[House Hearing, 115 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
UNDERMINING DEMOCRATIC INSTITUTIONS AND
SPLINTERING NATO:
RUSSIAN DISINFORMATION AIMS
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
MARCH 9, 2017
__________
Serial No. 115-7
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov/
or
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
24-584 PDF WASHINGTON : 2017
____________________________________________________________________
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office,
Internet:bookstore.gpo.gov. Phone:toll free (866)512-1800;DC area (202)512-1800
Fax:(202) 512-2104 Mail:Stop IDCC,Washington,DC 20402-001
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
EDWARD R. ROYCE, California, Chairman
CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida BRAD SHERMAN, California
DANA ROHRABACHER, California GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York
STEVE CHABOT, Ohio ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey
JOE WILSON, South Carolina GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia
MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida
TED POE, Texas KAREN BASS, California
DARRELL E. ISSA, California WILLIAM R. KEATING, Massachusetts
TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania DAVID N. CICILLINE, Rhode Island
JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina AMI BERA, California
MO BROOKS, Alabama LOIS FRANKEL, Florida
PAUL COOK, California TULSI GABBARD, Hawaii
SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas
RON DeSANTIS, Florida ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois
MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina BRENDAN F. BOYLE, Pennsylvania
TED S. YOHO, Florida DINA TITUS, Nevada
ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois NORMA J. TORRES, California
LEE M. ZELDIN, New York BRADLEY SCOTT SCHNEIDER, Illinois
DANIEL M. DONOVAN, Jr., New York THOMAS R. SUOZZI, New York
F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr., ADRIANO ESPAILLAT, New York
Wisconsin TED LIEU, California
ANN WAGNER, Missouri
BRIAN J. MAST, Florida
FRANCIS ROONEY, Florida
BRIAN K. FITZPATRICK, Pennsylvania
THOMAS A. GARRETT, Jr., Virginia
Amy Porter, Chief of Staff Thomas Sheehy, Staff Director
Jason Steinbaum, Democratic Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
WITNESSES
His Excellency Toomas Hendrik Ilves (former President of the
Republic of Estonia)........................................... 5
The Honorable Lincoln P. Bloomfield, Jr., chairman emeritus and
distinguished fellow, The Stimson Center (former Assistant
Secretary for Political Military Affairs, U.S. Department of
State)......................................................... 16
Mr. Peter B. Doran, executive vice president, Center for European
Policy Analysis................................................ 25
The Honorable Daniel Baer (former U.S. Representative to the
Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe)........... 30
LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING
His Excellency Toomas Hendrik Ilves: Prepared statement.......... 7
The Honorable Lincoln P. Bloomfield, Jr.: Prepared statement..... 18
Mr. Peter B. Doran: Prepared statement........................... 27
The Honorable Daniel Baer: Prepared statement.................... 32
APPENDIX
Hearing notice................................................... 92
Hearing minutes.................................................. 93
Mr. Peter B. Doran: Material submitted for the record............ 95
The Honorable Scott Perry, a Representative in Congress from the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania: Material submitted for the record 101
The Honorable Brad Sherman, a Representative in Congress from the
State of California: Material submitted for the record......... 104
The Honorable Thomas A. Garrett, Jr., a Representative in
Congress from the Commonwealth of Virginia: Material submitted
for the record................................................. 108
The Honorable David Cicilline, a Representative in Congress from
the State of Rhode Island:
Report entitled ``Background to `Assessing Russian Activities
and Intentions in Recent US Elections': The Analytic Process
and Cyber Incident Attribution''............................. 111
Washington Post articles....................................... 114
The Honorable Gerald E. Connolly, a Representative in Congress
from the Commonwealth of Virginia: Prepared statement.......... 117
Written responses from the witnesses to questions submitted for
the record by the Honorable Ann Wagner, a Representative in
Congress from the State of Missouri............................ 119
UNDERMINING DEMOCRATIC INSTITUTIONS
AND SPLINTERING NATO:
RUSSIAN DISINFORMATION AIMS
----------
THURSDAY, MARCH 9, 2017
House of Representatives,
Committee on Foreign Affairs,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:05 a.m., in
room 2172 Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Edward Royce
(chairman of the committee) presiding.
Chairman Royce. This hearing will come to order.
This morning we examine Russia's systematic attempts to
undermine and discredit Western democratic institutions, with
one goal being to splinter the North Atlantic Treaty
Organization.
In January, the U.S. intelligence community produced a
report which found that ``Russian President Vladimir Putin
ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the U.S.
Presidential election.'' Thankfully, there is no evidence to
suggest Russia interfered in our voting and tallying process.
But Members of Congress rightfully have many more questions
surrounding Russian meddling. So it is appropriate that the
intelligence committees, on a bipartisan basis, are working to
get to the bottom of this. We need answers. And we need to make
sure it doesn't happen again.
Indeed, the intelligence community reports warn that
``Moscow will apply lessons learned to future influence efforts
worldwide, including against U.S. allies and their election
processes.'' Here in the U.S., our midterm elections will be
here before we know it. And with elections on the horizon in
France, Germany, the Netherlands, the Czech Republic, and
Italy, European intelligence services are sounding the alarm
about Russian attempts to skew the outcome with targeted
disinformation and propaganda. In France, for example, one pro-
European candidate has reportedly been the subject of
``hundreds and even thousands'' of hacking attempts against his
party, and outlets such as RT and Sputnik spread disinformation
to undermine his candidacy.
This isn't new. The committee is joined today by Toomas
Ilves, a former Estonian President--welcome, Mr. President--who
led his country as Russia inflamed ethnic passions and directed
disinformation and cyberattacks against Estonia. Russia's media
war against the Baltic states goes back over a decade.
What is new is that Russian disinformation has been growing
in sophistication, intensity, reach, and impact. According to
the Center for European Policy Analysis--also represented here
today--``Russia's information warfare does not crudely promote
the Kremlin's agenda, instead it is calibrated to confuse,
befuddle, and distract.'' They go on to note that ``Russia aims
to erode public support for Euro-Atlantic values in order to
increase its own relative power.'' Russia has deployed its
arsenal of trolls, propaganda, and false information to a new
level. These techniques have even become enshrined in official
Kremlin doctrine.
Moscow's strategic objective is to break apart the NATO
alliance and, thus, to boost Russian geopolitical influence in
Western Europe. The stakes are high: If Kremlin-backed
politicians take power in France, it could potentially spell
the end of the European Union. Even for those who might approve
of that development, I think we can all agree the future of the
EU should be left to the Europeans--not manipulators in Moscow.
So how do we push back? Last Congress, when this committee
held a hearing on Russia's ``weaponization of information,''
U.S. international broadcasters were on the air with a near 30-
minute television news program in the Russian language called
Current Time. Now, 2 years later, this Russian language show is
running 6 hours of live programming daily--but still cannot
provide data on target audience and market penetration. In
December, the President signed legislation authored by myself
and Mr. Engel--and pushed by this committee--to empower a CEO
to run all U.S. international broadcasting. The CEO should use
its new authority to prioritize this threat, and the committee
should look at other steps we can take to intensify U.S.
international broadcasting.
And more should be done to hold those hacking accountable.
Why not go on the offense to release information exposing
corruption at the Kremlin?
I want to thank all of our distinguished witnesses for
their participation in today's important discussion. I am
afraid it is not exaggeration to say the long-term future of
the European security order and America's role as an Atlantic
power is at risk. Last month the Russian foreign minister
called for, in his words, a ``post-West'' world order. Unless
the United States stands solidly with its allies to better
challenge this Russian disinformation assault, that disturbing
call could come sooner than we would like.
I now turn to the ranking member for his opening comments.
Mr. Engel of New York.
Mr. Engel. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I want to
thank our witnesses as well and welcome you all to the Foreign
Affairs Committee.
Ambassador Baer, I want to just tell you it is good to see
you again. Your service at the State Department was exemplary,
both in the Democracy, Labor and Human Rights Bureau and as our
Ambassador to the OSCE. And I also want to commend your work in
promoting diversity among our foreign affairs personnel,
speaking out about the importance of getting more LGBT
individuals into senior roles in the department.
Mr. Chairman, I thank you. I am glad our focus today is on
Russia. Disinformation is a problem, no doubt about it. But in
my view, as I believe your view as well, a much bigger problem
is that a hostile foreign government committed criminal acts in
an effort to undermine American democracy. At Vladimir Putin's
orders, Russia's agents tried to swing last year's election in
favor of President Trump. Those actions were an attack on our
country. And if we don't respond effectively, Putin will become
an even bigger threat to the United States and our allies.
It doesn't matter who they try to help or not help, the
fact that they had the nerve to interfere in our elections
should make all of us pause--give all of us pause for concern.
So while I am glad we are having this hearing today, I hope it
will only be the first in a series of hearings and other
actions by this committee to address this problem.
Before I continue, I want to say that when I first came to
this committee in 1989, the chairman of the committee was Dante
Fascell. I know Ms. Ros-Lehtinen knew him well. Well, today
would have been Dante Fascell's 100th birthday. As chair of
this committee he helped establish the Helsinki Commission and
the National Endowment for Democracy. He was a true statesman
and he personified what the chairman and I have done these past
6 years for this committee, saying that politics stops at the
water's edge. He really believed that as well. And his portrait
is right over my left shoulder.
This committee has an important role to play. And I am
delighted that the chairman scheduled this hearing. With
respect to our witnesses, we will also need to hear from senior
administration officials once they are in place because this
committee needs to exercise our oversight role and we need to
legislate.
For instance, this committee is the gateway to a full
independent investigation. The bill to create that commission
and to protect our democracy, as introduced by Mr. Swalwell and
Mr. Cummings, is solely within our jurisdiction and waiting for
this committee to mark it up. We can't wait any longer. Each
week it seems we learn about another person in the Trump
campaign who met with a Russian official. Already the
President's national security advisor, General Flynn, has
resigned because of these contacts.
The Attorney General met with the Russian Ambassador as
well. Look, we meet with Ambassadors all the time. They come
into my office. But Mr. Sessions hid the truth about these
meetings when he testified to the Senate Judiciary Committee. I
find his explanation impossible to be taken seriously. But I
want to know why these meetings were shrouded in secrecy.
And now we learn that the President himself met with
Russia's Ambassador. There are just too many unanswered
questions. Shutting this behind the closed doors of the
Intelligence Committee isn't the solution. A 9/11-style
commission, along with a special prosecutor appointed by the
Justice Department, is the only way to stop the drip, drip,
drip of information. But an investigation isn't enough. We need
to respond.
Mr. Connolly and I have offered a bill, the SECURE Our
Democracy Act, that would be a real punch in the nose to Putin
and his thugs. This bill would sanction anyone who interferes
in an American election from overseas. Those responsible for
last year's crimes would be held accountable. And anyone
thinking about meddling with our elections in the future would
know there would be consequences. It is based on sanctions
legislation that has worked well in the past, and it wouldn't
cost the taxpayers a dime.
This bill is common sense. You mess with the bull, you get
the horns. Every Democrat on this committee, along with dozens
of others, are cosponsoring this bill. I would hope that our
Republican friends will eventually sign on or offer an
alternative bill to impose similar consequences.
It is very remarkable to me that rather than dealing with
the very real, very immediate threat of Putin's aggression, the
administration is instead taking aim at our intelligence and
law enforcement agencies and shifted blame onto the last
administration, spinning wild theories about wiretaps and other
spy novel tactics. These allegations are not true. There is no
evidence. This is an attempt to muddy the water, and it won't
work.
Have our politics really gotten to the point where they
stop us from confronting an attack on our country? If so, shame
on us. Russia attacked the United States. Putin meddled with
American democracy. We need to know exactly what happened and
determine the best way to respond. So I am glad our committee
is taking the first step in dealing with that problem. I hope
we stay focused on it. We are the first committee to do it. And
this is within our jurisdiction and I am proud of, again,
Chairman Royce and myself working together so we can be the
first committee to do this. But we must continue; we cannot
stop here.
So I look forward to our witnesses' insights on how to
confront this problem. I thank the chairman again, and I yield
back.
Chairman Royce. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Engel.
This morning we are pleased to be joined by a distinguished
panel. His Excellency Toomas Ilves served as the President of
Estonia from 2006 to 2016, during which time his country was
directly impacted by Russian disinformation and cyberattacks.
We are honored to have him with us here today.
The Honorable Lincoln Bloomfield is the chairman emeritus
and distinguished fellow at The Stimson Center. Previously,
Ambassador Bloomfield held a series of positions in the
Departments of State and Defense, including serving as the
Assistant Secretary of State for Political and Military
Affairs. We welcome him back.
Mr. Peter Doran is executive vice president at the Center
for European Policy Analysis where he oversees the Center's
Information Warfare Initiative.
The Honorable Daniel Baer is the former U.S. Representative
to the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe.
Welcome, Ambassador.
Without objection, the witnesses' full prepared statements
will be made part of the record and members will have 5
calendar days to submit statements or questions or any
extraneous material for the record.
I also will remind my colleagues of Jefferson's Manual,
which allows robust discussion but prohibits engaging in
personalities.
We will start, Mr. President, with your remarks. If you
could please summarize your remarks for us now. And just hit
the talk button. There you go. Thank you, Mr. President.
STATEMENT OF HIS EXCELLENCY TOOMAS HENDRIK ILVES (FORMER
PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF ESTONIA)
President Ilves. Thank you very much. It is an honor to be
here. To compress it all might be--I will try to do my best.
Basically, I mean, we go back to General Clausewitz who
said, ``War is the continuation of policy by other means.'' We
are certainly seeing the continuation of policy by other means
when it comes to disinformation and all of the other behaviors
that we have seen. And I would suggest or recommend reading the
Russian chief of the general staff Valery Gerasimov's article
from 2013 in which he outlines basically all of the behaviors
that we have seen here which have been given the name of
``hybrid war.'' But, in fact, he does in that article outline
all of the various policies that should be pursued by the
Russian Federation in order to achieve its ends.
We have seen these processes in action for--well, I would
argue--we have seen since 1989, even before the establishment
of our independence in Estonia, and also in Latvia and
Lithuania, when already the Soviet Union embarked on a
disinformation campaign directed toward us. And we have
actually gone through it since then.
The disinformation campaign really hit sort of a wider
audience, I would argue, after the annexation of Crimea. When
taking the lessons of a complete PR flop in the Georgian
invasion where the Georgians managed to really outdo the
Russians, and the Russians had not paid any attention to
getting the message out, when it came to Crimea the Western
media was flooded with stories about Ukrainian Nazis and all
kinds of horrible tales that were untrue.
And what we see now, and I would argue this will be the
main battlefield for the next year, is in Europe where, as you
rightly mentioned, there are a number of key elections coming
up, not only key elections, but among major countries. They, I
mean the large countries, first and foremost Germany and
France, will have elections. There are strong odds there will
be an Italian snap election. That is this year. That is three
out of the four remaining big countries in Europe, now that the
U.K. has left. So this is a big year.
Then there are also the crucial elections in the
Netherlands, which may not be one of the biggest countries but
it is sort of considered one of the medium powers. And in all
cases we have seen significant meddling.
The Dutch are so afraid they have decided to go back to
paper balloting because they are afraid of what might happen.
And we have seen, I mean, any number of stories in the
literature about how in the Netherlands there have been
attempts to influence opinion, most recently on the referendum
on whether or not to allow the association agreement with
Ukraine, which is kind of a minor issue since an association
agreement between the European Union and a country is kind of a
free trade agreement with student teacher exchange, but that is
it. Nonetheless, they held a referendum and defeated it, and
which left Ukraine in the cold regarding the rest of the year.
Policies in general seem to be directed at splitting up the
EU and NATO. Certainly the candidates that are being supported
are ones who are very anti-EU and anti-NATO. The most
prominent, of course, in the key country of France, is Marine
Le Pen who is anti-EU, anti-NATO, anti-U.S. She has received or
her party has received $9 million from a Russian bank for
support. With the rise of Emmanuel Macron as a leading centrist
alternative to Marine Le Pen we see massive disinformation
about him.
With the little time remaining I will say, clearly Angela
Merkel is a key target. Angela Merkel, the Chancellor of
Germany, has been the figure holding the EU together on
sanctions policy. And I guess in the question period I can
answer more specific questions. But, basically, this year the
goal seems to be to win elections in Europe so that anti-EU,
anti-NATO forces get into power.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of President Ilves follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
----------
Chairman Royce. Thank you, Mr. President.
Ambassador Bloomfield.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE LINCOLN P. BLOOMFIELD, JR., CHAIRMAN
EMERITUS AND DISTINGUISHED FELLOW, THE STIMSON CENTER (FORMER
ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR POLITICAL MILITARY AFFAIRS, U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF STATE)
Ambassador Bloomfield. Thank you and good morning, Mr.
Chairman, Ranking Member Engel, and members. It is an honor to
be here this morning.
My prepared testimony provides a strategic analysis of a
longer-term view that looks into the future, that takes into
consideration the past, and tries to put the current
disturbance and the current events in a broader perspective. I
associate myself with the opening remarks of both the chairman
and the ranking member. And I hope the members will take what I
have to say today as being entirely non-partisan and in favor
of the home team, which is all of us.
The fact that we have distinguished European visitors in
the room today, both at the panel with President Ilves and the
others behind me, Ambassadors, shows this is not just an
American issue. This is a much bigger issue.
I start by saying that there are some big changes going on
in the world that have nothing to do with Russia. As you have
seen, globalization, robotics, the massive increase in
connectivity in the internet has had profound effects. And last
year's election may well have been manipulated by Russia, but
it was also caught up in some very big headwinds of global
change, as you know. And this change is affecting Europe; it is
affecting the whole world.
We have to separate those two things and recognize that
last year was a change election where a number of Americans
were worried about whether the tools of foreign policy were
strong enough, whether we could be effective in fighting
extremism and finishing what we started in Iraq, Afghanistan,
and elsewhere. There were a lot of things we were worried about
including the loss of manufacturing jobs. Russia tried to
exploit all of that. And we will find out when we investigate
exactly how much they did and what the effect was.
But it is very important to realize that our democracy is
being tested. What I would say is look at Russia's recent
history. For the last 20 or 30 years the trend has been toward
open democratization around the world. We saw autocracies
disappear in Latin America, Central and Eastern Europe,
Southeast Asia, Central Asia, the colored revolutions, starting
with the Czech Republic and what happened in Poland years ago,
and the fall of the Soviet Union, but then more recently in
Ukraine, Kyrgyzstan, and Georgia. This, of course, alarmed Mr.
Putin and his secret service colleagues who thought that they
would lose the whole thing.
So what did they do? They tightened down and they moved in
a different direction. And I want the members to think about
how not only Russia but China, Iran, and Syria, and perhaps
others, are regimes that are going to try to stick around
forever. They are trying to stay in power as one-party states.
How do they do this? They do it by repressing their dissidents,
by parking money in foreign banks so that they have assets, by
controlling all security services, all the guns, and by
censoring the media--that is extremely important.
