[Senate Hearing 118-16]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


                                                           S. Hrg. 118-16

                   U.S. NATIONAL SECURITY INTERESTS IN UKRAINE

=======================================================================

                                 HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

                     COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS
                          UNITED STATES SENATE

                    ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                               __________

                            NOVEMBER 8, 2023

                               __________


       Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Relations

[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


                  Available via http://www.govinfo.gov
                  
                               __________

                   U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE                    
55-027 PDF                  WASHINGTON : 2024                    
          
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------     

                 COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS        

             BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland, Chairman        
ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey            JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho
JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire          MARCO RUBIO, Florida
CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, Delaware         MITT ROMNEY, Utah
CHRISTOPHER MURPHY, Connecticut        PETE RICKETTS, Nebraska
TIM KAINE, Virginia                    RAND PAUL, Kentucky
JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon                   TODD YOUNG, Indiana
CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey             JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming
BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii                   TED CRUZ, Texas
CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland             BILL HAGERTY, Tennessee
TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois              TIM SCOTT, South Carolina
                Damian Murphy, Staff Director          
       Christopher M. Socha, Republican Staff Director          
                   John Dutton, Chief Clerk          



                              (ii)        

  
                         C  O  N  T  E  N  T  S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page

Cardin, Hon. Benjamin L.. U.S. Senator From Maryland.............     1

Risch, Hon. James E., U.S. Senator From Idaho....................     2

O'Brien, Hon. James, Assistant Secretary, European and Eurasian 
  Affairs, United States Department of State, Washington, DC.....     5
    Prepared Statement...........................................     7

Pyatt, Hon. Geoffrey R., Assistant Secretary, Energy Resources, 
  United States Department of State, Washington, DC..............     8
    Prepared Statement...........................................    10

McKee, Hon. Erin, Assistant Administrator, Europe and Eurasia, 
  United States Agency for International Development, Washington, 
  DC.............................................................    11
    Prepared Statement...........................................    13

              Additional Material Submitted for the Record

Responses of Mr. James O'Brien to Questions Submitted by Senator 
  James E. Risch.................................................    42

Responses of Mr. Geoffrey R. Pyatt to Questions Submitted by 
  Senator James E. Risch.........................................    52

Responses of Ms. Erin McKee to Questions Submitted by Senator 
  James E. Risch.................................................    56

Responses of Mr. James O'Brien to Questions Submitted by Senator 
  Tim Scott......................................................    61

                                 (iii)



 
                   U.S. NATIONAL SECURITY INTERESTS 
                               IN UKRAINE

                              ----------                              


                      WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 8, 2023

                                       U.S. Senate,
                            Committee on Foreign Relations,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:00 a.m., in 
room SD-419, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Benjamin J. 
Cardin presiding.
    Present: Senators Cardin [presiding], Menendez, Shaheen, 
Coons, Murphy, Kaine, Merkley, Booker, Schatz, Van Hollen, 
Duckworth, Risch, Rubio, Romney, Ricketts, Paul, Young, and 
Barrasso.

         OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, 
                   U.S. SENATOR FROM MARYLAND

    The Chairman. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee will 
come to order.
    Although the headlines may be focused elsewhere, brave 
determined Ukrainians are still battling to defend their 
homeland against Russian troops. They are fighting not only for 
their country, but on the front lines against one of the 
world's most dangerous aggressors.
    On this side of those headlines the United States and 
Europe are standing with Ukraine. On the other side is a 
network of American adversaries working to undermine the ideals 
of rules-based international order.
    Two of the most dangerous and brutal dictatorships in the 
world, Iran and North Korea, have joined forces with Putin to 
support Russia's war efforts, Iran by building factories in 
Russia to pump out new drones, North Korea by sending munitions 
to help Putin rearm his forces. At its core this is a war of 
ideals.
    Ukraine is fighting for freedom and the right to choose 
their own destiny through democratically-elected institutions. 
Russia is not only fighting to erase the Ukraine nation as we 
know it. If Putin succeeds, he will be turning back the clock 
on international law around the world.
    The stakes could not be higher. With time of the essence I 
want to thank all of our witnesses for appearing before us 
today. I know that each of you and your teams are doing 
incredible work in the face of very challenging circumstances.
    I hope this hearing provides a chance to talk about why 
Russia's war of aggression in Ukraine remains an urgent and 
dangerous threat to United States' security interests, why the 
partnership between the United States and Ukraine is so 
critical, and why the Senate must pass supplemental funding for 
Ukraine along with Israel, Taiwan, and other priorities.
    This supplemental funding will strengthen governance and 
anti-corruption assistance. It will improve the resilience of 
our economies and our energy supply. It will support efforts to 
come out on the other side of this war ready for Ukraine to 
join EU and also NATO.
    This investment in Ukraine goes far beyond its borders. By 
degrading Russia's military capabilities, we are also degrading 
the capabilities of those who Russia works with like Iran, 
Hamas, and Hezbollah.
    We see these actors in concert, not in isolation, which is 
why we need to consider the whole supplemental package.
    In short, providing this funding is not a case of 
assistance or charity. Without any American troops on the 
ground, Ukraine fighters have already exposed Russia's 
weaknesses and its failures. Continued funding is vitally 
important for our partners, for our allies, and for reaffirming 
America's leadership.
    Moreover, the Biden administration has been very careful 
with the American taxpayer dollars we have invested thus far in 
Ukraine. U.S. personnel on the ground in Ukraine are focused on 
oversight including three inspector generals.
    Last week, Ambassador Brink told Fox News that no American-
provided assistance including security assistance, humanitarian 
assistance, or direct budgetary support has been used for 
anything other than its intended purpose.
    Finally, helping Ukraine strengthens America's credibility 
with our allies. It shows our partners we are reliable to stand 
by their side when times get tough and it puts the United 
States on the right side of history, defending the liberty and 
sovereignty of Ukraine in the face of brutal unprovoked Russian 
aggression.
    To our witnesses, I hope you will tell us your thoughts on 
the importance of passing a supplemental funding request, the 
urgency of passing that, and the importance to the United 
States security interest.
    I am optimistic we are going to pass a supplemental, but I 
would like to hear what you think the effects of the delay 
would be. I look forward to your testimony.
    Let me turn it over to my friend and my colleague, Senator 
Risch.

               STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES E. RISCH, 
                    U.S. SENATOR FROM IDAHO

    Senator Risch. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and to 
the witnesses I want to join the chairman in thanking you. You 
have an important job in helping everyone come together on this 
issue and do what is right for the American people and for 
national security.
    It is important for this committee and the American people 
to fully understand how Russia's war in Ukraine affects 
American security. This is different from simply making the 
case for supporting Ukraine as it fights for freedom.
    This is a balancing matter that all of us who work in 
national security must work towards. We are not and we cannot 
be the policemen of the world.
    On the other hand, it is also important that we always keep 
an eye on what is happening in other countries, particularly 
with countries friendly to us and ones who enter into defense 
agreements with us.
    It is incredibly important. We all know there is a number 
of wars going on in the world. We are not participating in the 
vast majority of them, but we do have to participate when our 
national security demands it.
    I hope our witnesses can be crystal clear with us about the 
realities on the ground in Ukraine and what a Russian victory 
would mean for America's national security and economic 
prosperity.
    I hope you will talk about our defense agreements and the 
importance of those defense agreements and the alliances that 
we make and how those alliances affect our national security 
and how our reputation affects how those defense agreements are 
carried out.
    There is global competition for power and influence. 
Russia, Iran, and China are all trying to weaken the United 
States and are intent on dominating regions that are vital to 
our interests--Europe, Middle East and Asia.
    In that vein, I hope you as witnesses can lay out Russia's 
linkages with Hamas and Hezbollah and the deepening ties among 
Russia, Iran, and China.
    It is more and more evident that our enemies are working 
together against the United States and our allies. They have 
the same basic goal, to undermine American leadership and 
eliminate the basic freedoms that help the entire world 
prosper.
    The attacks against Israel have highlighted the connection 
between these actors. The Biden administration has refused to 
enforce sanctions against Iran, which has allowed more than $80 
billion to flow from China to Iran.
    This money Iran has used not to help its people, but to 
finance weapons given to Hamas and to Russia. Russia has helped 
Iran improve its drones and missiles, the very weapons used 
against Israelis and Russia's proxy, Wagner, has offered to 
equip Hamas.
    We cannot help Israel without confronting these realities. 
Sadly, the Administration thought it could embrace Iran, failed 
to enforce Iran oil sanctions and unfreeze funds with no 
impacts on our efforts in Ukraine and in Russia. No wonder Iran 
felt free to send weapons to Russian warehouses.
    Chinese purchases of Iran oil and Russian gas help both 
countries to circumvent international sanctions and 
increasingly we are seeing growing alignment between these 
actors in multilateral meetings as they present themselves as a 
credible alternative to the West.
    The Administration should connect these dots and 
synchronize strategies, but such connections have been really 
lacking in recent years. I have been asking the Administration 
for some time now to clearly articulate with details its goals 
in supporting Ukraine.
    The American people deserve this clarity and yet we have 
not heard it. We need details and reasons and I hope you will 
provide that today.
    I hope to hear a frank assessment of success and failures 
on both the Russian and Ukrainian sides and the layout of the 
military capacities and the needs of both sides. You need to 
paint a clear picture of how and what Ukraine needs to win this 
war and explain the President's requested supplemental package, 
how it is designed to address those needs and help them achieve 
their goal.
    I have been very satisfied with the quality and the level 
of oversight that we, the U.S. Government, has had over our aid 
to Ukraine. I am, however, very much unhappy with the way that 
has been not produced to the American people and I would hope 
you will talk a little bit about that.
    Members of this committee held a meeting with the inspector 
generals who laid out for us what they have done from the 
beginning and that their efforts are incredibly well done.
    Corruption with U.S. dollars will not be tolerated and I am 
glad to see detailed information that gives me confidence that 
our money is being used appropriately. The IGs provided that 
information.
    Technology and new approaches to oversight have also 
allowed the U.S. military to maintain unprecedented levels of 
accountability over our weapons. Inspectors general from State, 
USAID, and the Defense Department had been very open with this 
committee about their investigations and we should all thank 
them for their work.
    The United States faces grave risks and the world is going 
to become more dangerous. We are seeing multiple independent 
threats to U.S. national security converging. In the case of 
Russia and Ukraine, I fear the Administration has no plan and 
if there is one, it is long past time that we heard it.
    I sincerely hope you will fully address these concerns in 
your discussions today.
    With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back to you.
    The Chairman. Let me thank Senator Risch.
    I hope you can take from our opening comments that the two 
of us are committed to do everything we can to help Ukraine and 
to provide the type of assistance and leadership in the United 
States to demonstrate that not only to Ukraine, but to the 
international community.
    I look forward to working with Senator Risch and the 
members of this committee in order to--for our actions to 
reflect that objective.
    We have three witnesses today. I want to first thank each 
of them for their public service, their commitment to what they 
do, and they are extremely engaged and spending a great deal of 
their efforts to help America and we thank you very much for 
that.
    Your entire statements will be made part of our record. We 
will ask that you try to summarize in about 5 minutes.
    Let me introduce you in the order in which you will present 
your testimony.
    First, Assistant Secretary of State for European and 
Eurasia Affairs James O'Brien. Assistant Secretary O'Brien 
assumed his role just last month after serving as sanctions 
coordinator at the State Department.
    He is a former career employee of the Department, receiving 
numerous performance awards and served two previous U.S. 
administrations as Special Presidential Envoy for hostages and 
for the Balkans. His long and successful career has allowed him 
to hit the ground running.
    Next would be Assistant Secretary for Energy Resources 
Geoffrey R. Pyatt. No stranger to this committee, career 
diplomat Assistant Secretary Pyatt has been in his current role 
since September 2022. He served as U.S. Ambassador to Greece 
and Ukraine. He has held numerous leadership positions 
throughout the Department and won numerous awards.
    Our third witness is Assistant Administrator Erin McKee who 
serves as the Assistant Administrator in the Bureau of Europe 
and Eurasia at USAID. Prior to this position she was the U.S. 
Ambassador to Papua New Guinea and to the Solomon Islands.
    Prior to her ambassador appointments as a member of the 
Senior Foreign Service she served in numerous leadership roles 
throughout USAID and the embassies abroad. Before her U.S. 
Government career, she developed private sector experience 
including throughout the former Soviet Union.
    We will start with Secretary O'Brien.

STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES O'BRIEN, ASSISTANT SECRETARY, EUROPEAN 
   AND EURASIAN AFFAIRS, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE, 
                         WASHINGTON, DC

    Mr. O'Brien. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member, 
for the strong statements of support. I will try to address 
four questions that I hope will lay the framework for what we 
are discussing today and provide some detail.
    The first is why Ukraine, and I think you have begun to 
touch on this, but it is--Ukraine is a place where we are on 
the cutting edge of freedom today. Since World War II, America 
has worked to widen the range of freedom, but also of stability 
on the European continent.
    This is the base from which we work around the world along 
with our allies in Korea, Japan, Australia, New Zealand. This 
is stability as opposed to the 100 years before we began this 
effort when Europe was a source of instability that forced 
America into two world wars.
    It is also about standing up for core human values. These 
are not just lines on a map. Ask the citizens of Bucha and 
Irpin about the torture and human rights abuses they suffered 
or the children stolen from their parents in the areas Russia 
seeks to annex.
    With all of those things we feel it is very important we 
work there and we work in Ukraine, but this is also the core 
foundation of America's strength around the world, the 
coalition that we are leading with regard to Ukraine and that 
Ukraine hopes to join.
    That is the basis from which we will confront threats to 
the international order, whether they emanate from the European 
space or the Indo-Pacific space, going forward. If we turn our 
backs here, we are turning our backs on those who would 
confront us around the globe.
    Secondly, how does what we are discussing now help Ukraine 
win? Well, there will be in other settings--maybe classified 
settings to discuss military tactics, but it is clear President 
Putin is now playing a waiting game. He thinks if he can wait 
for our elections or for Ukraine to get tired that then he can 
survive.
    As Secretary Blinken said today, what we need to do are 
several things at the same time. We need Ukraine to continue 
fighting and thrive while this war goes on and to soften 
Russia's hold on parts of Ukraine so that when the decisive 
battles come they are able to fight effectively.
    How do we do that? Well, the supplemental we have proposed 
goes for through the end of our fiscal year in the fall of 2024 
and sets Ukraine up to thrive through 2024.
    It also provides an answer to the all-out war that Putin is 
waging against Ukraine. Let me just offer one example. This is 
around the Black Sea and Crimea.
    Ukraine has, through its own ingenuity and with weapons 
that have been provided, loosened Russia's grip. Russia tried 
to blockade the ability of Ukraine to export, but now Ukraine 
is starting to export more grain, more metals, and this is 
enabling it to pay for more of its war itself.
    Just a few numbers as we go through this. Ukraine is hoping 
to get about 8 million tons of grain and metals out through the 
Black Sea over the course of the next year. If it does that it 
will provide about $5 billion to $6 billion more for its tax 
base than it has now. That helps to make up the shortfall that 
our supplemental will cover for the meantime.
    It also then provides the employment for millions of its 
citizens to work within Ukraine. Now, that is a path to victory 
where we help Ukraine by providing assistance to have its 
energy grid strengthened, air defense over its employment 
centers and the export routes it needs so that it is able to 
fight this fight over the long term and to hold Russia off 
thereafter.
    The military assistance in the supplemental is about $45 
billion. That goes to acquire American equipment that Ukraine 
will then use to pay for American service people to support 
Ukraine and to pay other countries to acquire American 
equipment after they provide equipment to Ukraine.
    The direct budget support that we provide to Ukraine 
enables Ukraine to put all of its tax dollars to support the 
war. Ukraine pays for about 60 percent of the costs of this war 
right now.
    The direct budget support pays for hundreds of thousands of 
educators, first responders, firefighters, and health care 
professionals to work within Ukraine. That is what the 
supplemental does.
    Who wins if we do not do this? President Putin says if we 
walk away Ukraine falls in a week. As you both mentioned in 
your opening statements, President Putin has hosted Hamas 
recently in Moscow, the President of the DPRK, and he has 
visited China. That is the coalition that is against us. That 
is who wins if we walk away.
    The next question is who is with us. We have more than 40 
countries. They provide much more assistance to Ukraine than we 
do. It is about $91 billion to our $70 billion so far. They 
have hosted 4.5 million Ukrainian refugees at a cost of around 
$18 billion.
    They are proposing another $50 billion in assistance just 
from the European Union. That is who is with us. That is our 
foundation for global reach and that is who we have to stand 
with as we go forward.
    Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member, I have always been taught 
if you leave when a job is half done you are going to have to 
go back and do it again. Right now Ukrainians are willing to do 
this job because it is in their territory.
    If we abandon them then somebody else is going to have to 
do this job later and it is likely to be us. I would rather 
confront Russia and its destabilizing attitudes right here, 
right now and we can finish the job with the supplemental that 
we have proposed for your consideration.
    Thank you, and I look forward to the questions.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. O'Brien follows:]

