way in the future. you're not saying it going to be six to 10 weeks between each one -- >> i'm saying we've establish a track record. an unprecedented activity. the department of energy when this market changed and you to this energy production revolution in your

hasing statement, that taken the regulators, they've gone from looking at import terminals to export terminals, everything is changed. ofhink there are a number hypothetical situations situatie with.come up we're hard at work at making sure we're doing the work that's that we are meeting our commitment to get these out timely a manner as possible. as we run into new situations, those are things that we'll have to consider and make the best decision that we can. they're is possible, if holding a permit, that they be able to step out of line. certainly say that at all times we are looking at ways to make the process better and based on signals being sent by the market. so as the market sends the signals that are different from the signals that were sent when we established a certain process, we're not inflexible to doing the thing that's appropriate based on appropriate

ouret signals, and assessment of public interest. >> okay. more still have conversation about this, obviously. because i under you're still our history, but there's no predict ability on what happens in the future, and that's really a much needed ourg right now both in nation, development of infrastructure, if any of these to beties aring about built, we've got to bet pipelines to them, that's years ofconstruction, lots capital, pursuing contracts worldwide, it's our international partners saying okay we are going to get it, here's the date, all those things are all pending on your making a decision and people knowing when it's going to happen. so not to say you've yourhe whole world in hands, but there are a lot of folks around the world that are waiting on decisions that if we get predict ability when they're going to happen, there are a lot of folks around the waiting andre just a lot of economic development here in the united states that's

waiting to be released pending a decision from your office. so if we can get some level of that, it wouldon help our economy and our geo political situation as well. >> understood. >> mr. chairman, i would just like to close by thanking our two witnesses who have i think presented some very persuasive for why this is global something thatot the united states in and of itself is going to fix. certainly your admonition that there should be some predictability is worthy of us reviewing. but i would urge us to look at and as being part of that they are absent from this discussion here today and they as well. component so thank you for your good work and for your service to our country. >> gentlemen, thank you. this hearing is adjourned.

>> this morning the full house oversight committee will be holding a hearing on the theyazi attacks and how relate to the u.s. military intervention that helped oust leader qaddafi. ate coverage begins 9:00 a.m. eastern on c-span 3.

>> is there a city slicker who was driving around lost and came across this old cowboy. so the city slicker asked the old guy how to get to the town.t >> not that old joke, not again. [applause] and gentlemen, i've been attending these dinners for years. )laughter and just quietly sitting there. ( laughter ) few things it a change.say for a [cheers and applause] this is going to be fun, because he really doesn't have a clue what i'm going to say next. he'se always says delighted to come to these press dinners. baloney. ( laughter ) he's usually in bed by now.

i'm not kidding. ( laughter ) to him the other day, george, if you really want to end tyranny in the world, you're going to have to stay up later. ( laughter ) [applause] i am married to the president of the united states. our typical evening. mr. excitement here is sound asleep. ( laughter ) watching "desperate housewives." >> watch this year's white house saturdaydence dinner night. president obama and joe mchale event before an audience of celebrities, journalists and the white house easternrps, 6:00 p.m.

with the red carpet arrival, follow bid the dinner, live night on c-span. >> the normal trajectory of escape stories, or of camp stories is you have someone who comes from sophisticated civilized family. their taken to the camp, all their other relatives are killed. to behave in an inhuman way to survive. and then they come out and they story about a dissent .nto hell and then survival shin's story is completely different because he was born in home.and thought it was >> one of 41 unique voices from in our book notes and q and a conversations, c-span sundays at 8:00.

now available at your favorite book seller. >> state department officials testified tuesday at a capitol hill hearing about negotiations with russia over a nuclear arms treaty. now ukraine, and how ukraine talks. boo the this subcommittee hearing is an hour and 15 minutes. in a matter of weeks, putin stole crimea, now he's onto eastern ukraine. and other members of congress were in ukraine last week and the people were rightfully concerned about putin's next move into their nation.