So there is a contest that I think can play out over the
next 20 or 30 years as to whether this model of a repressive
autocracy in the modern age is going to surpass Western
democracies. They are trying to undermine our confidence. They
are trying to undermine our institutions. I think that is very
dangerous.
My testimony provides two sets of responses. One is, what
should we do to protect ourselves?
First is to investigate, as Ranking Member Engel said, and
take appropriate actions. We need to know what happened. And we
need to do it in concert with our NATO allies, with our
European Union friends. We should do this as a joint project.
We should share, compare notes, and we should talk about
appropriate responses.
We should probably take a much deeper look at what the
cyber implications are of our deep dependence on internet-
connected information, and the fact that people can put out
their own news, and their own broadcasts. We can't stop that
but we need to think about it and be strategic and perhaps have
a Western response to this threat.
But the ultimate answer is to govern successfully. Nothing
would work better for Russia strategically than to deepen the
natural differences in a vibrant American democracy between
Republicans, Democrats; left, right; blue, red, et cetera. That
is fine. That is the glory of our democracy. But when it
becomes so intractable that we cannot agree on national
security, we cannot agree on the future solvency of the
country, and we cannot agree on the reputation of the United
States in the world, that is when Russia starts to win. We need
to be conscious of this contest. And our victory will be to
prove that democracy works.
So, we will survive. My final point, and my testimony lays
this out, is that we will survive this, this attempt to try to
influence us. We had some very dangerous Russian provocations
during the Cold War, which some of us lived through.
Can Mr. Putin survive a taste of his own medicine? If you
go to the end of my testimony I have put out the idea of
issuing a number of reports that reveal his little secrets, as
a Western response, and see how he likes it when everyone knows
where he put his money, how many dissidents he has killed, how
they shot down the Malaysian airliner, and several other
issues.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ambassador Bloomfield follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
----------
Chairman Royce. Mr. Doran.
STATEMENT OF MR. PETER B. DORAN, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT,
CENTER FOR EUROPEAN POLICY ANALYSIS
Mr. Doran. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, Ranking
Member, and members of the committee.
I am Peter B. Doran, the executive vice president of the
Center for European Policy Analysis. It is an honor to be here
to talk with you today. I have submitted my written testimony
for the record. And what I would like to do is to provide a
brief overview of Russia's global efforts to undermine
democratic states.
Now, Mr. Chairman, my organization is a U.S.-based,
nonprofit policy institute dedicated to the study of Central
Europe. Our main focus in the question of disinformation right
now centers on American allies like Poland and the Baltic
states. Based on our research and reporting at CEPA, my main
message to the committee is this: The Russian Government is
sharpening its use of state-sponsored propaganda against
Western democracies. This puts democratic states and NATO at
risk.
This committee should have no doubt Russia is a rival to
the United States. The strategic aims of the Russian Government
are fundamentally incompatible with American interests in
Europe. In its place, Russia wants to change this. Russia wants
to establish a sphere of privileged influence in Europe. But to
do so, they must weaken America's links to our allies, divide
NATO and, if necessary, use force.
Russia's problem is that against a united Atlantic
alliance, Russia is relatively weak. Against individual states
in Europe, Russia is comparatively strong. Russian leaders know
this. It is why they must fracture allied security, stoke
public distrust against democratic institutions, and discredit
the alliance structures that defend Europe. If we are divided
and distracted, Russia can challenge the U.S.-led security
order. This is Russia's aim. Propaganda is a means.
Unlike the Cold War, today's Russian propaganda does not
crudely promote the Kremlin's foreign policy agenda. Instead,
it is calibrated to confuse, distract, and dismay audiences.
The intent here is to erode Euro-Atlantic values and degrade
trust and public support for security organizations like NATO.
So whether Russian propagandists are repackaging deceptive
narratives to disguise their original source, a concept that we
call narrative laundering, the methods are many. Trust is the
intended casualty: Trust in America's promises, NATO's staying
power, and democratic efficacy.
All of this has immediate ramifications for upcoming
elections, as members of this panel have already noted. Right
now Russian propaganda outlets are actively trying to shape
public perceptions ahead of both contests. The Russian
Government has a stake in the outcome of these elections
because if we are distracted, divided, and incapable of
defending the existing security order in Europe, then Russia
can achieve its foreign policy goals. If Russia succeeds, it
will create great harm to U.S. interests.
The question becomes for us then how do we protect
ourselves? And what does victory on this new frontier of
conflict actually look like?
Well, for starters, I would recommend to the committee that
we start to view Russian propaganda like a virus. To stop this
virus we should treat it like one. This means detecting the
virus, knowing what it is and how it works, debunking it, so
curing those who may have been exposed, defending people by
educating citizens to protect themselves and others, and
disarming it or finding a vaccine.
CEPA has developed a packager of ideas to address the
different dimensions of disinformation. The full list is
included in my written testimony for the record. But the bottom
line is this: In the 21st Century media space the lie can be
disproved but audiences have to care. To defeat Russian
disinformation we are going to need more systemic analysis of
its methods and impact, better counter-messaging from
government and non-government sources, high impact media
education for everyday audiences, and not just a whole of
government approach at the policy level, but a whole of society
approach to disarming propaganda.
Well, this may seem like a sobering assessment for the
committee. Members should be encouraged. Trust can be restored.
The information space can be protected.
I very much thank you for your time. And I do look forward
to questions from the committee. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Doran follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
----------
Chairman Royce. Thank you.
Ambassador Baer.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE DANIEL BAER (FORMER U.S.
REPRESENTATIVE TO THE ORGANIZATION FOR SECURITY AND COOPERATION
IN EUROPE)
Ambassador Baer. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Mr.
Ranking Member, and thank you especially for your warm
comments. And thank you to all the members for having us here
today.
Over the last few years I have developed a kind of
Pavlovian response to this kind of microphone. And when I see
one I prepare to defend the United States against the spurious
claims of the Russian Ambassador. But I am glad to be here
today with the home team.
Vladimir Putin pursues with obsessive compulsion a range of
efforts to dominate the post-Soviet space and to weaken Europe,
the U.S., transatlantic relationships, and institutions that
reinforce democratic values. We must understand why the Kremlin
does this, how, why it matters to the U.S., and what we should
do about it. A fuller treatment is in my written testimony.
Russia's foreign policy is driven by Putin's domestic
political aims, namely, the preservation of his personal
position and the corrupt authoritarian system by which he and
so many of his cronies have enriched themselves and maintained
an iron grip on the state. Putin longs for a lost Soviet past,
sure. But he also fears the present. He fears justice,
accountability, the rule of law, all the things that the
European Union, NATO, and the United States of America
represent and reinforce.
The rules-based order, which has been a chief
accomplishment of U.S. foreign policy throughout Democratic and
Republican administrations over the last seven decades, is
anathema to the kleptocratic authoritarianism of Russia's KGB
President.
Let me turn to disinformation and hacking. It is possible
to track Russian disinformation's past from GRU and FSB agents
working with the Kremlin, through Russia's propaganda arms like
Sputnik and RT, to a set of intermediaries disguised as
independent sources. These actors often describe themselves in
their profiles in ways intended to legitimize and make them
attractive to target audiences. For example, those targeting
Trump supporters may have ``Make America Great Again'' or
``Christian Patriot USA'' in their profile. Never mind that
they might in fact be sitting in a troll factory in St.
Petersburg.
They share the stories, which are then amplified through
technical means, or bots, that send many thousands of tweets of
the same false stories accompanied by hashtags. This burst of
activity puts the hashtags on Twitter's trending list. And then
the story is picked up by genuine supporters of a candidate or
cause who share it on Twitter or Facebook. Little does the
person in Hamilton, New Jersey, or Brea, California, know that
what they just shared with their friends and family is junk
that was written by a Russian agent.
State-sponsored hacking is another part of this operation.
WikiLeaks is the most well-known platform for Russian
intelligence to distribute their stolen material. The
coordination of the two tactics was exposed several times
during the U.S. Presidential campaign when RT or Sputnik ran a
story based on hacked material hours before the material was
posted on WikiLeaks. Even Russian spies make mistakes.
The same intermediaries and bots that were active during
our election pivoted almost immediately to upcoming elections
in Europe, as we have heard today. There, Russia seeks to
bolster xenophobic and anti-EU candidates and to take down
German Chancellor Merkel for similar reasons--to strike a blow
to Europe.
Attempts to undermine democracy and political stability in
Europe are a threat to American security and prosperity. Our
European allies remain our partners of first resort in taking
on the challenges of the 21st Century. And when they are
weakened, the United States is less able to accomplish our
objectives. In response, we must pursue three general lines of
effort at the same time: First, work with governments and civil
society in Europe to help repulse Russian efforts.
Second, sustain existing punitive measures aimed at
delivering consequences to Russia for its intervention in our
election, and be prepared to implement additional measures.
Third, we need a comprehensive, independent review of
Russian interference in our elections.
Support for a full investigation has divided too often on
party lines. This saddens me. This should not be a partisan
issue. This is a national security issue that should concern
any patriot. I understand that because Russian influence was
deployed on behalf of the Republican candidate, an
investigation feels politically uncomfortable for Republicans.
But I respectfully urge you to recognize that while the focus
of an investigation must necessarily be on our last election,
the reason for an investigation is to defend our future
elections, to defend our democracy itself. And that is an
interest that we all share.
If we are to withstand future efforts to manipulate us
through hacking and disinformation, we must have the facts
about how this effort worked and how effective it was. For this
reason, a robust, independent investigation of the Russian role
in our elections is needed, separate from and in addition to
any appointment of a special prosecutor to look into criminal
collaboration with such efforts.
Again I thank you for inviting me to be here today. And I
will do my best to answer any of your questions. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ambassador Baer follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
----------
Chairman Royce. Thank you, Ambassador Baer.
Mr. President, I'd like to begin by asking you a question
because, as you mentioned, the textbook case here was
originally Estonia's cyberwar, all surrounding originally a
Soviet-era statute when you first entered office.
Looking back, I wondered if you could walk us through that
attack and maybe also answer how has Estonia prepared for that
attack? Or was it prepared then? And 10 years on how have NATO
allies like Estonia and the Baltic States prepared themselves
for what is ongoing? And what can we do to help the Baltic
States maintain their independence, free of Russian
manipulation?
President Ilves. Thank you, Chairman.
Well, what happened in 2007 was, as is known in the jargon
as a DDOS attack, a distributed denial-of-service attack, in
which one floods servers so they can't respond. This was until
our attack a common practice for extortion of small businesses
that were online. This was, and the reason why to this day
every history of cyberattacks starts with Estonia, is that this
was the first time there was a clear link between a digital
event, a major digital event and policy.
Before that, I mean, there were probably millions of
attacks that we don't know anything about but they were always
things that never reached the press, or they were known but
there was no obvious connection between policies. That is why I
started off with von Clausewitz. I mean that was a punishment
action.
The way they work, two points need to be made. One is that
the cyberattack does not penetrate anything. It works in a way
that no one has access. But they do not get into the servers.
Rather it is that government sites, newspapers, banks, even the
European equivalent of the 911 emergency number was attacked--
we have 112 in Europe--those were subject to these attacks that
made them inaccessible. And that is, I mean that was quite
disruptive, would be I guess an understatement.
We were actually better prepared than many because we had
just gamed a possible DDOS attack because we were about to
have--we had had just our first electronic elections. So we
were better prepared. So there are ways to deal with this that
you can deflect attacks on you.
The second point about this is that the way these are done
is that basically it is a unique form of public/private
partnership. DDOS attacks are done by, rarely, by companies
that spend most of their time sending out spam. The idea of
spam is a shotgun approach: You shoot out these things to
everywhere, using hijacked computers or bots or networks of
bots known as botnets. Now, but you can take the same process
and invert it and direct botnets to attack single servers,
overloading the servers.
Again, this is something that is done by criminal gangs
that have hijacked computers to send out spam. The profile of
the attack showed us that it was--they were rented out for a
certain amount of time. And, in fact, the peak was on the 9th
of May 2007. It started massively at an incredible level at
00:00 GMT and ended at 24:00:00 GMT. And I asked the head of
our CERT team, well, how is that possible? Why is that
possible? It doesn't follow a Gaussian normal distribution to
talk to them. They said, Oh, they stopped paying.
And I said, What does that mean?
And he said, Well, I mean they were rented.
So the attack was designed to be on the Soviet or Russian
anniversary of the end of World War II, which is for them May
9th, for us it is May 8th. And they simply used that day to
attack us as a political gesture.
Chairman Royce. Thank you, Mr. President.
Mr. Engel.
Mr. Engel. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
When we look at Putin's goals we see a clear aim of tearing
down the United States and Western democracy and institutions,
to cast aspersions on our values. Instead of telling the world
Russia is great, Putin is subtly spreading the message you may
not think Russia is great, but neither is the U.S., neither is
NATO or the EU, neither is Western-style democracy. We are all
down here in the mud together.
Now, I have been around long enough to remember when a
Republican President likened America to a shining city on a
hill. But President Trump, when asked about Putin in a recent
interview, seemed actually to draw an equivalency between
American policies and Putin's tactics. When Putin was called a
killer, President Trump said, and I quote, ``There are a lot of
killers. Do you think our country is so innocent?''
Let me start, let me ask all of you, let me start with
Ambassador Baer, and anyone else who wants to weigh in, are
American leaders killers? Are they the same as Putin? And what
does it do for Putin's aims to hear that kind of talk coming
from the President of the United States?
And, Ambassador Bloomfield, as you described, doesn't this
erode trust in the United States?
Let me start with Ambassador Baer.
Ambassador Baer. Thank you, Mr. Ranking Member.
In a word, no. There is no equivalence between the United
States and Russia. And our President should be able to state
that clearly, as should our Vice President be able to state
that clearly.
I recently wrote a piece for Foreign Policy talking about
the President who you alluded to, Ronald Reagan, and the fact
that the comparisons between our current President and Ronald
Reagan do not hold up because Ronald Reagan saw so clearly that
America's military was strong but that America was strong
because it was our military, because it had to do with our
principles and the values that that military stands behind.
And I think it is very important that we not lose sight of
that because that is exactly the distraction that Vladimir
Putin would like us to submit to.
What you talked about more broadly, I think, is what some
have called ``weaponized relativism.'' This is a tactic that
Putin uses to try to remove the focus on the failings of his
own regime. And we should be clear that the failings of his own
regime are not just international. His regime is failing
domestically. He has stolen so much, his cronies have stolen so
much, they have failed so completely to diversify that economy.
Russia has the birthrates of Western Europe, the life
expectancy of parts of Africa, and an undiversified economy.
That is not a recipe for success.
And as I said in my written testimony, you can't talk to a
Russian diplomat these days for more than 5 minutes without
having them talk about a multi-polar world that we live in. And
I always want to say, okay fine, I will grant you the premise
that the 21st Century is a multi-polar world. What makes you
think that Russia is one of the poles?
There is nothing attractive about Putinism as a system. And
we should be very clear, even as we take very seriously the
threats that Putinism poses, both domestically and
internationally, we should take those threats seriously but we
should never lose sight of the fact that we didn't get it
wrong. The values that underpin American democracy, the values
that are the foundation for the NATO alliance, the values that
are universal values at the center of the European project, are
the right values. They are the right prescription for a
successful society. And we should never lose confidence in
that.
Mr. Engel. Thank you.
Mr. Doran.
Mr. Doran. Thank you, Ranking Member.
In considering your question I would look directly at the
exact purpose of this hearing today, you know: What is it that
Russian disinformation attempts to achieve? I think it is very
obvious that Putin does not want to make America great again.
In fact, Putin has the opposite goal. However, our allies do,
allies like front-line states, the Baltic states, Poland and
others, neighbors of Russia, they actually want us to succeed.
Russia does not.
One of the things that we have seen is that Russia has
field tested many of its propaganda techniques that it has
utilized in Western democracies now, it has field tested these
concepts and techniques in Central Europe, in front-line
states. What we are seeing is not new.
One of the points I would stress for the committee is the
urgency and the speed at which these techniques are evolving.
They are going from laboratory to field test to refinement
rapidly. Our responses are slow. Our messaging is clunky. And
we are combating a highly effective, well-funded effort that
does not care about facts.
One of the problems we face when we look at facts, when we
look at what is true, is that, frankly, Russia is just fine
with us stating our side of the debate. Russia does not mind.
Because the more ideas are out there, the more explanations
there could be for anything, the more relativistic
interpretations of facts that we and others can put out, this
assists Russia in confusing audiences, distracting from the
main issue, and ultimately befuddling us into pointing fingers
at each other and not keeping the shields faced toward Moscow.
Mr. Engel. Thank you.
I want to ask Ambassador Bloomfield, as you described,
doesn't this erode trust in the United States, what our
President has done, what our President has said?
Ambassador Bloomfield. Thank you, Ranking Member Engel.
I am not going to involve myself in talking about specific
statements. I will say that President Trump is my President.
President Obama was my President. I am an American. I vote.
Elections matter. However, we have a vigorous set of checks and
balances. We have a free press. We are absolutely free to
challenge the people we have entrusted with power, and do
challenge by every act that we take in the public interest. So
that is perfectly legitimate.
That is why we are robust. And, look, in American history a
lot of things have changed from the agrarian age to the
industrial age to the information age. This is a time of
change. This was a change election. And it doesn't mean
politically it was a change election, it means that America
needs to adapt. Republicans and Democrats, you need to come
together and figure this out. And, as we always have, we need
to own the future.
I would simply conclude by----
Mr. Engel. But not adapt with Russian interference. We want
to prevent Russian interference.
Ambassador Bloomfield. We need to call them out.
But my point is, consider their center of gravity, their
weakness: They are very brittle. Look how much they are trying
to--look at the information age. Information is omnipresent,
but they are trying to control the media. Russian television
never told the Russian people that they had troops in Ukraine.
They hid the fact. So they are extremely vulnerable to a
reverse information campaign from the West.
Chairman Royce. Thank you.
We go to Ileana Ros-Lehtinen of Florida.
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman and
Ranking Member.
Well, as all of us know, despite renewed interest in Cuba
and not Russia--I was going to get to that soon--the
undermining of U.S. interests by Vladimir's regime is nothing
new. We have seen his interference throughout Latin America,
and my native homeland of Cuba, throughout the hemisphere.
Nothing new. From its military campaigns in Georgia and
Ukraine, to its propaganda and misinformation campaign in
outlets like Russia Today or RT, to its support in Syria and
Iran dictatorships and throughout Latin America, Putin's regime
has undermined the United States and our allies at every turn,
expanding its influence and corruption, showing nothing but
contempt for human rights and the rule of law.
Many of us have been pushing for a stronger stance against
Russia for a long time, arguing against the Obama
administration's reset in relations, as well as the Bush
administration's proposed Civil Nuclear 123 Agreement. After
Russia's actions in Georgia we warned about potential
interference in Ukraine, as well as additional Russian pressure
in the Baltics, in Kazakhstan, in Moldova, so many places.