                Prepared Statement of Mr. James O'Brien

    Chairman Cardin, Ranking Member Risch, distinguished members of the 
Committee: When Putin launched his full-scale invasion of Ukraine on 
February 24, 2022, he was not just attacking a neighbor, he was testing 
the world's resolve to defend the most basic of principles: that 
sovereign nations cannot have their borders changed unilaterally by 
others, that dictators cannot be allowed to punish countries for 
seeking closer ties with the United States and other democracies, that 
the United States will stand up when the freedom of our friends and 
Allies is threatened. The United States and our friends and Allies have 
joined together to help Ukraine fight off Russia's invasion because we 
know that if Putin is not defeated in Ukraine, he will not stop in 
Ukraine. If he is not stopped in Ukraine, he will not be the only one 
we will need to stop. That is what is at stake.
    For almost 2 years, the Ukrainian people have not only fought 
against the Russian invasion, they are retaking land Russia seized in 
its initial onslaught. The campaign to take back Ukrainian territory 
has been dramatic at times--as it was when Ukrainian forces routed 
Russian forces in Kharkiv last fall--but it has more often been 
painstaking and hard-fought--as we are seeing in Zaporizhzhya today. 
But make no mistake: the strategic momentum is with Ukraine. With the 
assistance that we and others have provided, Ukrainian forces are 
making their way forward, perhaps slowly but most definitely. Ukrainian 
forces have used Western weapons to great effect against Russian 
forces: Ukraine has liberated a significant part of its territory 
initially seized by Russia. It destroyed thousands of Russian tanks and 
combat vehicles as well as hundreds of aircraft, and Russia has 
suffered a significant loss of combat power.
    Our assistance in this war is has a significant impact--and Putin 
knows it. The only ``hope'' for Putin--and other would-be aggressors--
is that the United States will falter, lose focus, and forget that what 
happens to Ukraine matters for our own security and pre-eminence. For 
that reason, both our friends and our foes are watching Ukraine and 
drawing lessons about American power and resolve.
    That is why the extraordinary bipartisan support of Congress and 
the American people for Ukraine matters so much.
    Ukraine's fight for freedom does not occur in isolation. There are 
clear links between the conflicts in Ukraine and the Middle East. Both 
represent brutal assaults by actors determined to wipe democracies off 
the map. Both are worsened by Russia's increasing dependence on 
military supplies from, and willingness to share advanced military 
technology with, Iran and the DPRK as well as dual-use technologies 
from PRC entities. It would be a serious mistake to underestimate the 
ramifications of our withholding support from Ukraine now to our 
reputation among European and NATO Allies, and our partners in Asia and 
the Middle East. Allowing Russia to prevail in Ukraine would embolden 
both Moscow and Tehran, as well as America's other adversaries and 
competitors such as the PRC, as they calculate the costs and 
consequences of future acts of aggression.
    The United States is also not alone in supporting Ukraine. American 
leadership has motivated more than 50 countries, with European allies 
at the fore, to contribute significant, sustained support to Ukraine. 
In fact, European countries now provide two-thirds of Ukraine's budget 
support, nearly half of the humanitarian assistance to Ukrainians, and 
billions more to welcome 5.8 million Ukrainian refugees hosted by 
European countries. Our leadership is the essential, indispensable 
ingredient.
    As we provide assistance to Ukraine, we should be mindful of the 
impact here at home. We have charged our own defense industrial base to 
step up munitions production across the country, resulting in increased 
defense capacity and higher U.S. employment. When we send Ukraine 
equipment from DoD stockpiles, we then replace it with newer, even more 
effective equipment--equipment that defends America and is made in 
America. Patriot missiles for air defense batteries, made in Arizona. 
Artillery shells manufactured in 12 states across the country, 
including Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Texas. The overall supplemental 
request invests more than $50 billion in the American defense 
industrial base, expanding production lines, strengthening the American 
economy, and creating hundreds of new American jobs. Specifically, a 
$44 billion Defense Department request would result in up to $30 
billion going to buy American-made weapons for Ukraine and to replenish 
our stocks, $5 billion would support our troops deployed overseas, and 
$2.7 billion would expand U.S. production capacity. That means almost 
all of that money would be invested in American jobs.
    Our support is crucial to keep Ukraine in the fight--and not just 
our military support. Our economic assistance is keeping the lights on 
in Ukraine even as Putin attacks Ukraine's electrical systems. Our 
direct budget support keeps firefighters, first responders, and medical 
teams on the job ready to respond when Putin bombs Ukrainian cities. 
Our funds keep Ukrainian grain flowing to hungry people worldwide 
despite Putin's attacks on Ukrainian ports. Our economic programs help 
build the private sector that Ukraine will need to drive its recovery 
and reduce dependence on donors.
    As we support Ukraine on the battlefield and provide humanitarian 
and emergency budget support, we and other friends and Allies are 
helping Ukraine's economy get back up on its feet and, over the long 
run, thrive. In September, President Biden named former Commerce 
Secretary Penny Pritzker to lead the effort to bolster critical 
sectors; foster investment; guarantee that it is setting itself on 
stable in terms of state revenue; encourage the reforms that are not 
only necessary for investment but required for Ukraine to join the 
European Union; and push allies to do even more on the economic front.
    In short, the support of the Congress and the American people 
through this supplement provides us with the means to ensure that 
Putin's invasion of Ukraine is not able to metastasize into a threat 
against the United States and our NATO Allies, and delivers a clear 
message to our friends and foes about U.S. leadership, power, and 
resolve when it comes to the fight for freedom. We must remain true to 
the sacred sacrifice, quiet bravery, and strategic focus of past 
generations of Americans who refused to let dictators chart the course 
of events in Europe and across the globe.
    Thank you, and I stand ready to take your questions.

    The Chairman. Thank you for your testimony.
    Secretary Pyatt.

   STATEMENT OF HON. GEOFFREY R. PYATT, ASSISTANT SECRETARY, 
     ENERGY RESOURCES, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE, 
                         WASHINGTON, DC

    Mr. Pyatt. Chairman Cardin, Ranking Member Risch, members 
of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to discuss the 
importance of continuing the United States' support to Ukraine.
    For over a year Vladimir Putin has tried to break the will 
of the Ukrainian people through attacks on energy 
infrastructure, seeking to achieve through missile and Iranian 
drone strikes on civilian targets what Russia's troops have 
failed to achieve on the battlefield.
    In response, working closely with our G-7 partners, the 
private sector, and humanitarian groups we have worked to help 
Ukraine keep the lights on and houses warm, ensuring that 
Putin's effort to weaponize the winter ends in failure.
    For Ukraine, this coming winter promises to be even more 
challenging than the last. Ukraine's generation capacity has 
degraded about 50 percent since the start of the war.
    Ukrainian energy workers have labored day and night often 
under fire to repair, restore, and harden grid and generation 
facilities, often by cannibalizing parts from elsewhere, but 
most spare parts by now have been consumed and Russia has 
recently resumed its bombardment of power plants and refineries 
including just this morning in eastern Ukraine.
    During the November 22 NATO ministerial in Bucharest, 
Secretary of State Blinken launched a new coordination group of 

G-7+ states to mobilize and coordinate broad support for the 
restoration of Ukraine's power grid.
    Since then, my team in the Bureau of Energy Resources has 
convened more than 40 meetings of this group at various levels 
to include three chaired by Secretary Blinken.
    We mobilized resources to repair the damage Putin had 
inflicted, identified partners who had equipment that could be 
repurposed, and reached out to manufacturers and governments 
about needs identified by Ukraine.
    Since February of 2022, thanks to congressional action on 
prior supplementals, the United States has mobilized $520 
million in energy sector funding.
    Led by colleagues at USAID and the Department of Energy, 
the United States has delivered thousands of tons of critical 
energy sector equipment, some of which was installed and 
operating within hours of delivery.
    Our G-7+ partners have done even more, providing hundreds 
of millions of dollars in energy-related assistance including 
grid repair equipment, power generators, and support for 
heating points.
    The European Commission and its partners managed a complex 
logistics chain and successfully delivered over 7,000 tons of 
equipment from 35 countries. We cannot let up now.
    The World Bank has estimated that after last winter, 
Ukraine needed at least $411 billion to rebuild its 
infrastructure. That was 8 months ago.
    Every day that number grows. Electricity grid damage alone 
amounted to $10 billion in 2022. Ukraine's economic future 
depends on investment by the private sector and energy is key 
to unlocking that industrial recovery.
    The recent appointment of Secretary Pritzker as the 
President's Special Representative for Ukraine's economic 
recovery will intensify our efforts in this direction.
    American energy companies like Halliburton, GE, and EQT 
have been active partners in this effort, providing vital 
equipment to Ukraine and actively exploring future commercial 
opportunities.
    We are working together to build a better future for and 
with Ukraine, modern, cleaner, and with a more decentralized 
power sector that is fully integrated with Europe, even serving 
as a power exporter to the rest of the European Union, but 
another front of Putin's war against Ukraine has been his 
manipulation and cutoffs of energy supplies to Europe. That 
effort too has failed thanks significantly to the European 
Commission's rapid response through its Repower EU package and 
U.S.-EU cooperation through the Energy Security Task Force and 
our Energy Council.
    After the full-scale invasion, U.S. LNG producers stepped 
up to surge supplies to Europe as our allies turned away from 
Russia as an energy source.
    Since 2022, U.S. exporters have supplied the EU with 
approximately 90 million tons of LNG, three times as much as 
the next largest supplier. Last year, 70 percent of U.S. LNG 
exports went to Europe.
    Europe's shift away from Russian energy has happened much 
faster than predicted and marks a permanent shift in the 
international energy map.
    The brutal invasion of Ukraine has laid bare that Russia 
will never again be viewed as a reliable supplier of energy. 
This shift will result in real long-term losses for Russia in 
terms of both its global energy influence and future energy 
revenues.
    This has huge implications for a country that has 
historically relied on oil and gas revenues for 45 percent of 
its federal budget, and on the sanctions front we continue 
working to degrade Russia's status as a leading energy supplier 
by targeting entities involved with the expansion of Russia's 
future production.
    In sum, the energy pillar of our Ukraine-Russia strategy is 
working and Congress' continued support is vital to U.S. 
interests. Putin is targeting Ukraine's energy infrastructure 
because he sees it as central to his war aims.
    The energy sector funding that is included in the national 
security supplemental is therefore essential to Ukraine's 
success on the battlefield.
    I appreciate the opportunity and look forward to your 
questions.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Pyatt follows:]

