    [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]