And one effort I strongly argued against was the repeal of
the Jackson-Vanik amendment which would grant Russia Permanent
Normal Trade Relation status, just one more item in a long list
of concessions to Putin in recent years. And I have
consistently been arguing for additional sanctions on Russian
officials for their human rights violations, pushing for
passage of the Sergei Magnitsky Act. Many of us have been
active in that to add more names to that list.
And my friend Eliot Engel and I led resolutions calling for
investigations into the murder of opposition leader Boris
Nemtsov, as well as sanctions against all of those responsible.
And I have been calling for sanctions against those who
poisoned Vladimir Kara-Murza, who has been coming to DC many
times. He has been a leader in Russia on human rights. He is
now just recovering from a second mysterious attack.
But as with so many of our sanctions, sanctions against
Russia have never been fully implemented, have never been fully
enforced, diluting their effectiveness. That is why I am
supporting the effort to limit executive waivers on our Russia
sanctions, just as I have consistently moved to limit the
ability to waive sanctions on Iran, on the Palestinian
Authority, so many entities and areas.
I would urge my colleagues who support the removal of
waivers on Russia sanctions to join me in eliminating other
such waivers because they water down the impact of our
sanctions. In order to do that, in order to remove those
sanctions, then we can have a more successful and consistent
approach across the board everywhere.
So two questions for the panel. Have we done enough with
our NATO allies to help against Russian aggression in that
region? And if not, why do you think that is?
And, secondly, how can European countries cooperate within
themselves more closely on enforcing sanctions against Russia?
And do you believe that there will be greater hesitancy to do
so or more cooperation? Whoever would like to answer.
President Ilves. I will start off. Thank you.
Well, we have two problems. And the first problem is the
complete asymmetry of the various attacks we see. Because, as
Ambassador Bloomfield and Ambassador Baer mentioned, we can't
do to them what they do to us, meaning us in the West. I mean
it does no good to make up fake stories. I mean, the real ones
are bad enough. But if you don't communicate them, you can't
get through. RFE/RL where I worked for 10 years used to do
that. But no one listens to shortwave anymore.
And ultimately, what are you going to do anyway if all of
the bad news about corruption and the offshore money and all of
that is not going to get anywhere anyway? And if someone
republishes it there, they get in trouble or receive the fate
of Navalny.
So that's an asymmetry; we can't do to them. And ultimately
if you are the ones counting the votes, you are not going to--I
mean, in an authoritarian one-party state you are not going to
influence the outcome of the election. I remember the
television screen shot of the votes in Rostov-on-Don, which
showed Vladimir Putin with 134 percent.
Chairman Royce. Mr. President, on that note we are going to
need to go to Mr. Brad Sherman of California.
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. I think Cuba uses those same things.
Mr. Sherman. We are here today because this goes beyond a
foreign policy issue. This is an issue for the core of
America's democracy. The key issue is did the Trump campaign
collude with Russian hackers in the cyber burglary of the
Democratic National Committee and related entities?
And a related question is whether Trump's gratitude is
preventing an appropriate response to Russia's interference
with democracy? Or whether his fear of what they might have on
him is preventing that appropriate response?
Mr. Chairman, we need more than one hearing on this
subject. And we need, ultimately, a 9/11-style commission. That
is why so many of us have cosponsored the Protect Our Democracy
Act.
The ranking member mentioned his bill, the Engel-Connolly
SECURE Our Democracy Act because we do need tough sanctions to
respond to what Russia has done.
And, ultimately, we need a special counsel or special
prosecutor in the Department of Justice. I formally urged
Loretta Lynch to appoint one. She said no. Now various
Republican members of the House are saying yes.
I want to put in the record an effort by our minority staff
of this committee to just list some of the investments--the
connections and meetings between the Trump campaign and Russia
and its officials. I have been involved in seeing this from a
political side and I know how tough it is to get a meeting with
senior officials in a political campaign. If you can't deliver
a whole lot of money or a whole lot of votes, you are not going
to get the meeting. So I would think in a campaign you would
want to spend as few minutes as possible with foreign
Ambassadors.
Ambassador Baer, does the British or Indian Ambassador get,
you know, a large number of meetings with senior officials? I
mean, I am sure they would like them, but do they get them when
they seek them or is it typical to just do as few minutes of
meeting as possible?
Ambassador Baer. I am sure there are others who are much
better placed to answer your question on a kind of, on a
consistent basis. But just anecdotally it was, it was not
uncommon for me, with the 56 other Ambassadors at the OSCE, to
get a request from one of them that they had an official maybe
in their government who was traveling to the U.S. and who
wanted to meet with one of the campaigns. I am not aware of any
of those requests actually being fulfilled for precisely----
Mr. Sherman. They want them. Campaigns are focused on----
Ambassador Baer. It is difficult, yes.
Mr. Sherman. I want to turn your attention to the 35-page
dossier put forward by Christopher Steele, who is the British
spy or former British spy. And keep in mind he was paid by
Trump's enemies. Nothing in that dossier has been disproved.
Parts of it have been proved to be true. And I hope to God that
parts of it are not true, particularly the salacious part.
The Trump administration has just called the whole report
garbage but they haven't denied specific parts of it, except in
one case that I am aware of. And that is the report says that
Michael Cohen, Trump's personal lawyer, met with Russian
officials in Prague. He responded by tweeting the front of his
passport and stating, ``I have never been to Prague in my
life.''
Now, obviously the front of the passport doesn't teach us
anything, but it causes us to want to look inside the passport.
But, Ambassador Baer, isn't the Czech Republic part of the
Schengen Zone so an American visiting Prague typically wouldn't
have a Czech Republic stamp in their report? They fly into
Paris, they fly into Frankfort and only be stamped there. Does
the absence of a Czech stamp mean an American hasn't been to
Prague in their life? Simple question.
Ambassador Baer. No. The absence of a Czech stamp does not
mean that an American hasn't been to Prague. I have been to
Prague and I do not have a Czech stamp, I believe, in my
passport.
Mr. Sherman. But you have been to Prague in your life?
Ambassador Baer. I have, yes. I drove there from Vienna.
Mr. Sherman. And then finally I would address you and then,
if we have time, the other members. This is a 35-page report
that talks an awful lot about the internal machinations of the
Russian Government. I assume most of you have read the report.
Does it ring true? Is that the way things happen in the
Kremlin? Ambassador Baer?
Ambassador Baer. I think, obviously, that the Kremlin is a
very complex organization but I think it is fair to say that
the Kremlin operates in a way that is difficult for us to
imagine because it is so driven by the corrupt and
authoritarian----
Mr. Sherman. And, Mr. Doran?
Mr. Doran. When it comes to how the Kremlin is operating
does it ring true? Obviously this committee is in a much
better, and other committees are in a much better position to
answer that question. I would say that, clearly, Russia's
system of government is fundamentally different than ours. And
I would stop there before----
Chairman Royce. We have to go to Mr. Dana Rohrabacher of
California.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Well, here we are. Wherever you go, there
you are.
Let me just note that we just keep hearing sinister words
after sinister words. Especially this last thing, oh, how
sinister it is that he just showed the top of his passport.
Give me a break. Come on.
And, also, we got instead of a sinister report from your
question to the Ambassador, no, it is not uncommon for people
to meet with foreign Ambassadors and foreign diplomats. And how
sinister is it that people met with a Russian Ambassador? I am
sure that if they were going to plan something really rotten
about the United States they would go to the Ambassador, the
Russian Ambassador rather than some political operatives that
they have running all over the place. This has, this has
reached the absurd level of attacks.
And let us note, that in order to get Russia, what we are
now doing is destabilizing our own democratic system here with
that kind of nonsense.
I will have to say that during the Cold War, I want to
remind everybody, I worked not only with President Reagan but
my entire life was dedicated to defeating communism. I felt
really great when Ronald Reagan helped us establish peace and
the elimination of communism from Russia. We are now dealing
with a national power. You know, it is a big power in the
world. It is no longer being motivated by communist ideology
that has it trying to overthrow democratic governments and
replace them with atheistic communist dictatorships.
And you expect Russia, and I agree, they are being run by
tough guys, sort of like Mayor Daley in Chicago is transported
over to Russia. Oh, you love Mayor Daley do you? Okay. I don't.
I thought Mayor Daley was a tough guy who beat demonstrators up
and did not represent anything that America was all about. But
he was not some vicious dictator. He had been elected by his
people. And we would try to un-elect him as well.
What is happening in Russia, of course, is you have a
country watching out for its national interests. Mr. Chairman,
I would have preferred to have at least one person on this
panel, like perhaps former Ambassador Matlock, who could have
balanced it off a little bit on some of these questions. And
instead what we have is, again, an unrelenting hostility toward
Russia that is going to lead us to war if we don't watch out.
And I don't know who wants war in this country, but I was very
happy when Ronald Reagan ended the Cold War by reaching out to
Russia. And they ended up discarding their Marxist-Leninist
bologna that had threatened the world for so long.
Let me ask our former President of Estonia, could you give
me--well, first of all, the Russian cyberattacks, were there
any demands on Estonia that you didn't meet that they, some of
the big guys demanding something and you say, no, we are not
going to do that, and then they retaliated by trying to hurt
you?
President Ilves. Well, they demanded that we not remove
this statue which----
Mr. Rohrabacher. Okay.
President Ilves [continuing]. People were against having.
And that is the result.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Okay, so that's it. There was a demand and
the Russians acted like bullies and they were going to get
their way with a cyberattack.
Okay. Second question. Could you give me some examples of
the military aggression that your country has suffered from
Russia in the last 10 years?
President Ilves. Well, probably the most prominent example
is the kidnaping of----
Mr. Rohrabacher. Right.
President Ilves [continuing]. Of the equivalent of our FBI
who was investigating a massive cross-border cigarette
smuggling operation.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Right.
President Ilves. Which could not take place without the
connivance of the FSB since they manage the border.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Let me add something. You had a situation
of corruption at the border. One of your border guards
disappeared. I mean military aggression? Has there been any
cross-border at all military action on the part of the Russians
in Estonia?
President Ilves. Well, we have constant violations of our
border by military jets. That is one thing.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Right.
President Ilves. And that is consistent. But has massively
increased in the last 4 years.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Yes. I went to the Baltics about 3 years
ago after I heard story after story after story of Russian
military aggression in the Baltics. I am sure all of you have
heard that slogan before. Not one report of actual military
aggression.
And here we are sending our tanks up there, having B-52
mock raids on Russia over Estonia toward the Soviet capital in
the name of stopping Soviet military aggression that never
existed. This has got to stop or we are going to end up in war.
Let's try to, let's try to have a little balanced view of what
is going on here.
Mr. Chairman, I would ask 15 seconds more from my
colleagues. Look, the United States, we have engaged in some of
these activities. We have. You remember the Phoenix Program in
Vietnam? I remember the Phoenix Program. I supported the
Phoenix Program. We murdered hundreds of local officials. How
about Allende? How about Diem? How about any number of people
during the Cold War that we assassinated.
Chairman Royce. The gentleman's time----
Mr. Rohrabacher. Okay. That is wrong, it is wrong to do
that.
Chairman Royce. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Rohrabacher. But please do not say that Russia is the
only country that commits these kind of crimes.
Chairman Royce. It is time to go to Mr. Gregory Meeks of
New York.
Mr. Meeks. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I tell you, my good friend Mr. Rohrabacher, but I am going
to, you know, resist because it is important that we focus on
what is important for the United States of America. It is
important that we make sure that we preserve our democracy. And
it is important that we make sure that we hold up the
institutions of the United States of America.
And I think what I have heard from just about every witness
and at every corner, one of the things that Mr. Putin wants to
do and wants to accomplish is to undermine institutions and to
undermine and get involved with the destruction of Democratic
states. And when I hear not just from--and I am hearing this
from countries from around the world. And I thank the former
President for being here because it is tremendously important
we hear from our allies in that regard.
And that is why, you know, when I look at threats to our
democracy I think it is important that we have a 9/11-style
commission set up. That is why we had the 9/11 Commission in
the first place; it was a threat to our democracy. So we had an
independent commission so that we could make sure that does not
happen.
So the markup of the Swalwell and Cummings Protect Our
Democracy Act is tremendously important for all of us because
that is what is at stake, that is what they are trying to get
at. And, you know, and I also want to join with the ranking
member when he said we need a markup on the Engel-Connolly
SECURE Our Democracy Act. That is tremendously important.
And I thank the chair, who indicated that we would have
some hearings on Russia. And he kept his word. And we know that
there will be more and with the witnesses. So I want to thank
the chair for doing that. And I agree with his and Mr. Engel's
opening statements.
You know, I am concerned. Maybe I will ask Ambassador Baer
because what I am concerned about, as I say, is Mr. Putin
getting his way because what I am unfortunately hearing,
somewhat similar to Mr. Rohrabacher actually, from Mr. Bannon
in the White House who calls for the deconstruction of the
administrative state. As opposed for us working to forge our
values and basically our lives and protecting and supporting
those who fight for liberty, equality and justice in the world,
it seems that the Kremlin wants us to retreat from the world.
He wants our values to be diluted.
But with President Trump's repeated moral equivalencies--
and I think that's what Mr. Rohrabacher was talking about, that
we are just as bad as Russia, et cetera--those are those moral
equivalencies that I, unfortunately, am hearing from the
President of the United States. When there are attacks on our
free press, and when there is out and out lying going on, when
there are ongoing conflicts of interest, when we have the kind
of dialog like we just heard, doesn't that already put Mr.
Putin where he wants to be? And isn't that then giving him, and
the administration even giving him, what he wants: To undermine
us, Mr. Ambassador?
Ambassador Baer. Thank you. I think here it is important to
remember what Ambassador Bloomfield said, which is that,
absolutely, when we allow ourselves to be divided on a partisan
basis or allow our politics to act as fuel Russian propaganda
rather than the problems of the American people, we are doing
Vladimir Putin's work for him.
Congressman Rohrabacher knows that I enjoy a good debate
with him. We have had the pleasure several times. I think the
important thing about what Congressman Rohrabacher said, he is
right that there is no longer an ideological drive that drives
Moscow to try to undermine democracies around the world. But
there is a deep insecurity that drives Moscow to try to
undermine democracies around the world.
Vladimir Putin's greatest fear is a democratic, successful,
prosperous Ukraine. That is why he is invading Ukraine and
trying to undermine the Ukrainian people's choice to live in a
European-style democracy. He is threatened by democracy's
success. And, therefore, every time that we make democracy
succeed we are countering Vladimir Putin's aims and objectives.
Mr. Meeks. Thank you. I only have 5 seconds so I yield
back.
Chairman Royce. We will go to Mr. Steve Chabot of Ohio.
Mr. Chabot. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And, first, I would just note that it is my opinion that in
recent years America's traditional leadership role around the
world has been in great retreat. And this has left a power
vacuum all around the globe, from the South China Sea where you
have China building not only islands but militarizing them, and
in the Middle East where, because the U.S. after sustaining a
victory--obviously at high cost and one that was very
controversial, ultimately as a result of the surge we had
prevailed there--the U.S. pulled out and then we saw the chaos
that ensued with the growth of ISIS, et cetera. And now in
Eastern Europe and the countries along the borders of Russia we
have seen a vacuum there.
And as a result we have seen, for example, the invasion of
Crimea and the West basically lamely protesting but ultimately
doing little or nothing. And I want to commend my colleague on
the other side of the aisle, Mr. Connolly, for in that invasion
of Crimea he has stood up relentlessly against the Russian
action there and encouraged, along with myself and others,
encouraged us never to recognize Russia's takeover of Crimea.
But you've seen all the countries in the region fearful, I
think for good reason. The ranking member mentioned before our
President's comment about how we have a lot of killers and, you
know, you think that we are innocent, we being the United
States. I think that was a stupid comment. But it was a
comment. Unfortunately, we have seen actions or lack thereof
which I think have been even more damaging. One was pulling out
of the deal that we had with Poland and with the Czech
Republic.
We had a missile defense arrangement that we had with them.
We pulled out of that immediately because the Russians didn't
like it. And now there is criticism because this administration
is too close to the Russians. But that was something that I
think was a very bad decision early on. We saw the failure
really to do anything in Crimea. We have seen the failure to
provide the Ukrainians--despite the fact of Russian aggression
in their east, the administration has refused to provide lethal
weapons, which we ought to do. And I would encourage this
administration to do the same thing.
I could go on. I have only 5 minutes. So, Mr. Doran, let me
ask you this. Some of our colleagues, let's just say to the
left, have basically accepted the premise that this election
was stolen by the Russians and given to this President and,
therefore, he is not a legitimate President. And that is one of
the issues that is being looked at here. But it is far beyond
that.
How does this fit in with Russia's overall goal of
undermining democracy, the United States, or our western
European allies, NATO? How does the constant that maybe half
the American population sort of thinks that that is the case,
how does that benefit Russia in all this and how does it hurt
us?
Mr. Doran. Very briefly and directly, I do not believe that
we should view this as a partisan issue. I also believe that
Vladimir Putin is not about picking winners and losers in
specific elections. Vladimir Putin is about creating chaos and
division in our ranks. As long as we are chaotic, divided, as
long as our publics, both here in the United States but
especially in front-line Europe, begin to doubt the efficacy of
democratic institutions, the ironclad nature of America's
promises, or the fighting power and defending power of NATO,
that is what Vladimir Putin wants.
The means is propaganda, as you pointed out, Congressman.
And the aim is to, as I said, to distract us, to divide us, and
to ultimately paralyze us. As long as we are having these
efforts here in the West, Vladimir Putin can, not in one big
swoop but in a series of small slices, systematically alienate
and isolate our allies and partner countries. Disinformation is
a means to achieve that.
Mr. Chabot. Thank you.
Chairman Royce. Albio Sires of New Jersey.
Mr. Sires. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to our
members of the panel.
You know, to me Putin is a throwback to all of the Cold War
that has morphed into what they couldn't beat us militarily, so
now they try to disrupt everything that we stand for: Our
democracy, freedom of the press, our elections. And I think
this past election just woke people up to actually the efforts
of Putin on what he is trying to do--his unrelenting effort to
destroy this country and the institutions of this country.
So to me it was amazing that all of a sudden people woke up
that this guy is trying to do this to this country. He has been
doing that all around the world. He is disrupting Europe. He is
trying to disrupt Central America and South America. So when it
came time for this election and the influence of the Russians
on the election, I think it is legitimate. I think we should
have a 9/11 commission to look at all these contacts.
You know, the last commission was led by a Republican, Tom
Kean. And it was put together very well and it was accepted by
both members of this body and this country. So to have a force
like Putin out there trying to disrupt us all the time, we have
to be on our best guard. And we have to meet him, I think,
everywhere he challenges us. If it is Europe, we have to be
there to assist the Europeans. If it is in Central America, we
have to be there.
So does anybody have any doubts that he was working with
WikiLeaks and Assange to put all those things out? Anybody on
the panel have any doubts? No. So what was that all about? It
wasn't because he's such a nice guy that he wanted to help us
with this election and get the truth out there.