              Prepared Statement of Mr. Geoffrey R. Pyatt

    Chairman Cardin, Ranking Member Risch, members of the Committee, 
thank you for the opportunity to discuss the importance of continuing 
the Administration's support for Ukraine at this critical juncture.
    For over a year, Vladimir Putin tried to break the will of the 
Ukrainian people through attacks on energy infrastructure, seeking to 
achieve through missile and drone strikes on civilian targets what 
Russia's troops had failed to achieve on the battlefield. In response, 
with our G7+, private sector, and humanitarian partners, we have worked 
jointly to help Ukraine to keep the lights on and houses warm, ensuring 
that Putin's effort to weaponize winter ends in failure.
    For Ukraine, this coming winter promises to be even more 
challenging than last. Ukraine's power generation capacity has degraded 
about 50 percent since the start of the war. Ukrainian energy workers 
have labored day and night to repair, restore, and harden the grid and 
generation facilities, often by cannibalizing parts from elsewhere. But 
most spare parts by now have been consumed and Russia has recently 
resumed its bombardment of power plants and refineries.
    During the November 2022 NATO Ministerial in Bucharest, Secretary 
Blinken launched a new coordination group of G7+ states to mobilize and 
coordinate broad support for the restoration of Ukraine's power grid. 
Since then, my team in the Bureau of Energy Resources has convened 43 
meetings of the group at various levels, to include three chaired by 
Secretary Blinken. We spoke to technical experts to develop 
workarounds, identified partners that might have older equipment that 
could be repurposed, and reached out to companies and governments about 
a specific list of needs developed by Ukraine.
    But our G7+ partners have done even more, providing hundreds of 
millions of dollars in energy-related assistance, including grid repair 
equipment, power generators, and support for heating points. The 
European Commission and its partners managed a complex logistics chain 
and successfully delivered over 7,000 tons of equipment from 35 
countries.
    Since February 2022, and thanks to Congressional action on prior 
supplements, the United States has mobilized $520 million in energy 
sector funding. Led by colleagues at USAID and DOE, the United States 
has delivered thousands of tons of critical energy sector equipment. We 
also delivered a mobile gas turbine power plant, which can provide 
emergency backup power to critical infrastructure for the city of Kyiv.
    We cannot let up now.
    The World Bank estimated that after last winter Ukraine needed at 
least $411 billion to rebuild its infrastructure. That was 8 months 
ago. Every day that number grows. Electricity grid damage alone 
amounted to $10 billion in 2022.
    Ukraine's economic future depends on involvement by the private 
sector and energy is key to unlocking the industrial recovery. The 
recent appointment of Secretary Pritzker as a Special Envoy for Ukraine 
Economic Recovery will intensify these efforts.
    American energy companies have stepped up enormously in support of 
Ukraine and Europe's energy security. American companies like 
Halliburton, EQT, and GE are providing equipment to Ukrainian partners 
and are keenly focused on future commercial opportunities.
    We are working together to build a better future for and with 
Ukraine--modern, cleaner, and with a more distributed power sector that 
is fully integrated with Europe--even serving as a power exporter to 
its neighbors.
    Another front of Putin's war against Ukraine has been his 
manipulation and cutoffs of energy supplies to Europe. That effort too 
has failed, thanks significantly to the European Commission's rapid 
response through its RePowerEU package and U.S.-EU cooperation through 
the Energy Security Task Force and Energy Council. U.S. LNG producers 
stepped up to surge supplies to Europe as our partners turned away from 
Russia as an energy source. Since 2022, U.S. exporters have supplied 
the EU with approximately 90 million tons of LNG, three times as much 
as the next largest supplier and 70 percent of U.S. LNG exports went to 
Europe.
    Europe's shift away from Russian energy has happened much faster 
than predicted and makes a permanent shift in the international energy 
map. Russian natural gas now represents only 15 percent of the EU's 
imports, compared to 45 percent in 2021.
    This war has laid bare the fact that Putin's regime is an 
unreliable supplier of energy. This shift will result in real, long-
term losses for Russia, in terms of both its global energy influence 
and its future energy revenues.
    According to the IEA, by 2025, Russia's oil production will be 
degraded by 2 million barrels per day compared to 2021, and natural gas 
will be down by 200 bcm per year.
    The IEA also projects Russia's share of globally traded oil and gas 
to fall 50 percent by 2030, with its net income from gas sales, 
specifically, to fall from $75 billion USD in 2021 to less than $30 
billion USD by 2030.
    This has huge implications for a country that historically has 
relied on its oil and gas revenues for 45 percent of its federal 
budget.
    All the while, our successful implementation of the oil price cap 
has continued to limit the impact of Russia's war against Ukraine on 
global prices.
    On the sanctions front, we continue working to degrade Russia's 
status as a leading energy supplier by targeting entities involved in 
the expansion of Russia's future production and export capacities, so 
that it can never again wield its energy resources as a tool of 
coercion.
    In sum, the energy pillar of our Ukraine/Russia strategy is working 
and Congress' continued support of our efforts is vital to U.S. 
interests. Putin is targeting Ukraine's energy infrastructure because 
he sees it as central to his war aims. The energy sector funding that 
is included in the National Security Supplemental is essential to 
Ukraine's success on the battlefield.
    Thank you and I look forward to the discussion.

    The Chairman. Thank you for your testimony. I appreciate 
it.
    Assistant Administrator McKee.

 STATEMENT OF HON. ERIN MCKEE, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR, EUROPE 
      AND EURASIA, UNITED STATES AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL 
                  DEVELOPMENT, WASHINGTON, DC

    Ms. McKee. Chairman Cardin, Ranking Member Risch, 
distinguished members of the committee, thank you for the 
invitation to speak to you today about our ongoing efforts in 
Ukraine.
    As you stated, we are at a critical moment with our 
partners fighting a war for survival and our adversaries 
seeking to exhaust our will to support Ukraine's vital needs.
    Since Putin began his full-scale war, the people of Ukraine 
have demonstrated unforgettable courage and resilience in the 
face of a brutal unjustified onslaught.
    The Kremlin's invaders threaten the people of Ukraine with 
unconscionable abuses and atrocities including documented 
evidence of war crimes such as conflict-related sexual violence 
including gender-based violence against children, women, and 
men, human trafficking, and other abuse.
    Russia's forces have ripped Ukrainian children from their 
homes. This is an orchestrated and systematic effort to 
forcibly transfer children to occupied parts of Ukraine or to 
Russia itself where they are subjected to pro-Russia 
indoctrination and in many cases military training.
    Ukraine has outperformed all expectations on the 
battlefield. We understand there is concern for how long the 
war may take and I want to reinforce that our assistance to 
Ukraine has strengthened Ukraine's ability to withstand 
Russia's aggression and has strengthened the United States 
partnerships with Ukraine and the other European democracies 
under threat from the Kremlin.
    USAID is providing humanitarian and early economic recovery 
assistance. Combined with direct budget support we are 
supporting Ukraine's recovery from the shock of the full-scale 
invasion and helping Ukraine return to financial independence.
    In response to the immediate crisis, USAID has provided 
nearly $2 billion in humanitarian assistance to Ukraine since 
February of 2022.
    The generosity of the American people has supplied 
emergency health care, agriculture, and energy support to 
Ukraine's most vulnerable populations, and thanks to the 
congressional appropriations, USAID dispersed reliable 
sustained direct budget support to the Ukrainian Government 
along with unprecedented levels of oversight.
    This enabled first responders, health care workers, 
teachers, and others to continue their vital work and sustain 
Ukraine's economy and institutions while they defend their 
country's freedom and sovereignty.
    To respond to Russia's weaponization of hunger, USAID 
launched the Agriculture Resilience Initiative to keep farmers 
afloat. USAID also works very closely with the private sector 
to improve Ukraine's energy security and transform Ukraine's 
energy sector into a modern engine of growth.
    Side-by-side with our agriculture and energy efforts is 
USAID's support to small and medium enterprises, helping 
Ukraine increase jobs and generate revenue. Without continued 
funding for this economic development, embattled Ukraine will 
remain dependent on donor support.
    At this time there is no funding left for direct budget 
support. Without further appropriations, the Government of 
Ukraine would need to use emergency measures such as printing 
money or not paying critical salaries, which could lead to 
hyperinflation and severely damage the war effort.
    USAID has also exhausted all of its supplemental 
humanitarian assistance funds. Additional funding is critical 
in the face of what remains an enormous need.
    If Congress does not approve supplemental funding, our 
partner organizations in Ukraine would have to either reduce 
the number of people getting this humanitarian assistance by up 
to 75 percent or suspend our humanitarian programs entirely.
    While our urgent priority is to respond to the immediate 
humanitarian needs of the people of Ukraine, USAID also looks 
to the future to building resilient infrastructure and 
institutions that will support Ukraine's path towards European 
Union integration.
    For decades, USAID has buttressed Ukraine's progress 
towards transparent, inclusive, and accountable governance. The 
United States continues to help Ukraine carry out judicial 
reform, institutionalize transparent financial systems and 
respond to the people of Ukraine's zero tolerance for 
corruption.
    None of what we have achieved together would have been 
possible without the generosity of Congress and the American 
people. Through your bipartisan support we have been able to 
deliver consistent, reliable, lifesaving assistance to people 
in need and leverage and mobilize the support of our partners 
and allies to do the same.
    We now face a critical crossroads. It is vital that we 
continue to do everything in our power to avoid the disastrous 
consequences of unchecked aggression by the Kremlin.
    The besieged people of Ukraine are fighting for their 
country's survival as a sovereign democratic state. They are 
also fighting for basic needs such as food, water, medicine, 
electricity.
    Putin must not succeed. We must continue to support the 
people of Ukraine in their fight to thrive as a free, secure, 
independent country, a democracy rooted in the rule of law and 
a place where all have dignity, human rights, and the 
opportunity to reach their full potential.
    Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. McKee follows:]