according to press reports this kerry saidcretary that we now have intelligence revealing that operatives in taking orders directly from moscow. secretary kerry also said that russianthe same operatives from crimea and georgia have shown up in eastern ukraine. when i went to eastern ukraine one of the officials gave me a poster for what he called russians saboteurs. ukrainian and he, it's on the screen. this is a copy of the wanted poster, and he was willing to forout of his own money russian equipment that had been, it was confiscate bid ukrainians, everything from guns, rifles, to anybody that's occupying one of the ukrainian buildings without permission, he's willing to

offer rewards for that, so i quitet that was interesting that they are the insurge ends in his own part of the state. actions should, we should understand that we have to reevaluate our agreements ease grievance with the russians because of their failure to abide by in that they law ukraine and crimea, even other baltic states and conversations in with them. in my opinion the russians are allies, they're not our friends and we certainly cab -- can't take them for their word. treatyn. f., this between the exudz russia places limits on ground launched missiles and cruise with ranges between 500 and 5500 kilometers. has held uptates our agreement in the treaty, it

appears the russians have not. courts itto press appears the russians have test a ground launch cruise missile launcherperational the russians have responded this is a sea based missile which treaty. fall under the there's no way to know if it's a sea based missile until it's a seaed, but if it was based missile and the russians tested on land yeahing an operational launcher, in violation of the treaty, either way the russians are violating treaty. the administration knew about the violation back in 2008 according the press reports. 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 horse and ride it, either it's a violation or it's not a violation. introduced res94 calling russians out for their violation, and the refusalration for its to tell it like it is.

a --d hoped that the report itself due in april is already late. apparently the state department more time to figure out what the rest of us already believe. the russians do not have to violations as much as the new start treaty. during negotiations they gutted in verifications that were the old start treaty the most significant changes were the elimination of measures for some icbm's and reduction of total number of inspections. senate was debating approval in 2010, critics argued the treaty was nonsensical the russians were already at or below the required levels in key categories. delivery vehicles that were way above these new levels. the russians have since undergone the most extensive since thedernization end of the cold war, all would you violating the new start treaty. reason to be distrustful of the russians when the new start went interest have more2010 and we reasons today the fact is russians willing to

treat these treaties as 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. june 2013 the president called for the reduction of our deployed strategic nuclear by up to one-third. any personal opinion is this dangerous and is misguided based on the information we have about the russians. putin may have saved us from ourselves. the russians have, quote, no in furtherterest arms reductionings before 2017, according to numerous arms control experts. the united states should not to seek agreements with the russians when they cheat or show no interest in those agreements. be cowt now the time to towing to putin and i will now turn to the ranking member from openingia for his statement, mr. sherman, for five

minutes. the yeah from massachusetts, mr. keating, is recognized for five minutes. >> i thank mr. sherman for a meetinge to atten where my presence is required thinkquorum and i chairman poe for convening this important hearing. like to begin thanking you bothppearing tomorrow, witnesses have extensive experience on russia and on security interest. looking for to hearing their assessment of the long-term implication of russia's illegal invasion of crimea, its subsequently efforts ukraine's interim government, and other matters. pledge tos april 17 help deescalate the crisis in ukraine, russia has done exactly the opposite. the role that russian special forces have played in destablizing eastern ukraine is indisputable, in supporting separatist coordinated armed atax on government

buildings and kidnaps and violence against local politicianings, reporters and even osce monitors. russians misinformation campaigns have only may matters worse. forces used the masked war father and other covert themes to signal a shift in its approach to the region and european security. it's essential that the united states and nato allies respond. administration's decision yesterday to impose a third round of sanctions on individuals and entities closely russiano the leadership's inner circle. i also welcome the decision to restrictions on 13 russian companies and the 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. president's hope that these measures will perfect wade president putin to reverse course. unfortunately i'm not optimistic

that the steps taken to date sufficient. i never fully support the administration's readiness to penalties ifonal russia continues to press forward including targeted sanctions against specific the russian economy. as the united states moves forward it's imperative that we a coordinated effort with our european allies. ofplow today's announcement further e.u. sanctions on russia. i look forward to hearing from the status ofout the administration's ongoing discussions with the e.u., as plans within nato to counter russian aggression and reassure our central european and baltic allies. hearingook forward to from miss freidh about the status of existing arms and existing control agreements between the united states and russia. while further arms reduction seem unlikely in the current relieved that'm the united states and russia have continued to implement the