I really have nothing good to say about Putin. And I am
afraid I am going to get carried away and really say the things
that I feel. I mean, I experienced communism. I experienced
what they did to me when I was 11 years old. I experienced the
indoctrination process in the schools. And I experienced the
media telling how bad this country was. It is so bad that you
come to this country as a refugee and you are sitting here
today and you are making laws for the rest of the country
because I had the privilege of becoming a citizen. And that is
pretty strong. So, to me, I better just stop, Chairman, because
I----
Mr. Connolly. Would you yield?
Mr. Sires. Yes, sure.
Mr. Connolly. Thank you for your powerful testimony. And I
know your personal experience, Mr. Sires, undergirds your
motivation here in the United States Congress, and certainly on
this subject. Your sincerity can't be questioned. And I think
all of us salute you and honor you for us.
If I may, Mr. President, in your response to Mr.
Rohrabacher surely you could have cited more than cigarette
smuggling. Is it not true that the Russians have been testing
air space in the Baltics in a provocative way, testing NATO
defenses and, for that matter, your own respective defenses?
President Ilves. Thank you. Well, I didn't get to finish.
But that was a military action. Troops came over and kidnaped
this guy. This was not done, I mean their----
Mr. Connolly. Russian troops?
President Ilves [continuing]. FSB, KGB troops.
Mr. Connolly. Violating your sovereignty?
President Ilves. Our territory. And they took him, yes.
Now, I mean more broadly we have massive--we have on the
other side of the border we see constant, massive exercises.
Zapad is this main exercise----
Mr. Connolly. Right.
President Ilves [continuing]. That takes place every 2
years, you know, violating through various techniques.
Mr. Connolly. And real quickly, Mr. President, because I'm
going to run out of Albio Sires' time, these were provocations
generated on the other side of the border, not on your side of
the border?
President Ilves. Right.
Mr. Connolly. Is that correct?
President Ilves. Yes.
Mr. Connolly. Because I think there was a suggestion by my
friend from California that it was the other way around. That
is not true.
President Ilves. I will just add quickly that it is not
just us. I mean, they do mock bombing raids on Sweden, so it is
not just us.
Mr. Connolly. And no one does that.
Chairman Royce. The gentleman's time has expired. We now go
to Mr. Mike McCaul of Texas.
Mr. McCaul. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
As chairman of the Homeland Security Committee I have been
dealing with the cyber threat for quite some time from many
foreign adversary nations. The Chinese stole 20 million
security clearances, including my own. The North Koreans, a
very devastating attack on Sony Pictures. Iran getting great
capability now, not as good as ours but they are getting
better.
This latest cyberattack on the Central Intelligence Agency
Vault 7, stealing over 8,000 pages of documents with some of
the most highly sensitive cyber weapons, cyber tools in the
United States Government now stolen, allegedly, by WikiLeaks as
they dump it out to the public. This is going to have
devastating consequences to all of us here because it hands to
our foreign adversaries the keys to the kingdom.
And then we get to Russia. Sir, Estonia, we all know the
story there. And my condolences. They shut down Estonia in one
of the first acts of cyber warfare.
I got briefed on the Russian threat through our elections
when it was in the classified space when the Obama
administration was in power. And my advice to them was we need
to call them out for what they are doing. And we have to have
consequences to those actions.
The response was, we don't want to acknowledge publicly the
threat.
Then under now President Trump, the same briefing with the
same advice. And I think the President has now finally
understood when he had the classified briefing that it was in
fact a nation state attack by Russia on the United States
against our democracy. And I don't care whether it is
Republican or Democrat, I care if it is an American election
being challenged, being influenced by a foreign adversary,
particularly one like Russia.
So my question very simply to the panel to the extent there
is about 2 minutes and 40 seconds left: You know, I have five
teenagers, if there are no consequences to bad behavior, guess
what, bad behavior continues. We have no international norms,
no international standards when it comes to cyber, whether it
be espionage or warfare. To the panel, I will start with you,
Mr. President, what do we have to do, what should be the
consequences when Russia threatens not only our European allies
but your country and NATO and now the United States of America
and our democracy?
President Ilves. Well, I would start--thank you very much--
I would start with the Tallinn Manual 1.0 and Tallinn Manual
2.0 which were produced by the NATO Center of Excellence for
Cyber Defence in Estonia. I should say no reason--you don't
have to feel too sorry for us because having asked NATO for
years to deal with cyber, after the Russian attack NATO decided
to actually build a center and they put it in my country. But
that Center has produced two books on the international law and
how it applies to cyber. That is the beginning. But there is
still a long way to go on that.
We do need to think about genuine conventions. There
probably is one convention right now, and that is the Budapest
Convention on Cybercrime. The problem is that the primary
sources of cybercrime--Russia, China, North Korea--have not
acceded to it, which means that it is basically inoperative in
those countries that are producing the bulk of the cybercrime.
Here I mean credit card theft, all kinds of extortion
schemes and so forth.
Mr. McCaul. Ambassador.
Ambassador Bloomfield. Thank you, Chairman McCaul. There is
a lot of work that could be done to make our cyber policies
more robust and more specific, more combined with our NATO
allies and the European Union. We should have that conversation
at the technical level and at the political level.
I think that working with parliamentarians between the
Congress and our allies, that is a good conversation. We have
expertise on The Hill. So I applaud that.
I really come back to the way to defeat Putin--because
there is something slightly pathetic about the way the Russians
are trying to meddle in democracies--is to seize the moment of
change. Forget about Russia, there are things that need to be
done here. We need to reform our agencies and tools and
processes. There is a lot of flux in Washington right now. As
the coach of my favorite professional team says, ``Do your
job.'' If we all do our job, we will come out stronger. We will
own the future; they won't.
Now, there is retaliation, and I have laid it out in my
testimony, of things that we should consider. He is a very
brittle, dangerous actor. We should engage him where we can.
And I want to tell Congressman Rohrabacher, we did it under the
Bush administration. We did--I wouldn't do it today--military
exercises, 33 a year. We went to Russia for bilateral talks on
terrorism; we did a lot. But now there should be consequences.
And I suggest these in my testimony.
Mr. McCaul. I would like to have written testimony from the
other two witnesses. Thank you.
[The information referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
----------
Chairman Royce. Mr. Gerry Connolly of Virginia.
Mr. Connolly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you for
holding this hearing. I thank the ranking member as well. I
hope it is the first in a series of robust hearings.
This is about our country. This is not about party. It is
not about defending a President or attacking a President, it is
about our country. We have seen--and by the way, my friend from
California compared, apparently, Vladimir Putin to the late
Mayor of Chicago Richard Daley. I went to school in Chicago
during his mayoralty. I didn't know him. But I assure you,
Vladimir Putin is no Richard Daley. Richard Daley didn't have
his political opponents assassinated. He didn't send them into
exile. He didn't put them in prison. He didn't silence the
press. He didn't assassinate members of the press. He didn't
exile members of the press. He sparred with them. And sometimes
he was bested.
The late Mike Royko made a career out of making fun of
Richard Daley, and a very good career at that. Never, never was
there a movement to silence or fire Mike Royko. There is no
comparison. And I think we do ourselves a disservice by not
recognizing, on a bipartisan basis, the gravity of the
situation we face: A massive propaganda effort by Russia to
basically distort truth and to have an alternative view of
reality.
We have a massive cyber operation run by the Russians
undermining our allies, undermining the West, undermining now
our democratic process in the United States of America and, of
course, the undermining of democratic institutions and the
Western alliance itself.
My question, Ambassador Baer, is in light of all of that
why, what is the speculation that a new administration led by
President Trump would seemingly enable that, so that when
confronted the answer is: ``Well, we do it too. I don't believe
it. The intelligence community is distorting reality and making
it up.'' And very reluctantly acknowledging any reality. And
then we discover numerous members of the administration have in
fact have contacts with Russian intelligence officials and the
Ambassador. And what is interesting is kind of covering that
up.
If you have nothing to hide, why not just freely say, yeah,
of course I met with the Ambassador? I meet with Ambassadors. I
know the chairman and the ranking member do. I haven't met with
the Russian Ambassador, nor would that be a meeting I would
forget.
But I wonder if you could help me understand or shed some
light on why in the world would any American administration
want to be enabling, seemingly, this pernicious, insidious
effort by the Russian Government?
Ambassador Baer. To answer your question directly,
Congressman, I don't believe that any administration of the
United States, whether Democratic or Republican, should be
working to enable any other government, particularly one that
is an autocratic regime.
I think your question highlights that there are two
separate issues at play. And I guess we have been focused on
the first, which is the issue of what exactly was the nature,
you know, it is my perception that the Russians perceive their
engagement in our elections to have been the most successful
Russian intelligence operation since the end of the Cold War.
We need to understand what happened, why it worked, what worked
and what didn't work and, you know, how that played out, so
that we can figure out how to defend ourselves, what
appropriate countermeasures are, and what appropriate
consequences are. That is one set of issues. That is a national
security issue, as you and others on both sides of the aisle
have highlighted.
There is a second set of issues that is about the
allegations that have arisen about the possible collusion of
certain officials with that effort. And that is not my area of
expertise. That is obviously a legal issue as well as a
national security issue, and that is not my area of expertise.
But I think the investigation is something that we should all
agree is a national security issue that we all have an interest
in.
Mr. Connolly. You would agree that it would be harmful to
U.S. interests to undermine NATO?
Ambassador Baer. Without question.
Mr. Connolly. So to call NATO obsolete might be harmful.
Ambassador Baer. NATO is not a charity project for our
European allies. NATO is strongly in the interests of the
United States of America. The United States has a strong
interest in a Europe that is whole, free, and at peace.
Mr. Connolly. Would it be fair to say, also, that it would
be harmful to U.S. interests to undermine the European Union?
Ambassador Baer. Absolutely. The European Union, like the
United States, is founded on timeless and universal principles
and has the institutions to protect those. And that is why it
is a threat to Vladimir Putin.
Mr. Connolly. And conversely, if you were pro Russian or
Vladimir Putin, the opposite would be true, it is in your
interest to undermine NATO and in your interest to see the
disintegration of the EU?
Ambassador Baer. That might be a narrow political calculus
that somebody might make.
Mr. Connolly. Thank you.
Right on time, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Royce. Thank you. We go to Mr. Ted Poe of Texas.
Mr. Poe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you all for being
here.
In 2008 the Russians invade the Republic of Georgia, take
one-third of their territory, and the West basically said
that's not nice, you shouldn't do it. The Russians still
control and occupy one-third of the Republic of Georgia,
supposedly an ally of the U.S. The world did nothing.
The Russians then invade Crimea, conquer Crimea, put their
people there, claim it is theirs. And the Russians are still in
Crimea. And the West said, not nice, shouldn't have done it. No
consequences.
Then the Russians go into Eastern Ukraine where they are
now and are trying to, I think, take a portion of the Ukraine
that is valuable for energy.
I met with the President of the Ukraine, asked him what we
could do as a country. And he said, quit sending us MREs,
canned food. And he was very blunt. They can't stop the
Russians with MREs. But that is what the West has done. And the
Russians are still in Eastern Ukraine. And the world says, not
nice.
Mr. Connolly and I serve on the NATO Parliamentary
Assembly. We have been to those NATO meetings. We have
encouraged the parliamentarians in NATO to have sanctions on
Russia for their misconduct. And in my opinion--I can't speak
for Mr. Connolly--in my opinion those parliamentary folks seem
that they want to talk about other things other than the
Russians. And meanwhile, no sanctions on the Russians.
Why are we surprised that the Russians are doing all of
these things? We aren't surprised. Because the West has
basically said, it is not nice. And they continue to operate.
When I have met personally with former Eastern Europe
Soviet Republic officials--and I am not going to name them--
when I meet with them you know what they talk about? The
Russians are coming. They are afraid that the Russians are
going to come into their country and do what they have done in
the past and that we in the West aren't going to do anything
about it.
So Mr. Putin, the individual that we are all talking about,
is emboldened and points his chest out to the world that the
Russians are coming. And he has said, or the foreign minister,
as the chairman has pointed out, that we are working on a
``post-West world order.'' They are serious about that. And
they are doing everything to impose a new world order on the
world. And maybe we should do something besides say that's not
nice. And that seems to be the foreign policy of the West in
dealing with the Russians.
The Napoleon of Siberia, Putin, is going to continue these
activities, whether it is in the Baltics or the Balkans, or
Eastern Europe or other places, even in Syria, trying to show
their post-West world order. Russians hack our elections. I
think my friends on the other sides, I finally got their
attention because the information that the Russians seemed to
show to the American public was not very pleasant to the person
running for President. And so the emails and contradictions and
the DNC and all of that internal information was not good for
the person running for President.
I don't believe, and I think most people agree, that did
not affect the elections. The Russians didn't hack into our
computer system and change votes. But that has gotten the
attention of my friends on the west--on the west--on the left I
should say. Interesting, west/left. And now everybody is upset
about the Russian hacking. Well, I don't think it affected the
elections. But we need a policy of dealing with Russia.
The saber rattling by some of my friends over in the
Senate, you know, do they want war with Russia? Is that what
the goal is here? Because I don't think it is. But we have to
have a response to the Napoleon of Siberia besides it is not
nice. And there are consequences for doing this. And they are
not going to be pleasant. And so I think that we need to impose
and get down to business to say what is our response? What are
we going to do? And let's do something about it. Not talking
about war but consequences, Mr. Napoleon of Siberia.
And thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Connolly, I appreciate
your comments.
Chairman Royce. Thank you.
We go to Mr. Ted Deutch of Florida.
Mr. Deutch. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you
and the ranking member for holding today's hearing. I want to
thank Ranking Member Engel for pushing for this hearing. I want
to welcome our very distinguished panel.
The American people, Mr. Chairman, want a full and a fair
and a bipartisan investigation into not just what happened in
this election, but they want an investigation into President
Trump's connections to Russia. They want an investigation into
his business connections, his campaign connections, his
administration's connections.
Today's hearing is on an important topic and our panelists
have an important view. But this hearing will not give the
American people the investigation that they deserve. Seventeen
American intelligence agencies concluded that Russia executed a
cyberattack against the United States. They concluded that the
attack was designed to influence the outcome of the election.
And they concluded that the attack was intended to benefit
Donald Trump's campaign. How can we proceed with a hearing on
Russia's involvement in Europe while ignoring the unresolved
questions around this attack?
What credibility do we have? If we were to look at attempts
to splinter NATO we might first look to President Trump's
criticism of that very body and his relationship with Russia.
During the Presidential campaign Mr. Trump claimed that our
allies don't contribute enough to our shared security. As
President-elect, Mr. Trump was interviewed by European
reporters and he took the opportunity not to reassure our
allies but to write off our partnership with them as obsolete.
This committee cannot seriously review Russia's attempts to
undermine NATO without acknowledging these statements by the
President about NATO and Russia. Throughout the Obama
administration, Republican Members of Congress and this
committee consistently criticized America's response to Russia
as too weak. Yet here we are, 6 months after the intelligence
community determined that Russia conducted a cyberattack in Mr.
Trump's favor, and we are having a hearing in many ways as if
that didn't happen.
In the meantime, an overwhelming number of serious
questions about the President's contacts with Russia have been
met with obfuscation, with misdirection, and with outright lies
from our own White House. Pretending otherwise is a disservice
to this committee and to this country. We have learned that
former National Security Advisor Flynn lied to the Vice
President and the country about his contacts with Russian
agents.
We have learned that Flynn and presidential advisor Jared
Kushner met with Russia's Ambassador in Trump Tower. And unlike
every other meeting, the Ambassador was ushered into the
building in secret, out of view of the press.
Last week Carter Page, a previously disavowed policy
advisor, admitted in two national television interviews that he
met with the Russian Ambassador in Cleveland at the Republican
National Convention.
And we have learned that former Trump campaign manager Paul
Manafort's claims that there was no involvement in the Trump
campaign in efforts to soften language in the Republican
platform related to our assistance to Ukraine were untrue.
We have learned that Trump campaign advisor J.D. Gordon met
with Russian officials in Cleveland with Carter Page and
others. We have learned that they advocated for the change in
the platform language.
We have learned that Attorney General Sessions made false
statements about his contacts with the Russian Ambassador under
oath at his confirmation hearings.
If the leadership and majority members of this committee
are as concerned about Russian attempts to undermine democracy
here as they are around the world then we need to move forward
with that full investigation about all of these issues. Holding
this hearing without acknowledging the Russian attacks on our
own elections hurts our own credibility when fighting for
democracy around the globe. I would ask every member of this
committee, from both sides of the aisle, to join in calling for
a bipartisan investigation to answer the questions the American
people have about the health of our own democracy. Without it,
those unanswered questions will be a thorn in the side of this
committee.
I would ask my colleagues on both sides to join in
demanding an independent commission and a special prosecutor to
do the job that the Attorney General is unable to do. Our
responsibility on this committee is to exercise meaningful
oversight of the foreign policy of the United States. And I
commend the chair and ranking member for taking that
responsibility seriously. But no one watching this hearing
should rest any easier that we have examined Russia's
relationship with the Trump campaign and the Trump White House.
The American people must be able to trust their government.
And until there is a full investigation into the Trump
campaign, the Trump White House, and the Kremlin, and until we
see the President's tax return to fully understand the extent
of the Trump family's business relationship with Russia, the
motives of the White House's foreign policy decisions will be
in doubt at this very moment when American leadership is needed
the most.
I yield back.
Chairman Royce. Mr. Jeff Duncan of South Carolina.
Mr. Duncan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Congressman Poe mentioned Russia's involvement with the
sovereign state of Georgia. I will further piggyback that they
annexed Crimea, invaded Ukraine in August 2014. We need to keep
in mind in this committee that Russia sent a billion dollars
worth of air defense systems to Iran in April 2015, just months
before the P5+1 nuclear fiasco was signed, paid for, by the
way, with billions of dollars after Iran signed the P5+1
agreement, money they garnered from that.
It is clear that Russia is an adversary to U.S. interests
and those of our allies. I am pleased that the minority party
sitting across the room finally acknowledges that. Many of them
probably laughed when candidate Obama told candidate Romney
that the 1980s called and wanted their foreign policy back
because many of the comments I hear today resemble those from
the 1980s. But hashtags don't invade Crimea, Georgia, or
Ukraine, the Russians did.
One of the first acts of the Obama administration was to
remove defensive missiles from Eastern Europe. Secretary
Clinton hit the red reset button with Russia. President Obama
told the Russian President to let Putin know that he would have
more flexibility after reelected. So the question to ask
ourselves is who was weak on Russia?
So I mentioned the previous President famously ridiculed
his opponent in the 2012 Presidential campaign. I am going to
ask the panel was that statement misguided? Start on the right,
Ambassador Baer. Was that statement misguided?
Ambassador Baer. I think that I have heard from both sides
of the aisle today a desire which I subscribe----
Mr. Duncan. It is pretty much a yes or no question, sir.
Ambassador Baer. I would say no, that it was not misguided.
Because there is a desire that has been longstanding on both
sides of the aisle to avoid unnecessary conflict. It was a
moment in which the opportunities from engagement seemed to be
on the table.
And I think the important thing for us now today is take
the lessons of the last 8 years and recognize that engagement
has not worked in the way that we wished it would and to----
Mr. Duncan. Let's go to the next one.