                  Prepared Statement of Ms. Erin McKee

    Chairman Cardin, Ranking Member Risch, distinguished members of the 
Senate Foreign Relations Committee: Thank you for your invitation to 
speak today about USAID's ongoing efforts in Ukraine--and for your 
support for Ukraine. We are at a critical moment in our effort to 
assist Ukraine, with our partners fighting a war for survival, and our 
adversaries seeking to exhaust our will to support Ukraine's vital 
needs.
    Since Putin began his full-scale war against Ukraine, the people of 
Ukraine have demonstrated unforgettable courage and resilience in the 
face of a brutal, unjustified onslaught. Putin's ongoing senseless 
attacks wreak death and destruction on civilians and civilian 
infrastructure. Innocent people have lost their loved ones. Invaders 
threaten the people of Ukraine with unconscionable abuses and 
atrocities, including documented evidence of war crimes such as 
conflict-related sexual violence, including gender-based violence 
against women, children and men, human trafficking, sexual 
exploitation, and abuse. Russia's forces have ripped Ukrainian children 
from their homes. This is an orchestrated and systematic effort to 
forcibly transfer children to occupied parts of Ukraine or to Russia 
itself, where they are subjected to pro-Russia indoctrination, and in 
many cases, military training.
    Ukraine has outperformed all expectations on the battlefield. We 
understand there is concern for how long this war may take, and I want 
to reinforce that our assistance to Ukraine has strengthened Ukraine's 
ability to withstand Russia's aggression, and has strengthened the 
United States' capability to partner with Ukraine and other European 
democracies under threat from the Kremlin.
    USAID is providing humanitarian and early economic recovery 
assistance. This combined with U.S. direct budget support is supporting 
Ukraine's recovery from the shock of the full-scale invasion and 
helping Ukraine return to financial independence. In response to the 
immediate crisis, USAID has provided nearly $2 billion in humanitarian 
assistance to Ukraine since February 2022. The generosity of the 
American people has supplied emergency health care, agriculture, and 
energy support to Ukraine's most vulnerable populations. Thanks to 
congressional appropriations, USAID disbursed reliable and sustained 
direct budget support to the Ukrainian Government along with 
unprecedented levels of oversight. This enabled first responders, 
healthcare workers, teachers and others to continue their vital work 
and sustain Ukraine's economy and institutions, while they defend their 
country's freedom and sovereignty.
    To respond to Russia's weaponization of hunger, USAID launched the 
Agriculture Resilience Initiative, known as AGRI-Ukraine, to help keep 
farmers afloat. USAID also works very closely with the private sector 
to improve Ukraine's energy security and transform Ukraine's energy 
sector into a modern engine of growth. Side-by-side with our 
agriculture and energy efforts is USAID's support to small and medium 
enterprises, helping Ukraine create jobs and increase its revenue. 
Without continued funding for this economic development, embattled 
Ukraine will remain dependent on donor support.
    At this time, there is no funding left for direct budget support. 
Without further appropriations, the Government of Ukraine would need to 
use emergency measures, such as printing money or not paying critical 
salaries, which could lead to hyper-inflation and severely damage the 
war effort.
    USAID has exhausted all of its supplemental humanitarian assistance 
funds as well. USAID partners will use remaining funding for 
humanitarian assistance in the coming months, but additional funding is 
critical in the face of enormous need. If Congress does not approve 
supplemental funding, it would force USAID to reallocate already scarce 
global resources to address Ukraine's needs. Our partner organizations 
in Ukraine would have to either reduce the number of people getting 
assistance by up to 75 percent or suspend humanitarian programs 
entirely.
    While our urgent priority is to respond to the immediate 
humanitarian needs of the people of Ukraine, USAID also looks to the 
future: to building resilient infrastructure and institutions that will 
support Ukraine's path towards European Union integration.
    For decades, USAID has buttressed Ukraine's progress toward 
transparent, inclusive, and accountable governance. The United States 
continues to strengthen Ukraine's institutions, carry out judicial 
reform, institutionalize transparent financial systems, and meet the 
goal of the people of Ukraine for zero tolerance of corruption.
    None of what we have achieved together would have been possible 
without the generosity of Congress and the American people. As 
articulated in the National Security Strategy, our USAID-State Joint 
Strategic Plan, and the Ukraine Country Development Cooperation 
Strategy, the United States must continue to aid the people of Ukraine. 
Through your bipartisan support, we have been able to deliver 
consistent and reliable life-saving assistance to people in need. We 
now face a critical crossroads.
    Putin's goal is to weaponize winter and destroy Ukraine's 
independence. Our assistance is vital to ensure he does not succeed. It 
is critical that we continue to do everything in our power to avoid the 
disastrous consequences of unchecked aggression by the Kremlin. The 
besieged people of Ukraine are fighting for their country's survival as 
a sovereign, democratic state. They are also fighting for basic needs, 
such as food, water, medicine, heat, and electricity.
    Putin must not succeed. We must continue to support the people of 
Ukraine in their fight to thrive as a free, secure, independent 
country; a democracy rooted in the rule of law; and a place where all 
have dignity, human rights, and the opportunity to reach their full 
potential.