new start agreement included by exchanging notifications and on site inspections. exchanges provide much needed stability and predict ability at a time of increasing and uncertainty. i also support the administration's efforts to work n. f. treaties review mechanisms to address concerns may bessian activities inconsistent with its treaty obligations. i strongly supported the decision to cut off defense cooperation with russia. i've consistently called on our european alice to follow suit and to exercise similar veut any exportspect to defense to russia. however, when it comes to stakes areurity, the much too high to break off communication. continued implementation of our arms control agreements with especiallyssential, given ton precedented and unpredictable nature of the lasts in ukraine much thing we need is another nuclear

arms race in europe. ith that i thank you and yield back. to chairmanl turn of the you're subcommittee from california. five minutes. >> thank you very much. thisman poe for calling hearing, and, which is jointly held. and the subcommittee which i euraisia andpe, emerging threat. during the 1980's i had the forr of working with and president ronald reagan, through strength, the and united states brought about the empire. of the evil the soviet union. manyld add that there are people who i worked with during that time perfect who cab seem the cold war is

over, and are still treating the russian government as if it was the soviet government. are thankful, however, that the world no longer lives in of annihilation and no longer lives with a soviet union is controlled by a philosophy of marksism, leninism, which to attempt tole an on the world a marxist, atheistic dictatorship in the name of perfecting human kind. world thankful that that has been changed and that present andonger is that we no longer live in fear annihilation between, of a nuclear exchange between those are motivated by this evil theory, marksism, leninism, and the people of the free world.

one of reagan's greatest accomplishments was negotiating and signing the intermediate nuclear forces treaty, which banned two entire of horrific weapons. i look forward to this hearing from witnesses about the andent efforts to maintain verify the provisions of that agreement. i look forward in the future to be discussing with my colleagues some of the fundamental they haven that gleaned from their visits to places.and other and to have a broader discussion the nature of the government in russia today and the threat poses or does not pose to the free world as compared to when i workedke for ronald reagan in the 1980's. speak aboutto another power, however, which i

shouldn't when we're discussing this issue, mr. chairman, we should not lose that we're not just talking about russia and the united states. talking about other nuclear weapons and other tontries in relationship what we're doing with the russians and that is what's china doing and what are we doing with russia and countries that relate to this very issue of central teej china.ons with communist i fear that by continuing to focus our arms control efforts only on russia, while excluding grave we are making a miscalculation. our negotiations can russia dictate our nuclear posture and define our military capabilities. it should be a major concern is not included in these limits, including caps set the new strategic arms

initation treaty signed 2010. over the past two decade the people's liberation army, the the communist party of china, i might add, has armsed in a massive buildup. their capability has increased in every area. is it logical to believe that china's strategic force asks have notlear stockpile also like wise been expanded and improved. the united states-china economic review commission stated in 2012 the p.l.a. continues to modernize and expand its nuclear stock people, aina is now on the cusp of triad of missiles, and andarine launched missiles air dropped nuclear bombs, end of quote. we also know, thanks to the research by dr. philip garber of

university, that china has built some 3,000 miles underground tunnels to store and to transport their nuclear and warheads. the secret effort by the chinese it isry is so massive, known as the underground great wall. incredible infrastructure, china is also researching hyper sonic missiles, icbm's with maneuvering warheads which then can outmaneuver our defense existence. included china must be in any discussion of arms control. russia,e focus only on we're doing a great disservice country.curity of our addressing concerns and priorities with russia does 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 much moreus to a dangerous world. they must be part of this discussion today and hopefully ahead.weeks thank you, mr. chairman. >> chair recognizes mr. sherman from california for five minutes. >> if you watch american television you'd think foreign policy is simple as a cheap western. under white hats, some cowboys are in black hats. if you watch russian television, come to the same conclusion, only the halt colors have been changed. review what has happened, you see that this is far more complicated. russian president was in legitimate elections in the ukraine. broke hisdent promises, turned his policy on a fundamental issue. presidentselected have been known to do that.