Ambassador Baer [continuing]. Deal with Russia accordingly.
Mr. Doran. I will be very direct. I believe that Russia and
Russia's leadership views itself currently in a conflict and a
rivalry with the United States. Their own strategic documents
define how they define war. And Russia views itself in a
conflict with the United States right now. It doesn't have
bullets or tanks or missiles it has used, but that is what we
are looking at.
Mr. Duncan. Next?
Ambassador Bloomfield. I would say that job one with the
United States is to be a global superpower, and that in that
vein Russia does not measure up to us. So that whatever they
do, they should be confronted by the superior model of American
democracy. And I am not sure that Presidents under both parties
have fully grasped the geopolitics of that.
President Ilves. I really can't say anything about U.S.
domestic politics, unfortunately.
Mr. Duncan. Under the previous administration was Russia
deterred or emboldened by American and NATO allies? Deterred or
emboldened?
Ambassador Baer. I think neither. Obviously we, we took a
number of steps under the previous administration and we did
far more than just say no or were disappointed, but we took a
number of steps. And, obviously, those steps have not yet
accomplished the objectives of that policy. And we have made
attempts----
Mr. Duncan. Appreciate you all eating up all my time as I
have a two-word question: Deterred or emboldened?
Ambassador Baer. Well, sometimes answers can't be given in
two words. Pretending that a complicated----
Mr. Duncan. And that is why I am giving you some leniency.
Ambassador Baer. There is a sin in politics to pretend a
complicated thing is simple or a simple thing is complicated.
And this is a complicated thing. It is not simple.
Mr. Doran. The early steps in the early part of the
administration conveyed weakness to Russia. And Vladimir Putin
took advantage of the weakness that we were communicating
through our actions in the early phase of the last
administration.
Ambassador Bloomfield. I will say emboldened. But they
would be trying to do it no matter what we did.
President Ilves. Emboldened, but not thanks to the United
States but rather the unwillingness of some of our European
allies to take steps to deter them.
For example, the inability of our European allies to accept
even having contingency plans for the new members. So, in fact,
the United States was the front, sort of took the lead on many
of these issues. When many of our NATO allies did not want to
frighten or offend Russia, the United States has been in the
lead.
Mr. Duncan. So, 2 seconds left. I would say that when
Russia invades Georgia, annexes Crimea, invades Ukraine, gives
missile systems or sells missile systems to Iran, other things,
I would believe that they are more emboldened today because of
the past policies. I agree with President Trump: Peace through
strength. It worked under Reagan and it will work in the future
with regard to Russia.
With that I yield back.
Chairman Royce. Karen Bass of California.
Ms. Bass. Well, first of all I want to thank the chair and
the ranking member. And I think really this hearing is an
example of your leadership. And the recognition that this issue
is much more important to our country than our last election.
And I think one of the panelists said that this is really about
our future elections and also our standing in the world.
And with this in mind, I think that our NATO allies would
benefit from an investigation, the 9/11-style investigation
that is in the Cummings-Swalwell bill. And I am hoping that my
colleagues in the other side of the aisle will join in the call
for that.
And I think about Estonia. I had the honor of visiting your
country and going to the cybersecurity center. And I know that
a lot of countries around the world studied what happened to
Estonia.
And I think just as we studied what happened to Estonia, we
need to study what happened here in the United States. And I
believe that one of the panelists said that this was Russia's
most successful intervention in an election.
I also, I think it was Mr. Doran who said a few times that
the interference in our election was not about picking winners
and losers but about creating chaos and undermining the
confidence. And when I hear you describe that I am not just
thinking about the election, but I am, frankly, thinking about
the last 45, 46 days, because the chaos has continued. And in
terms of undermining the confidence, one of the things that is
so perplexing to me is that I can't understand why the
President contributes to that.
So saying things like 3 million people voted illegally, the
crazy tweets that we are all experiencing day to day, it makes
me wonder whether or not there is ongoing involvement of Russia
in the administration. And I wanted to know if some of the
panelists could comment.
A lot of people question whether or not the President is
compromised; whether or not the Russian's have some information
on the President. I think about the unbelievable business
entanglements that it seems as though we are learning more and
more about every day, and I want to know your opinions about
that. I want to know whether or not there is other examples
around the world of where Russia has intervened, and one of the
ways that they have continued to have influence is because of
business entanglements.
I also wonder if there are other people around the United
States, other business folks that have such deep financial
involvement. One of the theories out there--I don't know that
it is a theory, I think it is really fact--which is Trump's
business practices before winning the election were so bad, his
number of bankruptcies, that no one in the United States would
lend him money and he had to go over and he is in hock, not
just to the Russian Government but also to individuals in
Russia. And so I wanted to know if the panelists could comment
about that? And maybe, Mr. Doran, Ambassador Baer, if we have
time maybe everybody can. But if we could start with you two.
Mr. Doran. I will be very brief. When I say that Vladimir
Putin wants to create chaos and division among our ranks I
would include Europeans with us. Our front-line allies in
Europe are part of the Western alliance that stands against
Vladimir Putin.
Ambassador Baer. Thank you, Congresswoman. You asked a
number of questions. One is about the continuation of Russian
malign influence.
Ms. Bass. Right.
Ambassador Baer. And I think that is something that an
investigation would expose.
We know that Russian intelligence uses WikiLeaks as a
distribution platform. And we have seen the attack on our
intelligence agencies this week.
Ms. Bass. Right.
Ambassador Baer. Obviously that is a sign of the
continuation of Russia's attempts to foment discord and chaos.
And the important thing here is what they are trying to do is
deprive us of the kind of civilized fact-based debate that our
democracy depends on by feeding garbage into the system and
causing us to divide in ways that aren't about civilized fact-
based debate. And so I would see those efforts as ongoing.
I think, again, we are dealing with two sets of questions
here. One is, what is the nature of the Russian malign
influence, past and present, on the United States, particularly
with a focus on the 2016 election where we know that they made
a concerted effort there.
Ms. Bass. Before I run out of time. Do you think this
President is compromised?
Ambassador Baer. That is something that is not in my area
of expertise. Obviously there have been a number of
administration officials who have had covert meetings with the
Russians. That raises questions. That is a separate
investigation, a criminal/national security investigation.
Ms. Bass. Could they have information on him that if it
comes out it is so overwhelming that he is compromised?
Ambassador Baer. I think the American people deserve to
know that. It is not something that I am capable of answering
for you today.
Ms. Bass. Thank you. Anybody else?
Ambassador Bloomfield. I would just mention I read a
Rolling Stone article this morning that said there is a great
deal of speculation about what might be true that is not yet
established, and that it is a very high wire and a long way
down.
Ms. Bass. And I hope we have better sources than Rolling
Stone.
Thank you.
Mr. Perry [presiding]. The Chair thanks the gentlewoman.
The Chair now recognizes himself.
Just to put this all into perspective historically, at
least from my point of view, I want to remind everybody that
Alger Hiss traveled to Yalta with President Roosevelt when he
sat across the table with Stalin. And it was Harry Hopkins who
lived in Roosevelt's White house. And that doesn't even begin
to scratch the surface.
That having been said, Russia also attempted to hack the
RNC during last year's election. And for my good friend from
California, in 2016 the Russian Government planned to spend 13
million rubles to preserve Lenin's body, which still sits in
Red Square, in case anybody, including him, has any wonder
about what the leadership in Russia believes in politically.
So now let's talk about some compromise and some business
connections. And these questions will go directly to the
Ambassador and Mr. Doran.
Skolkovo, which is located just outside of Moscow, is
described as the sort of win/win deal that President Obama
sought during Secretary Clinton's Russian reset. Skolkovo is
Russia's own version of Silicon Valley and was developed with
the cooperation and investment of major U.S. tech firms such as
CISCO, Google, Intel, Microsoft and IBM, matching Russian brain
power with American investment dollars and entrepreneurial
know-how. Its mission included, among other things,
breakthroughs in areas including energy, communication,
sensors, and propulsion systems.
Incidentally, 60 percent of the Russian, American, and
European key partners made financial commitments to the Clinton
Foundation or sponsored speeches by Bill Clinton.
The questions are as follows: Did the Obama administration
modify its posture toward Skolkovo once the FBI sent a letter
to Boston-area companies and MIT in 2014 raising concerns about
Russian-backed investment in U.S. high tech startups and
issuing what was called an ``extraordinary warning'' to
technology companies?
Or did the Obama administration modify its posture toward
Skolkovo once the U.S. Army Foreign Military Studies Program
issued a report in 2013 declaring the purpose of Skolkovo was
to serve as a vehicle for worldwide technology transfer to
Russia in the areas of information technology, biomedicine,
energy, satellite and space technology, and nuclear technology?
Or how about in 2011 when Skolkovo approved the development
of a hypersonic cruise missile engine directly in response to
ours?
And, finally, did the administration change its posture
when cybersecurity experts also expressed deep reservations as
early as 2010--cybersecurity, since that is a big issue, as it
should be--that the U.S. companies working at Skolkovo may
inadvertently be harming global cybersecurity since Skolkovo is
the site of the Russia Security Service, or FSB's Security
Centers 16 and 18, which are in charge of information warfare
for the Russian Government, including information warfare
operations against the Ukrainian Government?
Gentlemen.
Ambassador Baer. Congressman, you laid out quite a lot and
I won't be able to respond to all of it. Let me just say that I
think one of the strengths of the United States is the
independence of our corporate entities. And, unlike Russia, we
don't give orders to our corporations on what they do. And I
think----
Mr. Perry. But when we encourage them to collaborate and
cooperate with our adversaries and people that are well known
to want to steal and coopt our secrets.
Ambassador Baer. I don't presume that----
Mr. Perry. And then there are FBI reports and the United
States Army reports, and then the intelligence community's
report that there are cyber issues, the question is did we
change our posture?
Ambassador Baer. And I believe that we are venturing into
territory that would include confidential information, so I
want to be careful here about----
Mr. Perry. Can you say yes or no?
Ambassador Baer. Certainly when we get intelligence we do
change our posture on a policy basis.
Mr. Perry. Can you say yes or no?
Ambassador Baer. And I think the important thing is that
Skolkovo was a failure because of all of the weaknesses that we
have been discussing about the Russian Federation today, which
is that it has a brain drain, it cracks down in independent
thinkers, and it can't be the Silicon Valley of Russia because
only America is capable of creating Silicon Valley. So that's
what we----
Mr. Perry. Since you apparently want to answer this, tell
me, having viewed Russia as an adversary, if not a direct
enemy, for my whole life based on everything I have read, seen,
and experienced, how was it in our best interest, how was it in
the United States' best interest to transfer our technology and
our know-how to Russia and encourage such?
Ambassador Baer. First of all I don't think you will find
anybody who knows me who thinks that I am soft on Russia. But--
--
Mr. Perry. I didn't say you were. I am asking you about how
this supports United States' interests and United States policy
abroad?
Ambassador Baer. Obviously we would never, the United
States Government, no Democratic administration or Republican
administration would ever pursue a policy whose objective was
technology transfer to Russia. The fact is that we might pursue
policies whose objective----
Mr. Perry. But we knew when we made the agreement, the
Secretary knew that the Russians would actually require patents
and technologies to remain in Russia. That is part of the
agreement. So that countervails the statement that you just
made.
Ambassador Baer. The objective of a policy would not be
technology transfer to----
Mr. Perry. But it says so in the agreement.
Ambassador Baer. It doesn't say that that's the objective.
It may be the case that in certain cases investments in Russia
include technology arrangements. Investments in most countries
include technology arrangements. And I----
Mr. Perry. Most countries aren't trying to destroy this
country.
Ambassador Baer. Congressman, I couldn't agree more with
you that we should be taking a robust, sober, firm position
with the Russian Federation. I think we should be focused more
on what we should be doing today as a country----
Mr. Perry. Thank you, sir.
Ambassador Baer [continuing]. And what our policies should
be.
Mr. Perry. My time has expired.
I am going to ask unanimous consent to submit this report
regarding Skolkovo for the record. Hearing none, so ordered.
The Chair now recognizes Mr. Keating of Massachusetts.
Mr. Keating. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I think the public as a whole centers their attention on
this attack from Russia on the cyberattack and on the hacking.
But I really think that what they are doing and what they have
done in other countries is much more comprehensive than that.
It is a mixture of not just propaganda but a mixture of
politics, a mixture of business and money and corruption, and
Putin's self-interest and insecurities, as well as the
oligarchs and his cronies as well.
And that is why, honestly, as nice as this hearing is today
it is not going to accomplish what the American public needs or
what our allies need overseas, and that is an independent
commission, a neutral commission looking in at this, as well as
a special prosecutor.
And I would add to that, this committee, I think, will take
a role in sanctions on Russia as well.
So I want to look at this as a window, as limited as our
time is, where I think we can gather some insight and maybe
some overlap in terms of the Russians' behavior, and that is
looking at Ukraine. You know, it was 9 or 10 months ago that
there was an office that had personal effects in it and
furniture in it sitting in Independence Square in Kiev of Paul
Manafort. And there were reports--and I must say that they are
not substantiated; there is a need for this kind of
investigation I spoke about--where the Ukraine Anti-Corruption
Bureau put facts forward that, at least in their investigation,
that he had some $12.7 million in an offshore account, and
undisclosed payments that are involved.
And my point is this that can you delve a little bit into
not only Russia's propaganda and cyberattacks, but actually
their interaction in terms of political parties and candidates
as well? And I think Ukraine gives us a great example. Could
you start with that, Ambassador Baer?
Ambassador Baer. Thank you, Congressman.
I think in a general term you are right to characterize
that the specific topics that we have been addressing today in
terms of disinformation and hacking are only one piece of a
broader arsenal that Putin uses to attack and undermine
democratic governments around the world.
And another way that he has done that is by funding, for
example, groups on the far left or the far right in European
countries that foment xenophobia or anti-refugee settlement or
that attack European energy independence plans.
Another way that he does it is by ordering support for
certain political parties. And Ukraine is a prime case in
point, and has been for years, where there has been a strong
alliance of Moscow with the Yanukovych regime, however many
misgivings Putin had about Yanukovych himself, who reportedly
he thought of as kind of a dolt. The Yanukovych regime was
doing the business of Moscow, which is why the Ukrainian people
had the Revolution of Dignity. They were tired of being
subjugated, their oligarchs being subjugated by Russian
oligarchs who were then subjugating the Ukrainian people to the
interests of Moscow.
And I think we have seen, obviously, some reference today
to Russian banks--which obviously no business is truly fully
independent in Russia--Russian banks making loans to European
far right political parties, including Marine Le Pen's Front
National.
So it is certainly the case that supporting political
organizations in Europe that run counter to European values and
that support Russian aims is one of the tactics that goes along
with this disinformation and hacking that we have talked about
today.
Mr. Keating. Yes, what are some of the tactics though that
you have seen or been aware of in terms of oligarch
involvement, you know, how businesses prosper in a corrupt
government such as Russia, as well as maybe looking at attempts
to put people in compromising positions, either for business
reasons or for political reasons, and maybe use the threat of
blackmail? How common is that as a tactic in Russia? You know,
all these things are connected, frankly.
Ambassador Baer. Absolutely. Our intelligence people would
be able to give you a full briefing on how common Russian
tactics are. But my understanding from what I know is that
Russian intelligence continues to use a number of methods that
are aimed at compromising people either financially or
personally, and using that to extract the information that they
want or the behavior that they want.
I think with the oligarchs, it is often hard for us to
understand how much the power of the state is used to privilege
certain political actors usually in business dealings. So
monopolies over energy, for example, are a prime area for
extracting rents by corrupt oligarchs.
Mr. Keating. Along those lines, Mr. Ilves, you mentioned
the $9 million suggested was going toward Le Pen. Could you
tell us how common this is or what the interrelation is, you
know, between all of these factors? Because without a
comprehensive, independent review we are never fully going to
understand this. And we will never give the American public the
information they need about what has happened. But also, it
won't prepare us for the next election.
I will submit that in writing, unless could I have 15
seconds, Mr. Chair? Some of the other people have had that.
Mr. Perry. Grant you 15 seconds.
Mr. Keating. Thank you.
President Ilves. Well, there are other cases which perhaps,
I mean, there was a former chancellor of Germany who
immediately after pushing through a gas pipeline, went to work
for the gas pipeline. So, I mean, there is a term,
``schroderization.'' I can't say more than that, but that has
happened many times, but that is the most egregious example.
Mr. Keating. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Perry. The Chair thanks the gentleman.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Florida, Mr.
DeSantis.
Mr. DeSantis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And welcome to the
panel.
Mr. President, are you available for a question?
President Ilves. I am.
Mr. DeSantis. Okay, good.
I am a supporter of missile defense and want to support our
Eastern European allies. When that was removed, I think it was
2009, did that have a beneficial effect in terms of Russian
behavior?
President Ilves. Not as far as we could tell. I mean the
missiles were directed against Iran. So we didn't quite
understand why the Russians were objecting to it.
I think that, now speaking personally, I mean I think the
effect was huge in Poland simply because of the timing of it
which was the date, September 19th, of the invasion of Poland
in 1939--the Nazis invaded on September 1, the Russians, the
Soviets, on September 19th. And it is something that few people
understand the impact of that. And the movie Katyn is a good
example of what the real impact was.
Mr. DeSantis. Do you think it would be beneficial for
having a missile defense shield that would cover all of Eastern
Europe?
President Ilves. Ultimately yes. But, I mean, as I said the
shield was not against Russia or missiles from Russia, it was
for potential missiles from Iran. The whole setup was based on
what happens if the Iranians attack Europe.
At this point countries that are close to Russia are
already within range of Russian missiles, at least 400
kilometers into Europe. That includes all of my country. And
from Kaliningrad it extends even to Germany over Poland. So, so
there is, I mean there is quite a bit of concern about
potential missile--well, I mean need for a missile shield in
Europe. But I doubt at this point, looking at the political
spectrum, that there is much political will among the
governments of Europe to push for that, simply because they are
not as forward leaning in general as the United States has
been.
Mr. DeSantis. I understand.
Let me ask Ambassador Baer, you served in the Obama
administration, do you acknowledge that Russia had expanded its
influence over the 8 years of the Obama administration in
malevolent ways?
Ambassador Baer. Sure, I acknowledge that. I think that
Russia would have aimed to expand its influence no matter who
was in government. I think the important thing now for us to--
--
Mr. DeSantis. I think, well, but they would have aimed it,
but the question is were they deterred from doing it or were
they emboldened to act, was Putin emboldened to act? And it
seems to me that he was really emboldened to act in a variety
of spheres. Obviously he sees Crimea. He sees Georgia. That was
at the end of the Bush administration but the response for the
incoming administration was to seek a rest in response to that
rather than do much.
A major foothold now in the Middle East which has a lot of
people worried. They are sending different defensive missiles
to Iran, the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism.
So, you know, that is a lot of activity. And I guess, you
know, I didn't see Russia being checked during those 8 years.
And I appreciate this issue of them with their cyberattacks
because I think it is important. I also think they have done
way worse than cyber in terms of some of the things they have
tried to do with financial institutions and other things that
we probably can't get into in this.