    The Chairman. Again, let me thank all three of you for your 
comments. We will start a 5-minute round and I want to start by 
just saying what I said in my opening statement.
    I strongly support the President's supplemental request for 
Ukraine. I think we should have passed it yesterday and 
certainly not wait in getting it passed and I think your 
testimonies here point out the urgency of those dollars for 
Ukraine to be able to have the military assistance it needs to 
survive the winter and to plan for the spring and be prepared 
for the spring.
    Then I think the testimony from Administrator McKee points 
out the desperate need to have civilian order in the country. 
If they do not have the budgetary supports necessary to 
maintain basic services, the ability for Ukraine to defend 
itself becomes more challenging because of the local 
circumstances.
    I recognize that, but let me just point out as you have 
that Europe and the coalition partners are contributing more 
than America is contributing in total dollars. They are taking 
on the burdens of the displaced individuals. We do not have 
that issue. They are doing more on the energy sector than we 
are doing.
    Tell me the challenges if the supplemental is delayed. We 
were told on October 1 or September 30 when we did not include 
the aid for Ukraine that it sent a terrible message to the 
international community.
    I know many of us after, unable to get the aid included in 
that, made personal phone calls to our allies and to the 
Ukrainians to let them know they were not forgotten, that we 
intended to bring this up at the earliest possible date. We are 
now looking at November 17 and it is becoming less and less 
likely we will complete the supplemental by that date.
    Tell us how this impacts Ukraine and the international 
support for Ukraine--the further delays in the United States 
Congress in passing the supplemental--and how that is being 
played by Mr. Putin in Russia.
    Secretary O'Brien.
    Mr. O'Brien. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think a couple of 
elements are critical. Three weeks ago I was with Secretary 
Pritzker and spending several hours with President Zelensky.
    The first thing he noted was his people need to know that 
we continue to stand by them. They know this winter will be 
difficult, as Ambassador Pyatt just mentioned, but if they know 
that we remain with them, he feels they will come through 
strong and willing to fight.
    Then our allies need to know that we are with them. The 
European Union is currently considering a proposal for 50 
billion euros--$60 billion--over the next 4 years of support 
for Ukraine.
    If we fail to provide the assistance the--that will call 
into question then for them whether they--their efforts will be 
enough and whether they should go forward.
    For our ability to help, as Administrator McKee has 
indicated, we have already spent the money that has been 
appropriated.
    Secretary Austin has spoken about the need to get 
additional funding for the military assistance that is needed 
and were brought back to President Putin's prediction that this 
may all end in a week if we walk away.
    That is what is at stake on the supplemental.
    The Chairman. Administrator McKee, you mentioned USAID's 
role here. I was impressed by President Zelensky's commitment 
to try to root out corruption even during a war. Can you tell 
us how important the supplemental appropriation is to further 
President Zelensky's campaign to deal with corruption in his 
country?
    Ms. McKee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your question.
    We have witnessed not only the resilience and courage as 
they have fought against the Kremlin forces, but they have not 
skipped a beat in advancing the reform agenda.
    The EU report just came out this morning and both Ukraine 
and Moldova and a variety of other countries received support 
for continuing in opening chapters of recession talks. That is 
because our support to strengthening and deepening the 
institutions fighting corruption in Ukraine have received the 
top priority from the President.
    They had to pass and meet conditionality that we put on our 
direct budget support and did so without blinking. While they 
are fighting a war and fighting for their survival, they are 
100 percent dedicated to ensuring that the political economy 
model that they inherited during the Soviet Union is 
dismantled, which reflects the will of the Ukrainian people.
    The Ukrainian people want to see accountability and 
consequences, and the Government of Ukraine has stepped up with 
our support to do so.
    The Chairman. Secretary Pyatt, I just want to--your 
testimony was encouraging on the LNG imports particularly. Do 
you see those trends increasing? Because it is, I think, 
encouraging to see that policy that many of us have been urging 
looks like it is taking hold.
    Mr. Pyatt. Mr. Chairman, I think you are exactly right and 
one of the real success stories amid the tragedy of this war is 
that Europe has turned decisively away from its dependence up 
until 2022 on Russian gas in particular.
    I see that as a permanent change in the landscape. It is 
reflected in the billions of dollars that European countries 
have invested in regasification facilities.
    It is reflected in the contracts that are being signed with 
American LNG producers and it is also reflected in Europe's 
renewed and doubled commitment to accelerating the pace of its 
energy transition.
    Ironically, Putin's weaponization of his energy resource 
has induced Europe to break its vulnerability there and I think 
that is a permanent change in the landscape that is also a 
positive benefit for American energy producers and our 
leadership on the energy transition.
    The Chairman. Well, I have additional questions in regards 
to Russia and Iran, but I have a feeling my colleagues might be 
asking some questions in that regard.
    Senator Risch.
    Senator Risch. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am tempted, but 
instead I am going to focus on a narrow lane here, but a really 
important lane with you, Mr. Pyatt, and that is an issue that 
is incredibly important, but on which most of--Congress is not 
informed and I am going to hope you can help us get through 
that.
    I want to talk about the nuclear reactors we have in the 
United States, which are, what, 95, give or take a few. Would 
you tell the committee please where does the fuel come from to 
operate these nuclear facilities?
    Mr. Pyatt. Ranking Member, about 20 percent of the fuel 
that operates our nuclear fleet here in the United States still 
comes from Russia.
    The President has included in his latest supplemental a 
request for about $2.2 billion to help rebuild the nuclear 
enrichment capacity that we need here in the United States to 
end that dependency and the Administration has also stated its 
support for a ban on the import of Russian nuclear fuel.
    Senator Risch. I was hoping that would be your answer. I 
sit not only on this committee, but also Intelligence and 
Energy and this issue comes to a confluence in all three of 
those committees.
    Senators Barrasso, Manchin, and I introduced the Nuclear 
Fuel Security Act. Are you familiar with that?
    Mr. Pyatt. I am, Ranking Member.
    Senator Risch. Okay. I think that will go a long way to 
doing something here. We are also working on the ban, as you 
indicated.
    Obviously, we cannot have that ban, but it is stunning to 
me that we are sending money to Russia to buy nuclear fuel when 
we have got bans in all kinds of other places, but we have to 
because of the dependence we have there.
    This is part of the problem we have got with the supply 
chain around the world and that is we have not paid attention 
to it and we really need to, particularly in this very, very 
critical area.
    In any event, what are your thoughts on--we have got to get 
this industry up and going. Obviously, it has moved offshore. 
We need to get it going.
    Give me your thoughts on that. How quickly can we do it? 
How much is it going to cost? What can we as the government do 
to move this along? Could you talk about that, please?
    Mr. Pyatt. Thank you, Ranking Member. I could talk all day 
about this. I will try not to.
    Senator Risch. Please do not.
    Mr. Pyatt. Let me first note the importance of Ukraine, a 
country that operates one of the largest nuclear fleets in all 
of Europe, one of the few countries in Europe that has the 
industrial supply chain to contribute to a future non-Russian 
nuclear industry.
    When I was ambassador in Kyiv, I worked directly with 
President Poroshenko and with Westinghouse to enable the 
Ukrainians to refuel their reactors with non-Russian fuel 
assemblies.
    It was incredibly controversial. I remember one time, 
Foreign Minister Lavrov called Secretary Kerry in the middle of 
my night to complain that we were going to cause another 
Chernobyl by putting Westinghouse fuel into these wonderful 
Russian reactors.
    That, of course, was a lie, and since then Ukraine has 
steadily incorporated Westinghouse fuel assemblies into its 
nuclear fleet.
    As we look to the future across Central and Eastern Europe, 
civil nuclear power is going to be a key part of those 
countries' non-Russian energy mix and I would also flag, 
Ranking Member, the critically important role of the work that 
is being done here in the United States on a next generation of 
nuclear reactors, small modular reactors.
    I have been following closely the challenges in your home 
state and the work with NuScale and I hope very much that we 
can find a way forward in that regard as well because we have 
to maintain American leadership in this area and Ukraine is 
going to be one of our principal partners because it has the 
workforce, because it has the industrial capacity, because it 
has the nuclear knowledge in helping to bring clean nuclear 
power to countries in Europe like Poland that have made that 
choice, but do not currently have the human capital or 
industrial base to fulfill that requirement.
    Senator Risch. Well, thank you. I hope we can all join 
together to move this important issue forward because this is 
something we can and should lead on.
    You made reference to the SMR and the NuScale problem. That 
has obviously been very disappointing to us, but the SMR is 
going to change the world and, obviously, Russia, China, and 
France, for that matter, have all jumped on board on this and 
are looking at ways to exploit their standing on the issue.
    We should not let that happen. We should be the leaders on 
this and I hope we will be. You will be happy to hear we have 
had a number of discussions as to how we can do that at the 
Idaho National Lab which is, of course, the flagship laboratory 
in the United States on nuclear energy, and I promise you we 
are going to continue to do that.
    Thank you for your attention to this issue. It is an 
absolutely critical issue. It is incredibly ironic to me that 
we are sending money to Russia to purchase fuel when we have 
got all these other things going on and they are using it to 
the fight against us in Ukraine.
    We need to stop it and the sooner we do it the better. 
Thank you for your work.
    Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    The Chairman. Thank you.
    Senator Coons.
    Senator Coons. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member, 
and thank you for continuing to show strong bipartisan support 
for Ukraine.
    I agree with the points just raised by the ranking member 
about the urgency of our--making our nuclear fuel system more 
independent of Russia and the future of SMRs being critical for 
a zero-carbon American developed energy source for the future. 
Thank you to our witnesses.
    The brutal Russian invasion of Ukraine has been a profound 
strategic failure for Putin. NATO, instead of being divided or 
weakened, has expanded and strengthened.
    As you have testified, there is a global coalition of 50 
countries providing more than $90 billion in direct support 
both humanitarian direct budget support, military for Ukraine.
    Although we are the single largest donor, the contributions 
to the fight for freedom on the front lines in Ukraine is 
genuinely global, and as you laid out, Secretary O'Brien, 
Russia's coalition includes folks like Iran and North Korea 
while ours is literally the entire free world.
    We are at risk of failing, of handing Putin a victory right 
when he is on the verge of defeat if we do not take up and pass 
the President's full supplemental.
    Administrator McKee, some of my colleagues have said to me 
privately that they are enthusiastic about continuing to send 
military equipment and hardware to Ukraine, but not direct 
budget support.
    You testified about the importance of direct budget 
support. Could you help us just briefly understand three 
things? What are the sorts of services that are being provided 
through our direct budget support?
    As the--Secretary Pyatt had testified there continues to be 
a brutal bombardment of the electric grid. What would happen if 
direct budget support were to end to Ukraine's ability to 
respond to the daily bombardments of their electric grid, for 