anwas swept from power by shun --bing insurection. and it's considered a criminal act to use armed organized government armed forces to dislodge them. now the government that has over in kiev is using forces to dislodge eastern ukrainian occupiers.

we are used our air force to achieve the independence of kosovo which like the crimea was an autonomous region within a republic which was a relatively newly independent republic having is he seeded from a federation. once se seeding from the ugeslove federation one from the soviet union. so we have been on both sides both on our own 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 faulted. in have adopted a change

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 itizens. so we have the foreign policy in eastern europe. it is overly simplistic to say one side is entirely right. to say it is things would go our way if we had a president with a different personality.

as to arms control, we have to trust but verify. ronald reagan entered into an agreement with a leader less trustworthy than putin. those who enter into agreements and rely on trust are fooling hemselves. the allegations are twofold. one is that the mugs missile they call long range was tested at intermediate range. it is clear it is a long-range missile. the other is that a mid range

missile the russians say was for sea-based purposes was tested on ground which is allowed but tested on ground ith what appears to be a -- an operational useable ground-based launcher that is mobile so it appears they are developing a ground-based capacity for this intermediate missile. finally four countries have given up their nuclear weapons. south africa, sawed m, qaddhafi and the ukraine. two of them lost their lives one lost crime avement it may be more difficult in the future 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 ore.

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 olicy 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 ontrol treaties. first, as it has been recognized for over four decades, arms control is a tool

that can be used to enhance the security of the united states, our allies and our partners. the obama administration has continued the long standing bipartisan approach to arms control with russia that had its origins in the days of the cold war. the administrations of presidents ronald reagan, george h.w. bush were the architects of many of our most successful and enduring arms control efforts. let me affirm that the united states is committed to maintaining strategic stability between the united states and russia and to encouraging mutual steps to foster a more stable, resilient, predictable and transparent security relationship. that said, russia's illegal actions in ukraine have undermined trust. while diplomacy between the united states and russia continues, no one can ignore that russia's actions in ukraine have violated the very principles upon which cooperation is built. further, as we consider arms control priorities this year,

or in any year, we will continue to consult closely with our allies and partners every step of the way. our security and defense, as well as that of our allies and partners, is nonnegotiable. we will only pursue arms control agreements that advance our national interest. during the cold war, washington and moscow found it in our mutual interest to work together to cap and then to begin reducing the number of nuclear weapons in service in reversing the nuclear arms race and improving mutual security and stability. we judged that the new start treaty was in the united states' national security interest for the same reasons and that is why we continue to implement the new start treaty with russia today. we are now in the fourth year of implementation and despite the crisis in ukraine, we and russia continue to implement the treaty in a businesslike manner. since entry into force in 2011, the united states has inspected with boots on the ground

russian nuclear weapons facilities 58 times. these inspections are the part of new start treaty verification regime which is a vital tool in ensuring transparency and predictability between the world's largest powers. in the realm of conventional arms control, the united states and our allies have been using arms control 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. so we will do your testimony as 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 ussian 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 riorities. that along with nato-ukraine relations, questions related to the open door and nato enlargement, afghanistan capabilities and enhancing nato artnerships.

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 f 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 then gives them yet a purposeful -- 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 --

hat 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 tieror ated. -- as 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 the 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 ewe crepe? 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 hat? 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 round 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 uestion. 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 f 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 elieve 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. is that -- 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 eploy 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 touk -- >> 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. a 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. 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

ussian 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 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 leches 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 he -- 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 hat 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 hat 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 uestion. 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 states' 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 erify. 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 uestions 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 agrecian? >> 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 ro-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, mong 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. 2013] on c-span, former president bill clinton speaks at georgetown university. then, "washington journal." followed by live coverage of the u.s. house. everybody says, how do you think these women came from such a very low rent part? the victorian era is so stratified. rich and the real -- thebaron achievers life and times of these