So why weren't they checked? Or was there simply nothing,
were the policies of the Obama administration correct and it is
just that is the way the cookie crumbles?
Ambassador Baer. I think we need to look back further. And
then we need to come to today.
First of all, I fully support your--what I take to be your
view--that we should have a comprehensive review today of our
posture toward Russia with an eye toward figuring out what
additional measures may be needed across the range in order to
deter Russia from further aggression in whatever form. So I
agree with you on that.
I think for 25 years after the end of the Cold War there
were people in both parties who worked incredibly hard to try
to knit Russia into the international system, a rules-based
order that the United States had built with its European
allies. And, obviously, Russia's invasion of Georgia, its
seizure of Crimea, its continued fomenting a conflict in
Ukraine runs counter to those hopes. And we need to be
realistic about that, accept that, and figure out what the
right policies are moving forward.
Mr. DeSantis. Let me just ask, I saw in your testimony you
had mentioned the hacking of Russia, that there would be a mix
sometimes of false information and accurate information. In
terms of the United States, the emails that were released were
Podesta's. Is there any evidence that that was disinformation
or was that all truthful information?
Ambassador Baer. I am not in a position to make an
assessment of all of the things that have been released during
the course of our election right now.
Mr. DeSantis. Because it is still wrong to do the hacking,
don't get me wrong. But if truthful information is out and that
truthful information is undermining confidence, well then there
is, you know, some of the things that were said on there I
think undermine the confidence. And I thought, as far as I
could tell, it was all accurate information. Doesn't excuse the
hacking but I think there is a difference between
disinformation or other----
Chairman Royce [presiding]. We need to, yes, we need to go
to Mr. David Cicilline of Rhode Island.
Mr. Cicilline. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I want to thank
you and the ranking member for holding this hearing today and
thank the witnesses for being here.
The title of today's hearing is Undermining Democratic
Institutions and Splintering NATO: Russian Disinformation Aims.
Now, I think the scope of this hearing is, as announced, is
perfect if it took place a year ago. But let's be honest, we
are here today because Russia engaged in unprecedented criminal
attacks against the United States by illegally hacking
information and releasing it in a controlled way to influence
the 2016 Presidential election. This is indisputable. Seventeen
American intelligence agencies concurred in an assessment
published in January.
The witnesses today have shed light on Russia's nefarious
activities. But due to their status as private citizens they
cannot comment on the real issue at hand, namely, why did the
Russian Government believe that Donald Trump would be a
sympathetic partner and attempt to tip the scales in his favor;
whether anyone within the Trump campaign, the transition team,
or the administration colluded with the Russian Government to
undermine our democratic election; and what we can do to ensure
this type of interference never happens in another American
election?
The only way to do this is to hear from witnesses from the
Trump campaign and the Trump administration, including Michael
Flynn and Jeff Sessions testifying under oath. And I firmly
believe that the most appropriate context for such an
investigation is with an independent, bipartisan commission.
And that is why I, along with every single Democrat in the
House, have signed on to H.R. 356, the Swalwell-Cummings
Protecting Our Democracy Act.
I confounds me that there are members of this body who do
not support the independent commission. The very fundamentals
of our democracy are at stake. As elected officials, we have
more at stake than anybody to get to the bottom of what
happened in the 2016 election and to find out what ties, if
any, President Trump and his administration actually have with
Russia. A partisan investigation held under the cover of the
intelligence committees simply will not suffice. The American
people deserve to know the truth. Any investigation needs to be
held in the light of day so that Americans concerned about the
undermining of our democracy can hold those responsible
accountable.
The Swalwell-Cummings legislation is referred solely to
this committee. And I urge the chairman to bring it up and
let's have a markup and vote on it.
In the meantime, we must send a clear message to the
Russian Government, and other governments who I can assure you
are eagerly watching to see how we react, that we will not
stand for their brazen interference in democratic elections in
this country and around the world. We need to build upon the
sanctions put in place by the Obama administration and pass the
Engel-Connolly SECURE Our Democracy Act which would put in
place sanctions against anyone who interferes in an American
election from overseas. We must send a warning to anyone
thinking about meddling in future American elections.
Additionally, we must acknowledge the widespread hacking
and misinformation efforts in which Russia is already engaged
in Europe, and pass a bipartisan resolution I introduced this
week with my Republican colleague Peter Roskam, condemning
Russia's interference in European elections and reinforcing the
necessity of strong sanctions against those who seek to
undermine democratic institutions through cyber warfare and
misinformation. And I hope all my colleagues will join in this
resolution.
What Russia has done and continues to do is declare war
against Western liberal democracy. While his tactics may be
high tech, Putin's motives are very familiar. He sees
democracy, and everything that comes with it--elections, a free
media, transparency and accountability--as enemies to be
defeated. I do not accept Putin's world view. The Russian
people are not our enemy to be defeated. But I think we are
naive if we don't acknowledge the full extent of Putin's war
against the West and respond forcefully. Make no mistake, Putin
sees this as a zero sum game: In order for him to be stronger,
the United States and our allies must be weaker.
But we have a secret weapon that Putin cannot and will not
ever understand, and that is our democracy based on universal
values. Putin sees the truth as an enemy and rules with an iron
fist so that the true extent of his crimes against the Russian
people and the rest of the world are never fully revealed. We
cannot revert to a tactic used by Putin himself to hide what
really happened in this country last year. This is not about
politics, this is about the very fundamentals of our democracy
and what makes America America. And the strongest refutation of
Putin's plans is to unite in a serious and thoughtful defense
of our democracy.
Contrary to what some on the other side have suggested, no
one wants war. What we want is the truth and a way forward. And
as Bob Kagan, the former Reagan official and respected
conservative expert on international affairs, said last week in
the Washington Post, ``The longer the American people remain in
the dark about Russian manipulations, the longer they will
remain vulnerable to them. The longer Congress fails to inform
itself, the longer it will be before it can take steps to meet
the threat.''
The truth is that the truth will set us free. But we won't
know the truth if we make no attempt to find it.
And I apologize to the witnesses for using my time to speak
rather than ask questions but this is important. We owe it to
our constituents, to our families, to our allies, and to
ourselves to discover exactly what happened last year in our
election, how it happened, and how we can ensure it never
happens again in this country. And I implore my colleagues,
let's put aside politics, let's get to the bottom of this. The
testimony of our witnesses today only confirms the urgency of
doing this.
And with that, Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to put
into the record the assessment of 17 intelligence agencies
entitled ``Background to Assessing Russian Activities and
Intentions in the Recent U.S. Election,'' and the Washington
Post piece by Mr. Kagan entitled ``Republicans Are Becoming
Russia's Accomplices.''
Chairman Royce. Without objection.
We go now to Mr. Tom Garrett of Virginia.
Mr. Garrett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would thank the
witnesses and apologize in advance for what might seem to be
something of a soliloquy here. There is a question if I am able
to get to it.
At the beginning of the hearing the ranking member said we
also need to hear from senior administration officials once
they are in place. Rhetorically I would ask, why aren't they in
place? We are in the middle of March and there is
accountability to be had here and in other areas. There are
things to do here and in other areas. And senior administration
officials are unprecedentedly not in place. Whose fault is
that?
There was also a comment made about the NSA advisor General
Flynn resigning because of his contacts. No, he resigned
because of his lies to his chain of command. And I supported
that action.
We have heard of Attorney General meetings shrouded in
secrecy. Well, the Attorney General met twice. One of those
meetings was arranged by the Obama administration. Candidly, I
am in a meeting with everyone in this room right now, and the
definition of the term ``meeting'' is nebulous, bordering on
meaningless, as it is used by members of this committee in
political rhetoric. They say a 9/11-style commission alone is
the only way to ensure transparency. Well, be careful what you
ask for because you just might get it.
What we have here is hypocrisy writ large. President Obama
said to Dmitry Medvedev, ``I will have more flexibility after
this election.'' Medvedev responded, ``I will transmit your
message to Vladimir.''
Obama said the 1980s called and they want their foreign
policy back. The Cold War has been over for 20 years. It was
funny then. But there was at least half of the political realm
in this nation concerned with a threat posed even then by
Russia.
Former Secretary Clinton said that to be concerned with
Russia was ``somewhat dated as a world view.''
Vice President Joe Biden said Republicans' concerns about
Russia were only held by a small group of Cold War holdovers.
Secretary of State Kerry said Republicans worry about
Russia as if their only knowledge of Russia comes from having
viewed Rocky IV.
Chris Matthews said to Rachel Maddow, Republic Russian
concerns, I don't know what decade these guys are living in.
Earlier Mr. Doran commented that we are combating a well-
organized, well-funded organization that doesn't care about the
facts. Rhetorically I would ask are we discussing the Russians
or the political opposition to President Trump?
If you want hearings, let's have hearings. But let's not
limit them to 2016 and 2017. When the fact comes out and the
public learns that the former Soviet Union colluded with
members affiliated with the Democrat party to influence the
United States elections in 1980 and '84 as it related to the
election and re-election of Ronald Reagan in the form of the
nuclear freeze movement and others, then we will understand
just the nature of people being involved in influencing other
people's elections.
I have here copies of a story from December 2016 from the
Los Angeles Times detailing 82 instances where the United
States was involved in influencing other people's elections. It
is not okay. I do not defend the Russians. But this is not some
genesis that occurred as it relates to the Trump
administration, it is something that has been omnipresent.
I could ask if the United States uses influence and
information to influence elections. But we have limited time
and everyone knows the answer.
A lot of us recognized Russia as a cyber and traditional
kinetic threat before this election. The remainder of us have
now a convenient readout bolstered by a sudden acknowledgment
of a threat that has been omnipresent despite previous
strategic denial by those who are now screaming the loudest:
Don't worry about Russia. Don't worry about Russia. Oh my gosh,
look, Russia.
To those people I would quote police detective John
McClane, ``Welcome to the party, pal.''
So what we need to do if we are going to be productive and
not just talk at one another is have actual actions. And I am
going to do something. I am going to outline some.
Congresswoman Ros-Lehtinen earlier suggested a limit on waivers
of sanctions on Russia. Hear, hear.
Congressman McCaul said establish and identify and
articulate real doctrine of response to cyber and information
warfare and draw lines that we will not back away from. I
second that, Mr. Chairman.
The sanctions we should tie to specific actions. If we want
the Russians to do things, we should say these are the things
you need to do in order to get to those. And we should not
allow a linkage between Russian actions in Crimea and Georgia
and Syria and Eastern Ukraine. These should all be dealt with
independently so that they don't use them as leverage against
us furthering democracy across the globe.
Finally, to address this question of whether Mr. Trump has
somehow undermined NATO, I want to bring people back to the
real world. My question would be, is a NATO where nations spend
more to defend themselves stronger or weaker? Because through
his questioning of NATO's ability and relevance he has caused
the very defense build-up that I think we can all appreciate,
thus strengthening NATO by encouraging nations like Germany to
take more responsibility for their own defense.
So, finally, in wrapping up, Mr. Chairman, my question is,
is a stronger military NATO a stronger NATO?
Thank you. With that I would conclude.
Chairman Royce. Thank you. The gentleman's time has
expired.
We will go to Dr. Ami Bera of California.
Mr. Bera. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for calling
this hearing.
It is disturbing to me this defense of Vladimir Putin and
Russia. And it is very worrisome. Look, if we want to call an
independent investigation looking beyond 2016, looking to the
last administration, great, let's do it. But this is about
protecting our democracy. I mean let's just go through a
timeline of what our current President has said.
You know, in October 2013 he talked about how he does a lot
of business with Russia.
In November 2015 he talked about how he got to know Putin
very well because we were both on ``60 Minutes.'' They were
stable mates.
December of 2015, Vladimir Putin praises him. In response,
Trump praises him back.
February of 2016 he talks about how Putin called him a
genius.
March 28th he hired Paul Manafort.
August 17th, President Trump gets his first intelligence
briefing. We are told in that briefing he is shown direct
evidence of the Russian Government hacking emails. Two days
later Paul Manafort resigns.
In July 2016 he encourages the Russians to hack Hillary
Clinton's emails.
President Trump is elected November 8th. November 9th the
Russian Parliament cheers.
This is very worrisome. The President talks about this as a
political witch hunt. Look, he won the election but this isn't
a political witch hunt. When the tragedy of Benghazi happened
we came together, an independent investigation looked at what
happened, what went wrong. We lost some heroes that day. They
made recommendations. We ought to do the same thing.
I, you know, I think many of us would say the millions of
dollars that were spent on Benghazi, the majority had no issue
with doing that. We ought to do the same thing. This is not
Democrats or Republicans. This is about protecting the
integrity of our elections and pushing back.
You know, I would ask the witnesses a couple yes/no
questions. Do you have faith in the intelligence community's
assessment that Russia intentionally interfered with our recent
elections? Yes? No?
Ambassador Bloomfield. Yes. But I am very troubled to see
the Commander-in-Chief announcing something that I would have
thought was sensitive information, and then reading that people
were rolled up in Russia who were probably close to Putin. So
this distresses me.
Mr. Bera. Yes, no, on intelligence?
Mr. Doran. As a citizen, yes, I have faith in the
intelligence community.
Mr. Bera. Ambassador?
Ambassador Bloomfield. Yes.
Mr. Bera. And based on that, do we believe that we ought to
consider this interference in our democracy, in our elections,
a national security threat? Ambassador Bloomfield?
Ambassador Bloomfield. I use the word ``challenge.''
Mr. Bera. Mr. Doran?
Mr. Doran. Russia's efforts to destabilize the West on all
fronts is a threat to us.
Mr. Bera. Ambassador Baer?
Ambassador Baer. Yes.
Mr. Bera. Great. And I think we would all agree that we
don't believe Russia or Vladimir Putin has our best interests
or democracy's best interests in mind in these attempts.
This is about us coming together as Democrats and
Republicans and protecting our democracy. If America is not
standing up for democracy and pushing back, you know, the rest
of the world is watching. It starts to undermine our
leadership.
Mr. Chairman, one of the reasons why this has been such a
great committee is the bipartisan nature of your leadership
working with the ranking member. I would urge you to let us
mark up the Protect Our Democracy Act. Let's have this
discussion.
Let's set up an independent investigation, look at those
independent findings and look at those independent
recommendations to protect our elections, to protect the
integrity of our elections. Let's not do a political witch
hunt. This is about our democracy. Would any of you disagree?
Now let's go to Ambassador Bloomfield. Would you support
the recommendation of setting up an independent investigation
that could come up with findings and make recommendations?
Ambassador Bloomfield. I think an investigation is
absolutely appropriate. But where you come out matters: If we
are in confusion, if we are in chaos, if we stop after an
investigation and say we are dysfunctional and we can't restore
the Western order against the threat, then we have failed.
So the idea is to heal the nation, find a way to move
forward, see what we can agree on, and still have our political
differences. Show the world that our democracy not only is
democratic but that we can get something done that works.
Mr. Bera. Ambassador Baer, should we do an investigation?
Ambassador Baer. Yes. And I said as much in my testimony,
both written and spoken.
Mr. Bera. Great. Thanks. I'm out of time.
Chairman Royce. Mr. Ted Yoho of Florida.
Mr. Yoho. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you for
everybody enduring today's hearing.
Mr. Doran, you said treat Russia like a virus. And I agree.
Whether it is Russia, China, Iran, North Korea, or ISIS, or
other entity, the attacks will continue because those nations
and organizations they don't like us or our principles of
freedoms and liberty. And they are going to continue to do
that.
And I don't have to remind anybody, as Mr. Garrett and
several other have brought up, that we are not angelic in this
either.
I would like to go to Mr. Chabot's comments that Putin's
goal is to create chaos. And it kind of reminds me of Don
Adams' series back in the '60s of Maxwell Smart. His nemesis
was the Russian spy agency called KAOS. And if you look at what
has happened here, I think the narrative shouldn't be on did
Russia help Mr. Trump win or help Mrs. Clinton lose because
they released information or information was released on both
candidates. I think their goal was to create chaos.
And I can only imagine that it is 5:00 o'clock somewhere in
Russia, or beyond, probably about 8:00, 8:30 right now. And it
reminds me of that song of Alan Jackson and Jimmy Buffett's,
``It's Five O'Clock Somewhere.'' And I can see Vladimir Putin
with his comrades around a fire at the Kremlin and they are
drinking potato vodka, toasting each other, saying, ``Hey,
Comrade Boris, look at America,'' while they are watching C-
Span. We are fighting amongst each other over something that we
know has happened. And I think what we need to focus on is how
did it happen and how do we prevent it?
And it is not the Republicans or Democrats, as my
colleagues brought up multiple times today, it is about what
are we going to do? And that is where the concern to me is. As
a nation--and the last, Dr. Bera was just talking about do you
have faith in our intelligence community? I do. But where I
have doubts is the ability of other countries to hack into us.
You know, we are the guys that put people on the moon and
brought them back in the '60s without technology. And I want to
know why we have fallen down this far to where we can't block
this. It kind of reminds me of what my dad said having six
sons, and I am five of six, saying don't worry about what your
brother is doing. Worry about what you are doing and do it
better than anybody else so that, you know, you succeed. And I
think we, as a Nation, need to do that.
And our goal is, you know, I heard Mr. DeSantis talk about
the missile defense system. And you said, well, it is not
pointed at Russia. I think we should have missile defense
systems in the countries and our allies that want to partner up
with us versus a country like that, or any other country. And I
think those missile defense systems should be adaptable as they
are to any threat to freedom and liberty.
And so I think you guys have already weighed in on that. I
would like to hear your response on Radio Free America and just
sending out the message, the truth message of what freedom and
liberty is. And how effective is that in your realm or in your
experience? Mr. Doran, if you would.
Mr. Doran. Yes. Thank you very much, Congressman, for the
excellent question.
I would clarify that when I was speaking about the virus I
was talking specifically not about Russia as a country but,
obviously, about, as you know and understand, obviously about
Russian propaganda. I----
Mr. Yoho. And that is what it is, it is propaganda. And
they are going to continue it and we are going to continue it.
And that is just human nature. I just want to be so secure that
it doesn't matter because we are putting out the truth. And
liberty and freedom is something all people around the world
yearn, if they know about it.
Mr. Doran. That is correct.
The way we do this, we have got to detect it. We have got
to move quickly to have a better handle on how Russian
propaganda works, and specifically the impact it is having. You
mentioned Radio Free Europe, Radio Liberty. That is one of
several avenues we should take.
I would stress to this committee an all-of-the-above
approach when it comes to counter strategies against Russian
propaganda. This means media education. It means broadcasts. It
means online, leveraging humor and satire. This is something
that Vladimir Putin and the Russian leadership are very
vulnerable to.
And, finally, you know, we have talked a bit about
government responses but ultimately we are all in this
together, this is something that society, down to journalists
and news outlets, have to come to grips with to restore trust
and credibility in our free press.