example?
    Second, you said that the accountability and oversight 
measures that are needed are in place and are working robustly. 
If you would just briefly speak to that.
    Then, most importantly, how much time do we have? If we 
kick this can down the road a month or two or three through a 
Continuing Resolution and we fail to take up and advance the 
full supplemental for budget support in humanitarian, how much 
time do we have before that begins to really have bite for the 
people of Ukraine?
    Ms. McKee. Thank you, Senator, for your question.
    On the first point, as we have noted, the types of 
services, right now Ukraine is able to spend all of their 
national budget in the fight. They are paying their soldiers' 
salaries. They are dedicated to defeating Putin on the front 
lines.
    That means they do not have any resources to take care of 
their people and govern, which is as vital to keep up the unity 
of purpose and the resilience that we have seen from the 
Ukrainian people because they are all in, both on the civilian 
and the military side.
    The types of services that would be suspended are first 
responders who rush into the building and save lives, medical 
care to make sure that inoculations stay up so that the 
Ukrainian population stays healthy, particularly children, 
routine immunizations. We have heard reports of polio outbreaks 
and some other concerns during the early days of the mass 
emigration of folks fleeing the conflict.
    We also are supporting teachers and continuing education so 
that they do not lose a generation as a result of Putin's 
attacks on civilians and civilian infrastructure so that the 
kids can stay in school and that those families are there.
    Senator Coons. Am I correct that the direct budget support 
requested gradually goes down----
    Ms. McKee. Yes.
    Senator Coons. --over the next year as the economy becomes 
more vibrant and we assess Ukraine is able to generate more 
revenue?
    Ms. McKee. Correct. The direct budget support and their 
fiscal stability is also vital for the IMF program and other 
donors stepping in.
    Our leadership in this space--and, yes, we were first--
unlocked the other support that we have seen mobilized from the 
EU and other donors as well as boosting the confidence in the 
multilaterals to be able to contribute to Ukraine's economic 
stability, which is as vital as winning the war. If their 
economy collapses Putin will have won.
    On your point of accountability, absolutely there has been 
no finding of any misuse or misdirection and at multiple tiers 
and multiple reviews and stock checking not just by the three 
IGs in terms of end use checks and making sure that we can 
follow the resources, we have third-party monitoring to ensure 
that the systems by which those are delivered both reimbursed 
and validating are also ironclad and unassailable.
    In terms of timing, as I said we have no more direct budget 
support. The last tranche was disbursed at the end of the 
fiscal year. This jeopardizes particularly over the coming 
months Ukraine's ability to maintain its economic stability 
while it continues to fight the war. It is urgent.
    Senator Coons. Thank you for the clarity of that answer and 
let me just close by making an observation the chairman made, 
which is the fight going on in Israel and the fight going on in 
Ukraine are not distinct.
    Putin welcomed the head of Hamas. Wagner is offering to 
provide air defense possibly to Hezbollah. There is a linkage 
between these coalitions that supports terrorism in the Middle 
East and a brutal an ongoing invasion and occupation of eastern 
Ukraine.
    For us to pick one piece of this supplemental and not the 
full supplemental, not to provide direct budget support, not to 
provide humanitarian support to Ukraine, not to provide support 
to Israel, and to continue to push humanitarian support for 
dozens of countries would be a grave mistake.
    Thank you for your testimony. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Senator Paul.
    Senator Paul. I think it is easy to look around the world 
and find places where the U.S. taxpayer can be asked to send 
money to fix the world's problems, but there is an important 
question we might want to ask before we start sending $100 
billion more--where are you going to get it. We do not have any 
money.
    Every bit of our tax revenue goes to Medicare, Medicaid, 
Social Security, and food stamps. Those four programs consume 
all of our tax revenue. Everything else is borrowed.
    In fact, the entire discretionary budget right now is being 
borrowed. We borrowed a trillion dollars in the last 3 months. 
Interest rates have doubled. Interest payments have doubled.
    You can have all this goodwill and try to fix the world's 
problems, but you are ignoring the rot and ruin you are 
creating in your own country.
    Mr. O'Brien, in Russia's weakened state it is tempting to 
forget that they are a nuclear power, but I think our foreign 
policy decisions need to take into account the dangers of war 
escalating in Ukraine.
    As Harvard's Graham Allison points out, if Putin is forced 
to choose between humiliating defeat on the one hand and 
escalating the level of destruction there is every reason to 
believe he chooses the latter.
    There is a great deal of evidence that the war in Ukraine 
has come to a stalemate. Even Ukraine's commander-in-chief of 
the armed services has admitted as much.
    In Graham Allison's view the Ukraine war has escalated far 
enough to see how bad things would become if we end up in a 
world where nuclear weapons are used.
    Allison believes that where we are now both for Putin's 
Russia and for the Biden-led U.S. and the Western alliance, it 
is time to search for an off-ramp for all the parties.
    What is being done at the State Department to search for an 
off-ramp?
    Mr. O'Brien. Thank you, Senator. A few points. I can speak 
to the foreign policy implications.
    My belief is if we do not stand with Ukraine now we will be 
spending much more on defense in the future and much of the 
supplemental goes to reinvest in the United States. Far from 
rot and ruin we are actually shoring up the foundations in our 
energy sector, as Assistant Secretary Pyatt ----
    Senator Paul. Your argument is that war and funding war 
around the world is good for our armaments industry?
    Mr. O'Brien. I am saying this supplemental is good for our 
economy----
    Senator Paul. For the armaments industry. Really, it is a 
justification of war. To me, that is sort of reprehensible, the 
idea that--and this is coming from my side as well--oh, glory 
be, the war is really not that bad.
    Broken windows are not that bad because we pay people to 
fix them. Broken countries are not so bad because hey, look, 
the armaments industry is going to get billions of dollars out 
of this.
    I think that is a terrible argument. I wish you all would 
say maybe there is a--go back to your freedom argument or 
something, but the idea that you are going to enrich the 
armaments manufacturers I think is reprehensible.
    Mr. O'Brien. Well, Senator, I am not making the argument 
war is good. I am making the argument in this case war is 
necessary.
    Senator Paul. That we can make a little profit on the side. 
It is not so bad since the armaments guys will make a lot of 
profit on this, right?
    Mr. O'Brien. No, Senator, I think you are proposing a kind 
of false choice that I either have to say that or say nothing. 
What I am saying is that our economy rests on a foundation of 
innovation and in the supplemental we are investing in our 
energy sector as you just----
    Senator Paul. This money is borrowed. We are borrowing the 
money. We do not have it. We do not have a pot of money.
    What you are arguing is, in essence, that we borrow the 
money from China. We send it to Ukraine. Ukraine sends it back 
to buy arms from us and that is a win-win. How do we win when 
we are borrowing money to pay people?
    See, this is this sort of false sort of argument that oh, 
look, we will create five jobs for every dollar we spend, but 
we are borrowing the money. It does not make any sense. It is 
coming from somewhere where it would be in a productive use to 
where it is in the use of basically fomenting a war and 
continuing a war.
    Mr. O'Brien. No, that is not the choice in front of us, 
Senator, and I am sorry that you feel that that is the way you 
want to frame it.
    The choice in front of us is do we invest in the capacities 
that allow this war to be won. Those include capacities in 
energy, in defense, in IT. They include----
    Senator Paul. The original question--let us get away from 
funding the armaments people. I am not for that, but the 
original question is what are you doing to develop an off ramp. 
When I listen to your presentations, it sounds like the 
department of war. I do not hear the department of diplomacy in 
front of me.
    Where are the diplomats? Is anybody talking about 
negotiation? Do you really believe that Russia--that Ukraine is 
going to push Russia out of Ukraine?
    They are going to push them out of Crimea, push them out of 
the East, and that Zelensky's position, we will not negotiate 
till they are gone from Ukraine, is viable and that there is 
not going to have to be some negotiation beforehand?
    Mr. O'Brien. All wars----
    Senator Paul. If you believe that, though, the meat grinder 
continues and Ukraine will be in utter destruction and tens of 
thousands of more people will die if there is no negotiation.
    You would think that as a superpower we would be involved 
somewhat with encouraging negotiation, but I have heard nothing 
from you and nothing from anyone in your Administration, 
frankly, that talks about negotiating.
    Mr. O'Brien. Well, Senator, then I hope you would sit down 
and talk with me about what we are doing in this regard. Here, 
I will give you a little sense of it.
    All wars end with a negotiation. We have made clear we will 
do that with Ukraine, not over Ukraine's head. It takes two 
parties to negotiate the end of a war. President Putin is not 
serious about negotiating the end of the war. He has said he 
wants to wait and see what happens in November 2024.
    We are preparing for that eventuality so we can have a 
negotiation that will actually stick as opposed to the track 
record of broken agreements that President Putin has made with 
a whole range of his neighbors up until now.
    That is successful diplomacy, not near diplomacy.
    Senator Shaheen [presiding]. Senator Merkley.
    Senator Paul. There are actually some who say we are back 
to about where we started as far as negotiating and tens of 
thousands of people have died on both sides and we have not 
been successful, but I still hear only war and I do not hear 
diplomacy.
    Mr. O'Brien. No, but I think what we are looking at is 
successful diplomacy. I just spent last weekend with 66 
countries talking about the basis of a successful peace in 
Ukraine. Russia did not show up.
    That, again, is the problem. You do not have a willing 
partner on the other side. Simply saying that there must be 
talks is--you are asking for a monologue, not diplomacy.
    Senator Shaheen. Senator Merkley.
    Senator Paul. [inaudible]
    Senator Merkley. Secretary O'Brien----
    Mr. O'Brien. No, Senator.
    Senator Shaheen. Senator Merkley.
    Senator Merkley. Secretary O'Brien, am I correct that 
Russia is spending about 25 percent of its funds on the war and 
the United States is spending about 1.5 percent?
    Mr. O'Brien. I think Russia is spending more. I think it is 
30 percent of the public budget and they have a secret budget 
that is even more, yes.
    Senator Merkley. Thank you. In your testimony you started 
out by talking about how Putin is testing the world's resolve 
to defend the most basic principles, that sovereign nations 
cannot have their borders changed unilaterally, that dictators 
cannot punish countries for seeking closer ties with the U.S., 
and that the United States will stand up when the freedom of 
our friends and allies is threatened.
    I certainly agree with all those. I have a series of 
questions. I hope you can give me a short answer so I can get 
through them, if possible. Do you agree that failure to fund 
Ukraine will do deep damage to the Atlantic alliance?
    Mr. O'Brien. Yes.
    Senator Merkley. Do you agree that failure to fund Ukraine 
will also put some cracks into NATO?
    Mr. O'Brien. Yes.
    Senator Merkley. Do you believe that if the U.S. appeases 
Putin by throwing support for Ukraine overboard that somehow 
Putin will never do aggression elsewhere?
    Mr. O'Brien. President Putin has made clear that once he 
gets what he wants in Ukraine he will start looking at the 
Baltics, he will start looking at Poland, and other key allies.
    Senator Merkley. Thank you. If the U.S. appeases Putin by 
throwing Ukraine aid overboard will it enhance China's appetite 
to use military force on Taiwan?
    Mr. O'Brien. China will see us as weaker.
    Senator Merkley. Will it encourage other dictators around 
the world to take additional land?
    Mr. O'Brien. Yes.
    Senator Merkley. I am really struck by the parallel to the 