Mr. Yoho. Okay. And I just want to cut you off there
because, you know, we are going to win this. You look at the
principles of this country: Freedom and liberty. People around
the world yearn. We are going to come together as Americans. We
are going to go up on the hill, we are going to dust off the
lamps and mirrors on that beacon and it will shine. And it will
come together by us standing strong as Americans.
Thank you. And I appreciate your time. Mr. Chairman, thank
you.
Chairman Royce. Thank you.
Lois Frankel of Florida.
Ms. Frankel. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to the
panel today. And I appreciate this hearing.
So this is my third term on this committee. And we have
heard about a lot of scary things, whether it is last week what
is going on in North Korea, Iran, the humanitarian crisis in
Syria. I could go on and on. But the Russian interference with
our election to me is the scariest of recent activities that I
have learned about.
And what is also very surprising, it is very rare that we
have all the panelists in front of our committee seem to be
agreeing. That never happens. So that makes it even more
alarming to me.
I want to--and I am going to ask a question before I give a
whole speech, and that is this: One of the things that I think
you all mentioned is that there seems to be this pattern of
interference with elections before ours and going on. And so we
know, for example, I think one of you said that a lot of false
stories are spread. My question is, is there any kind of
pattern of Russia collecting compromising information on
candidates as well as spreading the false stories?
President Ilves. I mean, we don't know but we do know that
the, for example, the German equivalent of the FBI and the
German equivalent of the CIA, the Verfassungsschutz and
Bundesnachrichtendienst, actually have made stronger statements
than the U.S. intelligence agencies on the hacking of the
entire Bundestag already in 2015, and have also said that
political parties are being hacked.
The DSGE, which is the French foreign intelligence agency,
has again said that the Russians are trying to disrupt the
elections in favor of one candidate. So we know they are doing
that. But we don't, we have not seen--see, the hacking works
when you dox----
Ms. Frankel. Okay, can I, I want to get to the second point
which is, which is have you seen any evidence of the Russians
collecting compromising information on candidates?
President Ilves. It becomes compromising when you publish
it.
Ms. Frankel. Ambassador Baer?
Ambassador Baer. I mean, I think one of the challenges is
that President Ilves is getting at is that if you want to
effectively control someone you don't actually put it out
there. So the answer is we don't know what efforts at using
compromise as a way of leveraging behavior or information are
currently being used because, by definition, effective
compromise means the threat, using that threat. And, obviously,
once the information is out there it is not a very good lever
anymore.
Ms. Frankel. My colleagues talked today about, well, isn't
it too bad there was some true information that was put out and
it is too bad. How much false information was put out, to the
best of your knowledge, in our campaign? How much false
information was put out against Hillary Clinton?
Ambassador Baer. I think it would be difficult to quantify.
I know some of the people have been doing open source analysis
of this, of the engagement in our election. And I would be
happy to deliver to your office a broader analysis.
I think the important thing here is, and I----
Ms. Frankel. Well, would it be surprising to hear that it
is hundreds of thousands of false tweets and Facebook pages and
whatever kind of social media that is getting out there?
Ambassador Baer. That wouldn't be surprising at all. I mean
there are certainly examples, one in Germany recently where the
Russian propaganda made up a crime that they alleged was
perpetrated by a migrant which never occurred, and was revealed
to be completely false from whole cloth. And it is consistent
with normal Russian propaganda practices.
Ms. Frankel. So let me just sum up by saying this, and why
I want to just join my colleagues who are calling for an
independent review of these matters. Listen, I believe Putin is
about Putin. Putin isn't trying to help Mr. Trump because he
likes Mr. Trump. He, for some reason, he believes, I think, he
was going to get a better deal.
I don't know whether it is because he didn't like Hillary
Clinton or President Trump's comments are based on ignorance or
greed or financial ties or I don't know why the President is
accusing our President Obama of spying on him. Is he reading
Russian information? I have no idea. And I think the American
people have the same kind of questions.
My first hearing, Mr. Chair, when I was on this committee
was Hillary Clinton talking about Benghazi. And then there was
probably nine hearings on Benghazi, $7 million spent. And,
listen, Benghazi was bad. But if Benghazi was bad let me tell
you something, the Russians trying to take over our elections
with all that they did, that is very, very bad. And we need to
start having some independent reviews and hearings until we get
to the bottom of this.
And I thank you all for being with us today and I yield
back.
Chairman Royce. We go to Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick of
Pennsylvania.
Mr. Fitzpatrick. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First I want to
thank the chairman for holding this important hearing. And as
co-chair of the Ukrainian Caucus I just wanted to commend the
efforts of those who organized here this week for Ukraine Day
advocacy programs here on The Hill. So thank you for being
here.
And I want to commend my colleague Mr. Yoho. I am not
liking a lot of what I am hearing here, quite frankly, and I
think we need to get to solving these problems in a bipartisan
fashion. I am going to zero in on one issue, and that is
propaganda specifically as it pertains to Ukraine.
I spent time in the Embassy there. We got the daily
propaganda reports. They were troubling to say the least.
Ukraine is not only engaged in a physical battle, they are
engaged in a battle of ideas as well. And my question is going
to be very simple: What specifically can this committee do to
show our unequivocal support for Ukraine in this fight?
Mr. Doran. If I could just jump in, obviously there are a
number of steps that the United States has. I would highlight
two.
The first one, continued support for defensive lethal
weapons to empower the Ukrainians to defend themselves. And I
also think attention and rhetoric from this body would send a
strong message that the Americans have not forgotten about your
fight.
Ambassador Baer. I agree, particularly with the point about
attention and with a constant evaluation of what can be helped.
I mean, I think your question was about the information war
that the Ukrainians are under. I think one of the strongest
things that we can do is to continue to shine a spotlight on
the situation there and remind the world that there is an
ongoing conflict. We had the largest land battle since World
War II in Europe in Eastern Ukraine, and most Americans, most
Europeans don't know that fact.
And so we need to continue to shine a spotlight and support
the reformers who are continuing to do the ongoing work of the
revolution with dignity. There is obviously there is a huge
corruption case unfolding this week. Stories like that need to
get out because those stories, those stories of the truth of
the reform effort that young Ukrainians, civil society,
independent journalists are pushing, those stories are the
stories that win the hearts and minds of the Ukrainian people
and that push back against the steady diet of Russian
propaganda that is being pumped into the country.
And, obviously, the Russians make use of an asymmetry. When
we, in our own society and Ukraine as well, where there are
great protections for freedom of expression, greater
protections for media freedom, the Russians take advantage of
that. They pump their propaganda in. If countries target that
propaganda they say, oh, what happened to free speech? And they
use that against us.
We need to continue to support Ukraine's reform agenda. We
need to continue to support independent voices inside Ukraine,
including with small grants funding, et cetera, to support
those startups of independent journalism. We need to keep the
spotlight on Ukraine so that Putin's crimes there are exposed
to the world.
Ambassador Bloomfield. President Ilves started by talking
about Clausewitz and saying that war is an extension of
politics by other means. In that spirit, the committee can
exercise oversight on the administration and hold it to a
standard of having a comprehensive policy that deters Putin
from pushing Ukraine further, and that reviews a whole series
of measures that the Congress believes are wise and the
administration is willing to pursue through all means to try to
support Ukraine's freedom.
President Ilves. I think it is also important to recognize
that the propaganda war goes among ourselves against Ukraine.
Just 2 days ago there was a blistering attack against Chrystia
Freeland, the new foreign minister of Canada, because she has
Ukrainian roots and has been very pro-Ukrainian, and published
in the Canadian press.
When we looked at this massive flow of disinformation
immediately after Crimea we had the BBC saying, well, we have
to balance. So here is what the Ukrainians say and here is
what, you know, these other people say. And they're all lies.
And if you start balancing between lies and the truth, what is
in between is something very funny.
But basically I think, I mean in Europe I think they have
gotten a better handle on this. But 2014 there was so much
disinformation that was simply taken up. And, also, it is in
our own language. If the European Union, if the foreign affairs
people there don't say until 2015 that they are dealing with
Russians in the Donbass but rather only separatists, who for
some reason have hundreds of tanks and the missiles that it
takes 2 years to learn how to use, I mean, that is we have to,
we have to here in the West recognize the propaganda about
Ukraine.
And I think in the first year or so we lost that battle.
Mr. Fitzpatrick. I want to thank you. And if you could,
just keep this committee advised on what we can do in that
fight because with the 24-hour news cycle it is very easy to
lose sight of the plight that is occurring out there. And it is
sad and it is severe and we need to have their back. So if you
could just keep that information flow coming, I would
appreciate it.
I yield. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Royce. Robin Kelly of Illinois.
Ms. Kelly. Thank you, Chairman Royce. I hope this is the
first of many hearings on Russia. And I look forward to future
hearings once the administration has put in place senior level
officials at the State Department. Thank you to the witnesses.
It is my hope also, as we have heard, that this committee
will take the initiative and mark up the SECURE Our Democracy
Act and Protect Our Democracy Act to get to the bottom of
Russian interference in U.S. elections and prevent future
action. Members on both sides of the aisle have acknowledged
Russia's use of disinformation campaigns to hack and disrupt
elections. Professional-looking programming on channels like RT
complement disinformation efforts to promote the reiteration
effect. Taken together, Russian propaganda is blended into
infotainment with reality talk shows that either twist or
invent facts and parallel it with media stories to create the
impression of popular support.
Putin has surrounded himself with oligarchs and used the
government to protect and enrich those loyal to him. Oligarchs
have used the courts to paint unflattering stories such as fake
news. Most recently--and excuse all of my pronunciation--oil
baron Igor Sechin, the CEO of Rosneft, who has a close personal
relationship with Secretary Tillerson, filed lawsuit over
unflattering stories about media outlets that still retain some
freedom and objectivity, like RBK and Vedomosti.
Delegitimizing and establishing news sources and promoting
propaganda media has created an environment where news outlets
fear speaking truth to power in the service of the Kremlin. I
think some may see troubling parallels between the Kremlin's
media distrust and what we are seeing from the current Trump
administration.
Ambassador Baer, over the weekend we saw reports that
President Trump was in a rage that the Attorney General recused
himself from Russian interference investigations. On Saturday
morning, President Trump sent a series of, in my opinion,
irrational tweets accusing President Obama of wiretapping him,
with no evidence. It seems that the closer we get to tying the
President to Russia, the more erratic, illogical, and defensive
he becomes to change the news cycles.
You have worked with foreign governments, friends and
adversaries alike. What sort of message does it send when the
President lashes out like this after he reads something that he
doesn't like about himself or his inner circle? Put simply, can
the leader of a nation that engages in disinformation campaigns
and speaks out against a free press in his or her nation be
taken credibly by our foreign counterparts--or by their foreign
counterparts?
Ambassador Baer. I think that question probably is best
answered by our foreign colleagues and partners.
I think without commenting on the specific incidents that
you mentioned, which I think gave a lot of people reason for
concern, I think to state it in the affirmative I think it is
fundamentally important that the leader of the United States
recognizes that being leader of the free world is not some
added task that gets put on the side. It is a distinct honor of
being the President of the United States of America that we are
seen as representing something around the world.
Ronald Reagan was referenced earlier today. And certainly
Reagan was one who communicated and understood this as well as
anyone. And so I think to state it affirmatively, it is
incumbent upon the occupier of that office to carry her or
himself in a way that represents American values and American
principles for the world in a compelling way. And I think any
incumbent of that office should be always thinking about that.
Ms. Kelly. I don't know if any of the other witnesses have
a comment on what effect you think this is having?
Ambassador Bloomfield. I will just make a personal comment,
if I may.
The United States for the last two Presidents has had
someone who wasn't predicted to win, who came from the outside,
who resonated with the American people and who won the
election. They were not establishment figures. They were not
the lead candidate.
And by the way, the day we see that in Moscow or Tehran or
Beijing will be a great day for the world because those are
one-party systems that are never going to give it up and are
really punishing their own people to stay in power.
So you are not getting somebody who spent years and years
and years practicing being a Washington politician. I worked
for President Reagan and both Bush presidencies. They were
attacked very strongly. You will never hear me criticize the
oversight and checks and balances process. That is what makes
us strong, stronger than anyone. So have at it, but recognize
that at the end of the day we need an executive branch that can
perform Article II powers and can do what it is authorized to
do to achieve strategic goals in the world. That is the bottom
line.
Ms. Kelly. My time is up.
Chairman Royce. Well, we go to Brendan Boyle of
Pennsylvania.
Mr. Boyle. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and to Ranking
Member Engel for calling what I hope is the first of many
congressional hearings into just what exactly happened this
past election with respect to Russian interference in our
precious American democracy.
Based on the unanimous conclusion of the 16 intelligence
agencies in the United States, it is abundantly clear that we
need a 9/11-style commission, a bipartisan, non-partisan
commission modeled after the 9/11 Commission to investigate and
determine what exactly happened. But more than that, we need to
ensure the independence of any such commission and the ability
to act on any criminality that took place. That is why in
addition to a 9/11-style commission I have called for a special
investigator or special prosecutor.
Now, I have also gone to the House Floor and publicly
thanked Republican Senators Lindsey Graham and John McCain and
any others who have clearly put country ahead of party in this
matter. I have been disappointed that there haven't been more
voices on the other side, especially in this chamber, who
recognize that this is not about party, this is about country,
and to join with Senators Graham and McCain to call for a 9/11-
style commission, to co-sponsor the Cummings-Swalwell Act, and
to call for an independent outside investigation.
We need to know as Americans what exactly the relationship
is between the top levels of the executive branch, including
the occupant of the Oval Office, and this Russian regime. I
would also say that both in George Washington's farewell
message and all throughout the Federalist Papers it is written
of the dangers of partisanship and just how concerned our
founders were that partisan interests would override the
national interests. I think that 240 years later we would be
wise, all of us, to remember their words.
Now, specifically I want to turn to a more strategic issue
and consideration. A recent article in the New Yorker brought
to light an article written by the Russian chief of general
staff which said that in the future, wars will be fought with a
four-to-one ratio of non-military to military measures. The
non-military was to include efforts to shape the political and
social landscape of the adversary through subversion,
espionage, propaganda, and cyberattacks.
Ambassador Baer, can you comment on how you saw examples of
these during your time at the OSCE? And I wonder if you could
specifically speak about Ukraine, knowing that I have a number
of Ukrainian-American constituents, some of whom are here today
and on the Hill this week lobbying their elected
representatives. And we are probably right now the most in
danger even, respectfully even more so than the Baltics and any
other part of Europe.
Ambassador Baer. Thank you, Congressman.
I think what you are referring to is the Gerasimov article
and with the practice that we have seen that put into in
Ukraine in the last 3 years. We just passed the third
anniversary of Yanukovych's flight, abandoning his post. And it
was shortly after that that President Putin sent in the so-
called little green men into Crimea who took over first the
Parliament, and then surrounded military bases, of course
without insignia or any demarcation. And then held a
``referendum,'' a mock referendum at the barrel of a gun and
claimed that that was a justification for annexation.
We saw that continue, and hybrid warfare continue in
Eastern Ukraine when Putin sent in highly-trained
paramilitaries to take over town halls and government buildings
in Eastern Ukraine, take over police stations, et cetera, and
work with local gangs and criminal elements to seize control of
territory in Eastern Ukraine.
All along with this there was hard force, as you referred
to, but there was also an information and propaganda war that
was going along. And to the points that have been made, a huge
piece of this is confusion and sowing the inability to make a
determination. And, obviously, one of the things that I think
for our own systems that we need to be studying is how do we
make determinations in an environment in which the other actor
is purposely trying to make the kinds of determinations that we
need to make more difficult?
This, you mentioned that this has to do centrally with
Ukraine. That is where we are seeing it play out. But I think
the concerns that we see among allies are that, you know, we
need to be able to determine when hybrid warfare is under way.
And we may not be able to determine that in the old fashioned
way when we see tanks with Russian flags on them coming across
the border, we know hybrid warfare has started.
Mr. Boyle. And I know I am running out of time. I was going
to say that this is especially true with the elections in
France and Germany coming up this year. It is not an
exaggeration to say the future of the EU is at stake.
I thank the chairman.
Chairman Royce. Brad Schneider of Illinois.
Mr. Schneider. Thank you. And again thank you to the
witnesses for being so generous with your time. I want to take
a special moment to thank Chairman Royce, Ranking Member Engel
for calling this hearing. I will echo what others have said, I
hope this is the first of a series of hearings to understand
what has happened and, more importantly, to understand how we
will respond to it.
But I would also add my voice to calling for an independent
commission to investigate the Russian efforts to interfere in
our elections and how that would play out.
To the panel, you know, looking backward and given what we
know so far about the Russian efforts to interfere in our
elections, what our capacities are, and to figure out how to go
forward you always have to look back, if you were to counsel--
and 20/20 hindsight is always wonderful--to counsel if we had
only done X, Y, and Z, are there things that we could have done
in hindsight that might have thwarted their efforts in this
past election that would be useful going forward?
President Ilves. Well, I would quote Jonathan Eyal, who is
the head of the British Defence Ministry think tank RUSI, in a
quote 2 years ago or 3 years ago actually, in the Financial
Times, is that for 25 years we told the East Europeans that
they were paranoid, didn't understand what was really going on,
and that Russia was just a normal country. And now we have to
admit those East Europeans were right.
Mr. Schneider. Ambassador Bloomfield.
Ambassador Bloomfield. I don't know what we could have done
differently in the past. But I do know that as we go forward,
if we have more object lessons such as President Ilves just
gave us, if we are still saying why didn't we take corrective
measures in 2017 when we were focusing on the issue, and why
are the Russians still able to pollute the information space in
the information era, we will have failed. So we have got work
to do.
Mr. Schneider. If I could expand on that more on your
testimony, let me thank all of the witnesses. Your written
testimony was extraordinary across the board and very helpful
as we prepared. But, Ambassador, you talked about the needs for
moving forward through governance, making sure we are standing
strong. Thoughts on what we can do, specific stuffs, how we
move that forward?
Ambassador Bloomfield. Just whatever is done next, if there
are investigations of Russia, if there are special
investigations, never lose sight of the bar that you are aiming
toward which is an American standard of ethics, transparency,
accountability, and justice.
And the founders said ``toward a more perfect union.'' We
know we are not perfect, so we are not holding ourselves up to
be better than anyone, we are trying to get better ourselves.
But if the world sees us doing that and trying to hold
ourselves to a standard above partisanship, then I think we
will have more influence and power in the world, and Putin will
be guilty of being a bad actor. No one will want to do business
with Russian companies if they think it is going to bring
corruption and coercion and blackmail into their economy.
So they are not helping themselves.
Mr. Schneider. And I think, as we have been here a long
time, I think it was in response to a question Ranking Member
Engel asked, of the ability to recognize the difference between
the United States and Russia. Ambassador Baer, I think it was
you, who said that we need the President to speak clearly, to
articulate that there is a difference in the United States
living up to its values, working toward that more perfect
union.
But, Ambassador Baer, I wonder if you have further
thoughts, after several hours here, what we can do in our roles
to help articulate that difference?
Ambassador Baer. I mean, I would associate myself with the
comments made by Ambassador Bloomfield. I think that it is very
important, whatever we are doing, to keep that objective, which
is a common and shared objective, in mind. And I do think that
an independent commission is the kind of mechanism, the kind of
tool that we can use, not only to educate policy makers about
what kind of approaches can forestall future efforts by Russia
or others to interfere in our democracy, but also can help
American citizens to educate themselves about the nature of
these attempts to manipulate us through control, through taking
advantage of some of the asymmetries that are based on our
greatest strengths. The fact that we actually have free and
fair elections, unlike the Russians where Putin manipulates the
tallies, we have free and fair elections. He can take advantage
of that.
We have freedom of the press. He can take advantage of
that.
And I think that is the value and we should be aiming at
are these constructive objectives that could come out of a fact
finding mechanism.
Mr. Schneider. I am out of time. I am sorry, Mr. Doran,
because I wanted to touch on your comments about pushing back
on fake news. But I think all of this comes together. As we
live up to our values, we continue to educate our public, we
need to stay true to those values and stay true to our path.
Again I thank the witnesses very much. And I yield back.
Chairman Royce. Tom Suozzi of New York.
Mr. Suozzi. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you
again. I especially appreciated your comment in the beginning
about the manipulators of Moscow. I thought that was a very
good way of putting it. And I want to thank the ranking member
as well for some of his comments, especially if you mess with
the bull, you get the horns. And I think that his sanctions act
that he has proposed along with one of our colleagues is a
great example of that.
And I want to echo a lot of things that have been said on
both sides here today about the need to actually do something
in response to what the Russians have been doing. The world
today is not as simple as America versus Russia, like it was
against the Soviets. The challenge in the world today is, Tom
Friedman wrote in his book and I think Mr. Yoho was
referencing, the battle is between control versus chaos. Places
in the world that are stable versus chaos. Places that are
ungoverned, places that are failing, places that were propped
up in the old days by the Soviets and the Americans that were
average and below average states, but because of corruption or
because of lack of resources or incompetence they are failing.
And we now have 65 million refugees in the world as opposed to
35 million refugees 10 years ago.
And what Putin is doing and what the Russians are doing is
they are fomenting chaos in the world. And that is the biggest
threat to our world order today is chaos, places that are
ungoverned, places that cannot stay governed and that are
fomenting unrest and insecurity in so many different places.
So I want to appreciate both Ambassadors' comments about
that they support the idea of an independent investigative
body, similar to the 9/11 Commission. And I think, Mr. Doran,
are you in support of that as well?
Mr. Doran. I will leave that up to the committee.
Mr. Suozzi. Well, I certainly would support that and I
think many others would as well.
What I want to ask each of you in the 3 minutes that I have
left is what is the one thing that you think that we can do
now, even before we do further investigation, because everybody
agrees what the Russians did in this past election, the
intelligence community, each of the witnesses here, all of us
up here, we all know what the Russians have done and have
continued to do, what is the one thing we can do now to send a
very clear message to the Russians that we are not going to
take this, and we are going to act strongly? Just one thing
from each of you.
President Ilves. Well, recognize the positive asymmetry in
favor of the West and actually make it difficult for people to
send their massive amounts of illicit money to be laundered in
the West, to be parked in real estate in London and in Florida.
The same people--I mean it is unconscionable--the same person
who stopped Russian adoptions has a mansion in Florida.
Mr. Suozzi. So the financial money that is pouring into our
country and in other countries that we think they have
influenced elections as well, try and do what we can to try and
stop people from being able, having that freedom from Russia to
spread their money around the world to influence people's
behavior.
Ambassador?
Ambassador Bloomfield. Recognize that what Russia tries to
do works best if no one ever figures it out. They have been
caught. We have caught them. And so flip the lights on, let the
sunlight of transparency shine on all of his sins. Punch it
through their firewalls and let the 143 million Russian people
know everything about Vladimir Putin and what his circle has
done.
Mr. Suozzi. So, we have figured it out and we have seen the
intelligence community's reports on this, the unclassified
ones. But you think that there is even more that we can figure
out and tie more of these connections together if we were to do
this type of investigation?
Ambassador Bloomfield. You have to ask yourself why the
Russians, the Iranians, the Chinese spend so much time and
effort, and they create commands to oversee the internet and
television and create propaganda channels. They have a huge
investment and they invest in the information space that is not
public. It is not free. There is a reason for that.
Mr. Suozzi. We have to fight them with the truth. As you
have been saying all day here today, transparency.
So I only have a minute left. So, Mr. Doran?
Mr. Doran. When it comes to disinformation and propaganda a
magic trick is only magic as long as you can't see the slight
of hand. Revealing Russia's slight of hand on propaganda is the
best way that we could push back against disinformation.
Mr. Suozzi. So you are leaving it up to the committee but
you are encouraging us to dig further. So further
investigation, further information, independence, find out what
is going on, expose the trick that they are doing.
Ambassador?
Ambassador Baer. I mean, I agree with the some of the
statements that have been made so far. I think we need to keep
the punishments that we have already put in place and be
assessing whether additional punishments are necessary. And
that can be part of the work of this committee or a
recommendation of an independent commission. And I think we
should be sitting down with our European colleagues, both in
government and in civil society, and thinking practically about
next steps to help them build their resilience of their
society.
Mr. Suozzi. I would argue that more punishment is necessary
and we need to do more. But at the same time, recognizing what
some of my colleagues said, we don't want a war. We don't want
to destroy Russia because, you know, we don't want more chaos.
We want them to be stable. But they have to know they can't
mess with us like this.
Thank you so much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Royce. Thank you.
Mr. Espaillat of New York.
Mr. Espaillat. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member
Engel for hosting this overdue briefing. I also want to thank
the witnesses for their expert testimony.
Though I will admit that this is not the briefing that I
think we should be having. In fact, I am convinced that my
constituents and the American people want a hearing about who
enabled the Russians to interfere with our democracy and our
electoral process. They really want to know did our Attorney
General meet with Russian, with the Russian Ambassador during
the past election and what for.
They may also want to know did members of the President
Trump's campaign team meet with the Russians and for what
reasons did they do that? Or did the President himself meet
with the Russian Ambassador during or prior to his campaign and
for what? Did anyone collude, conspire, or enable the Russians
to break the law and influence the results of our election? I
think that is what the American people want to know.
Disinformation is certainly an issue, and one that we see
in the U.S. as well. Putin has Russia Today and Trump has
Breitbart. As an American, I am mortified to learn that a
foreign government with a history of hostility has committed
criminal acts to undermine the cornerstone of who we are as a
nation, our democracy. I echo my Democratic colleagues because
I don't think that we can overstate this, that we need a 9/11-
style commission. We need a sanctions response. DOJ needs to
appoint a special prosecutor, one that, unlike the Attorney
General, is independent, with no links associated with Russia.
I have some questions and I would appreciate if you can
just give me a yes or no answer because I think they are
critical to the content of what I have just explained.
My first question is, do any of you know how many meetings
took place between Russian officials and former Trump campaign
officials that are now part of the Trump administration? Mr.
President?
President Ilves. No.
Mr. Espaillat. Ambassador?
Ambassador Bloomfield. No.
Mr. Espaillat. Mr. Doran?
Mr. Doran. None.
Mr. Espaillat. Ambassador?
Ambassador Baer. No.
Mr. Espaillat. My second question is do you know if any of
Trumps campaign officials and/or associates met with Russians
during the past election? Mr. President?
President Ilves. No.
Mr. Espaillat. Ambassador?
Ambassador Bloomfield. No.
Mr. Espaillat. Mr. Doran?
Mr. Doran. None.
Mr. Espaillat. Ambassador?
Ambassador Baer. No.
Mr. Espaillat. And finally, do you know if President Trump
himself, as it was reported recently in the news, met with the
Russian Ambassador at any time prior or during his campaign?
Mr. President?
President Ilves. No.
Mr. Espaillat. Ambassador?
Ambassador Bloomfield. No.
Mr. Espaillat. Mr. Doran?
Mr. Doran. No.
Mr. Espaillat. Ambassador?
Ambassador Baer. No.
Mr. Espaillat. Well, these are questions that we must have
answers to. I believe very strongly that this crisis is as
serious as the Cuban Missile Crisis. There may not be any
missiles involved in this, but there is a clear attempt to
undermine and destroy our democracy. And during the Cuban
Missile Crisis you had two major figures. You had Nikita
Khrushchev, who allegedly pounded his shoe at the U.N. Plenary
Session in 1960. And, of course, Vladimir Putin has a different
approach, his passive-aggressive approach. He may not pound his
shoe but his intent is to dismantle and discredit our
democracy.
The other great figure in that debate was President John
Fitzgerald Kennedy, who I think outflanked the former Soviet
Union and avoided a nuclear holocaust. And, of course, our
President is no Jack Kennedy.
But this is a serious crisis, as serious as the Cuban
Missile Crisis. And we need to know who enabled the Russians to
hijack our democratic process. This is something that we must
do. And I hope that we can convene another hearing where we
will be able to subpoena, if necessary, Mr. Chairman, the folks
that may have the answer to these questions that this
distinguished panel could not answer.
I want to thank the panel for their expert testimony. But I
think at the core of this debate is the American public's need
to know who tried to hijack our democracy. We need those
answers. And we need to bring a group of witnesses here and, if
necessary, to subpoena them to come in and give us the answers
to those critical questions.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Royce. Thank you.
We go to Norma Torres of California.
Ms. Torres. Thank you very much, Chairman Royce. And thank
you for working together with Ranking Member Engel to bring us
together to talk about one of what I hope to be the first
hearings on how Russia interfered in our election. I certainly
hope that this dialog will continue.
The hour is late and I want to thank, you know, everyone
who is here, our panelists. I thank you for being so patient
with all of us.
I truly believe that we need to more fully understand how
Russia interfered in our election. Russian intelligence
accessed elements of multiple state and local electoral boards.
Since early 2014, Russian intelligence has researched U.S.
electoral processes and related technology and equipment. I
feel like we are speaking in two different languages because
much of that information has been kept, you know, under lock
and key in a very classified room. But our electorate, our
voters need to know what happened.
And that is why I will join my colleagues in calling on an
independent fact finding investigation, a commission of some
sort, something like the 9/11 Commission. It doesn't have to be
specifically that. But we need to figure out how did Russian
agents, whether working, you know, with one or more than one
campaign, how did they interfere in our election? We need the
Department of Justice to appoint a special prosecutor to
investigate.
Ambassador Baer, in your testimony you state that we need a
comprehensive independent review of what occurred. And I wanted
to talk a little bit about what that review board will look
like and what sort of questions could be asked and what sort of
fact finding information we should be looking for?
For instance, should such a review include questions about
the extent to which our state electoral boards were
compromised? We know that the FBI provided some support to our
secretaries of state. We know that in a couple of cases they
have also sent a team of half a dozen or a dozen investigators
to look at exactly how that data was or was not manipulated.
Can you comment on that?
What could we task this non-partisan commission to work?
And what should be our priority? Should our priority be the DNC
personal emails? Or should our priority be protecting our
electoral elections for future elections?
Ambassador Baer. Thank you, Congresswoman, for the
question.
I think my answer to the question would be that if I were
designing the mandate for an independent commission of some
sort I would make it relatively broad. Because I think part of
what we don't know is what we don't know. And I think you want
to give the commission the ability to direct their
investigatory efforts, their fact finding efforts, and to
redirect that as they learn more about what has happened. And I
think the focus should be on foreign, and at this point
particularly Russian, efforts to undermine the integrity of our
elections, either through the manipulation of the public sphere
or through technical means.
I think one of the things that has come out--and I worked
very closely with the National Association of Secretaries of
State during the run-up to our elections because the OSCE
actually sends people to learn about how good elections, to
observe our elections and see how they work--you know, one of
the things we saw is that a number of state election boards had
had cyber incidents. The fact that the United States has a very
decentralized system of running, managing the actual counting,
et cetera, of ballots makes us actually fairly well-defended
against a massive cyberattack against our electoral system.
I think at this point, from what we know and the conclusion
of our intel community, the bulk of the influence operation was
aimed at the issues that we have been discussing today in terms
of hacking and disinformation. But I wouldn't think----
Ms. Torres. Well, we also know that they spent a lot of
resources in learning about the different types of electoral
systems across the U.S. So given that we know that, what kind
of expertise is needed for such a board to be able to conduct
that type of information research?
Ambassador Baer. I think we would, I think if I were
designing it, again, I would give it a broad mandate. I would
hope to have a mix of expertise on the board. And I would give
the board latitude to bring in additional expertise as needed
as the work proceeds. Because I think you want to make sure
that if we are going to go through this, which will necessarily
have resource costs as well as political costs--let's be
realistic--you want to make sure that it has the best chance of
success, where success is, as Assistant Secretary Bloomfield
said, something that will contribute to the progress and the
integrity of our democracy going forward and enable the
American citizens to have confidence in that.
Ms. Torres. Thank you. My time has expired. I yield back
and hope to continue this conversation with all of you.
Chairman Royce. Thank you.
We go now to Mr. Ted Lieu of California.
Mr. Lieu. Thank you, Chairman Royce and Ranking Member
Engel for holding this hearing.
I think for many Americans Russia is confusing because
there are so many things going on. So I thought it would be
helpful to just boil it down to just three things.
We do know that Russia launched a massive cyberattack last
year and influence campaign to undermine faith in the U.S.
democracy, help Trump win, hurt Secretary Clinton. It is an
unclassified intelligence report that anybody can go on Google
and read.
I read the classified intelligence report. I went to
classified briefings. I can say from my perspective as a
computer science major there is clear and convincing evidence
to support the conclusions of the unclassified report. So, we
have the Russian attack on America.
The second thing we have is we have now these numerous
covert meetings between Trump campaign officials and the
Russians that they had lied about having. And, Ambassador
Bloomfield, I did read the Rolling Stone article. It is true
there is a lot of smoke. We don't know what was said in those
meetings. It is possible in all these secret meetings they were
talking about the lovely weather in America. It is possible
they were not.
The third thing we do know is we also, perhaps, have a
motive for why there would be collusion which has to do with
massive global business holdings of the President of the United
States. He may have business holdings in Russia. Why do we not
know if he does or doesn't? Because he doesn't release his tax
returns. That is deeply disturbing.
When the framers of the Constitution set up our
constitution they set put in Article 1, Section 9, Clause 8,
called the Emoluments Clause that says you can't have foreign
conflicts of interest that result in payments or gifts because
they viewed foreign influence as one of the greatest dangers to
our republic.
So, Ambassador Baer, I want to ask you, when you were
Ambassador and had these 50 different countries, were you ever
worried about the President's business interests or what other
interests the President might have in relation to those
countries?
Ambassador Baer. I only served as Ambassador under
President Obama. And I had no concerns about President Obama's
business interests.
Mr. Lieu. If you were Ambassador today would you find it
concerning if the current President of the United States had
massive undisclosed business interests in Russia?
Ambassador Baer. I think it is in the interest of the
President of the United States to have as much confidence as
possible from the American people. And I think the release of
tax returns is something that past Presidents have done
uniformly in an effort to demonstrate the transparency and the
sincerity of their commitment to the tasks of the office rather
than to any other interests.
Mr. Lieu. Thank you. I have always believed that where
there is smoke there is fire. And there is a lot of smoke right
now, which is why I join my colleagues in a call for a 9/11-
style bipartisan commission to look at the Trump/Russia ties.
I also join my colleague, who is a Republican from San
Diego, as well as other colleagues here who are Democrats, in
calling for a special prosecutor.
Something else that happened this last weekend that I find
enormously, deeply disturbing. President Trump, who has access
to the highest levels of intelligence, told the American public
that Trump Tower was wiretapped. What that means is that U.S.
intelligence officials believe that agents of a foreign power
were at Trump Tower. It also means an independent FISA court
judge, appointed by Chief Justice Roberts, sat there, reviewed
the evidence, and concluded there was probable cause to believe
agents of a foreign power were at Trump Tower. That is what
Donald Trump's tweet means.
So I take President Trump at his word. And I join Senator
Lindsey Graham in requesting investigations and documents into
this issue because the American public needs to know why would
U.S. officials and an independent judge believe there were
agents of a foreign power at Trump Tower. So this issue of
collusion is so threatening to our republic we can't just sort
of hide this under the rug.
And it also has real life and death consequences. Just
today we learned that the President of the United States, with
no debate in Congress, sent additional conventional ground
troops to Syria to help assault a city, Raqqa. This is a huge
escalation of the war in Syria now that we are using
conventional ground forces.
What if these U.S. troops run into the Russians? What is
our policy? What are we going to do? What is our end stake in
Syria where there are Russians sitting there who have a
different view than in the U.S.? This measure in particular has
no strategy. So not only do we have possible collusions, we
have actions that are going to directly confront Russia. And it
is time for the President and this administration to come
clean.
I yield back.
Chairman Royce. I want to thank all of our witnesses for
their excellent testimony today. There is a strong consensus
that Russia is aggressively seeking to undermine Western
democracies. We have critical European elections coming up. It
is essential that we must be as effective as possible working
to counter these Russian efforts, and this must be done in
unison with our allies.
As I mentioned in my opening statement, we will continue
working on reforming our international broadcasting efforts.
Bad information must be combated with accurate information.
Many concerns were expressed about Russian meddling in our
2016 Presidential elections. This is an established fact. We
are all concerned about Russia's past, current, and future
efforts. Our democracy is under attack and needs to be
aggressively protected. We all agree that is absolutely
essential.
That is why the Speaker of the House has tasked the House
Intelligence Committee to continue its investigation of Russian
meddling, including contacts with individuals associated with
political campaigns. This is a bipartisan investigation. The
chairman is a Republican, the ranking member is a Democrat. It
is an investigation by a committee that will have access to
highly classified material. It will hear from administration
officials. Importantly, it will meet in public session. It will
meet in public session later this month. And it will issue a
report.
This committee will continue its focus on Russia and its
aggression.
I thank the ranking member and, again, I thank the
witnesses for their time.
This hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 1:25 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
Material Submitted for the Record
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Material submitted for the record by Mr. Peter B. Doran, executive vice
president, Center for European Policy Analysis
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Note: The entire report is not reprinted here but may be found on the
Internet at: http://docs.house.gov/Committee/Calendar/
ByEvent.aspx?EventID=105674
Material submitted for the record by the Honorable Scott Perry, a
Representative in Congress from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Note: The entire report is not reprinted here but may be found on the
Internet at: http://docs.house.gov/Committee/Calendar/
ByEvent.aspx?EventID=105674
Material submitted for the record by the Honorable Brad Sherman, a
Representative in Congress from the State of California
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Material submitted for the record by the Honorable Thomas A. Garrett,
Jr., a Representative in Congress from the Commonwealth of Virginia
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Material submitted for the record by the Honorable David Cicilline, a
Representative in Congress from the State of Rhode Island
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Note: The entire report is not reprinted here but may be found on the
Internet at: http://docs.house.gov/Committee/Calendar/
ByEvent.aspx?EventID=105674
Material submitted for the record by the Honorable David Cicilline, a
Representative in Congress from the State of Rhode Island
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]