journey of Chamberlain to Munich to say, okay, Hitler, you 
can--you can take a third of Czechoslovakia, and then he 
declared peace in our time under the assumption that somehow 
this would not whet Hitler's appetite. Did Chamberlain's 
strategy work?
    Mr. O'Brien. No.
    Senator Merkley. Will the strategy now of us bailing on 
Ukraine to appease Putin work?
    Mr. O'Brien. No. It will invite more aggression.
    Senator Merkley. I think this is one of the most important 
decisions we have faced in the time I have been in the Senate, 
probably the most important decision.
    I am astounded that colleagues who supported corrupt 
government in Afghanistan and an invasion of Iraq now want to 
bail on the freedom-loving democracy-defending people of 
Ukraine who are dying with the cause and I must say I think it 
will be one of the biggest foreign policy mistakes we could 
make in generations if we bail on Ukraine.
    Do you agree with that?
    Mr. O'Brien. Yes, Senator.
    Senator Merkley. If there is a emergency supplemental in 
which the funding for Ukraine has been thrown overboard, should 
we pass it?
    Mr. O'Brien. We have asked for this united supplemental 
because it is one fight globally.
    Senator Merkley. We should reject it?
    Mr. O'Brien. Yes. I think the Senate should pass the full 
supplemental.
    Senator Merkley. Will President Biden veto a bill in which 
the funding for Ukraine is thrown overboard?
    Mr. O'Brien. That is ultimately the President's decision, 
but he has asked for the supplemental he believes should be 
passed.
    Senator Merkley. Will you encourage the President to veto a 
bill in which the funding for Ukraine has been thrown 
overboard?
    Mr. O'Brien. I would encourage the President to make 
whatever statements needed to get the full supplemental that we 
need.
    Senator Merkley. My concern is we are going to see a 
repetition of what we saw earlier when we were facing a 
Continuing Resolution in which--the Senate procedures are very, 
very slow. It takes a week to get a bill to the floor. It takes 
a week to get the amendment that has the basic proposal in 
place and it takes only one hour in the House for a proposal be 
put up and voted on.
    I am afraid they are going to send us a Continuing 
Resolution that throws the funding for Ukraine overboard. 
Should we reject such a strategy from the House of 
Representatives?
    Mr. O'Brien. Yes, Senator.
    Senator Merkley. Thank you.
    The Chairman [presiding]. Senator Ricketts.
    Senator Ricketts. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and, again, 
thank you to our panelists here today to talk about Ukraine.
    As we discuss Ukraine and we think down the road about 
rebuilding Ukraine, I think there is an important point to 
make, which this should not be done solely on the backs of 
American taxpayers or European taxpayers.
    Russia began its full-scale war against Ukraine and there 
was public reports that more than $300 billion in Russian 
sovereign assets have been frozen globally and estimates are 
the cost to rebuild Ukraine will be about $400 billion.
    Now, there is a phrase--I am sure you have all heard of 
before--called ``you break, it you buy it,'' and one of the 
things I would like to highlight here is Ranking Member Risch's 
REPO Act that would require Russia to basically pay for the 
damage they have done.
    It is common sense legislation. It has bipartisan bicameral 
support. Gives the President the legal authority to confiscate 
Russian sovereign assets that have been frozen in the U.S. and 
transfer them to assist Ukraine's reconstruction efforts.
    The House Foreign Affairs Committee marked up its version 
of the bill yesterday and, Mr. Chairman, I would encourage us 
to work on this as well to be able to get this bill done. I 
think it is going to be important.
    Assistant Secretary O'Brien, do you agree that Russia has 
legal and moral responsibility to compensate Ukraine for the 
damage its illegal invasion has done to the country?
    Mr. O'Brien. Oh, yes, Senator.
    Senator Ricketts. Do you think Russia will ever compensate 
Ukraine for its aggression or pay for Ukraine's reconstruction?
    Mr. O'Brien. The President and his G-7 colleagues and the 
Secretary and his--just today reaffirmed that Russia must pay 
and that Russia's immobilized funds which, as you say, are 
about $300 billion, will not be returned to Russia until it 
does pay. We have leverage in this discussion.
    Senator Ricketts. Given that Putin is unlikely then to pay 
for the damage he has done will--and will continue to use 
Russia's veto power in the U.N. to block traditional mechanisms 
for compensation, do you agree that the U.S. and our allies and 
partners should consider all options to ensure Russia pays 
rather than the taxpayers in this situation?
    Mr. O'Brien. Yes, Senator.
    Senator Ricketts. Okay. I just again want to encourage us 
to be able to continue to take up this REPO Act. I think it is 
an important piece of legislation.
    Also, Assistant Secretary O'Brien, a couple of weeks ago on 
our Black Sea Subcommittee hearing we discussed the dangers of 
the People's Republic of China involvement in Ukraine 
reconstruction.
    Obviously, this would go against our interests and those of 
our allies and partners. The PRC would use its involvement to 
collect intelligence on Ukraine and foreign-supplied military 
capabilities as well as the intellectual property they steal 
from all around the world already--they would do that in 
Ukraine--and its track record of spreading corruption and 
undermining the rule of law will only serve to undermine 
Ukraine's efforts to be able to fight corruption in their own 
country.
    Given that reconstruction efforts will cost at least $400 
billion, there is going to be a temptation for the Ukrainians 
to take money from Beijing, and we have already seen it.
    There were reports last month that Ukraine has not excluded 
the PRC telecom suppliers from supplying equipment to rebuild 
damaged infrastructure.
    Our country's deputy digital minister--or the country--
Ukraine's country deputy digital minister said that the U.S. 
and our allies had not provided any official proof of security 
risks associated with the PRC vendors and as a result Ukraine 
would have to give the contract to the lowest bidder, which 
could be Huawei or ZTE.
    A couple weeks ago you said that you felt confident we 
would have the Ukraine firmly in our camp where we are 
comfortable and, ultimately, it is their choice, but that is 
why we need to stay in the game and from a financial standpoint 
it may be the Ukrainians' choice whether they allow the PRC to 
be part of the reconstruction effort, but it is our choice with 
regard to U.S. assistance benefitting Beijing.
    Do you think we should condition U.S. aid to prevent U.S. 
tax dollars from supporting PRC-owned or controlled entities 
from providing the reconstruction?
    Mr. O'Brien. Senator, we do. That is why it is so important 
to have the supplemental so that we remain in the game and can 
set the conditions that make it impossible for opaque 
illegitimate contractors like the Chinese to enter, and I know 
my colleagues can speak at some length about how in energy, 
telecoms, and other sectors we do exactly that, but if we are 
not there then we cannot provide the guarantees you want.
    Senator Ricketts. Great. I just want to go back to 
something that Senator Murphy was talking about earlier as well 
with regard to Putin's next steps if he is successful in 
Ukraine.
    You made reference to him talking about the Baltics. Has he 
made overt statements that the Baltics were renegade states, 
that he sees them as part of the greater Russia, that sort of 
thing?
    Mr. O'Brien. Yes, he has.
    Senator Ricketts. Great. Thank you very much.
    The Chairman. Senator Booker.
    Senator Booker. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The existential nature of where we are right now, Mr. 
O'Brien, is something that cannot be understated if we do not 
rise to meet this moment in the United States of America.
    From China to Iran, people are watching the resolve of this 
nation to protect a democratic ally. Failure in this moment 
could have catastrophic costs not only to Russia's continued 
territorial ambitions, which they have made clear and laid 
plain, but also China and Iran as well.
    I want to thank the Biden administration for putting Penny 
Pritzker in charge of really focusing on reconstruction and I 
think we do not have--we have a little bit of historical 
amnesia about how critical that is to preserving democracy.
    Years before the end of World War II, years before, we 
began work on the Marshall Plan and we saw after World War II 
that countries that had been devastated at war are very 
susceptible to the winds of extremism, whether it is fascism or 
communism, that undermine the ability for governments to 
sustain themselves, and I think we are at that moment right now 
where discussing reconstruction at this point is so critical 
because investments made now are not only important for the war 
effort, but sustaining the Ukrainian people, going forward.
    I wonder--there seems to be a lack of understanding that 
the supplemental resources that are being debated in Congress 
right now are for critical investments not just for winning the 
war effort, but in helping for the critical long-term 
reconstruction.
    I was wondering, Mr. O'Brien, if you could speak to the 
urgency not just to supplying their military with resources, 
but the urgency right now, both in the immediacy and in the 
long-term, why this supplemental is critical investments that 
will pay dividends for the security and the strength and the 
victory that we are looking for in Ukraine.
    Mr. O'Brien. Thank you, Senator.
    I will try this and I know each of my colleagues have a 
piece of this as well.
    I think that is very well said and what we see in the 
integrated supplemental request is an effort to address each 
part of what is needed for Ukraine to thrive during the war and 
be prepared to succeed after the war.
    Right now if we provide the air defense that is needed, the 
economic industries that drive Ukraine's economy can begin to 
work again. That is employment and hope for Ukrainians.
    It is tax dollars that go to make up the shortfall that we 
are currently meeting with our partners on the direct budget 
support. If we can then create the space for the energy supply 
to be reliable then we have employment and Ukraine's economic 
activity working. That is what Ambassador Pyatt is working on.
    There are about $2.2 billion to go to both the energy 
supply and to the economic activity that is needed for Ukraine 
to begin to repair its access to the outside world. That is 
also important to us.
    When Russia invaded Ukraine, grain prices went up six times 
in many places around the world because Ukraine is an 
incredibly important part of the global grain trade.
    The work that USAID does to help Ukrainian farmers get 
their products to market in the supplemental, the $100 million 
dollars that is for demining will help farmers get their 
product to market.
    All of that directly benefits the markets in which our 
consumers are a part. If we do all that, then Ukraine has--as I 
mentioned in my statement, if we can get them to about pre-war 
export levels, that is an extra $6 billion a year in tax 
revenue just from the exports as well as what the industries 
pay and what happens around the society.
    Now, Secretary Pritzker--and she should come and testify 
this, herself--she is doing an outstanding job at building a 
strategy that lets us focus our efforts in key places so that 
Ukraine's economy will begin to work and contribute to the 
global economy even while this war is going on.
    All of that works together to make sure that Ukraine can 
succeed and has the leverage needed when we get to a 
negotiation as Senator Paul wanted.
    Senator Booker. In my seconds left it is so frustrating to 
me to see that people do not understand essential to winning 
the war is investments in this space, and if you listen to the 
Ukrainian people and folks I have talked to, they are looking 
for resources to strengthen their democratic institutions, 
their energy sector, their nuclear sector, anti-corruption 
efforts that are going on right now that are critical to 
winning this--governance reforms, European cooperation and 
integration, modernizing and diversifying key elements of their 
economy.
    Without this we cannot win, and to be penny wise and pound 
foolish really is to undermine ultimately the war effort and 
the effort to win the peace.
    Yes or no, you agree?
    Mr. O'Brien. Yes.
    Senator Booker. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Senator Schatz.
    Senator Schatz. Thank you, Chair and Vice Chair, and thank 
you all for being here.
    I want to start with the basic question for Secretary 
O'Brien, and I do not want you to overdo it. I want you to 
really give me your blunt assessment.
    What do you think the connections are between Russia and 
Hamas? We have seen that they had a delegation in Russia. We 
have seen an unwillingness to designate them as a terrorist 
organization.
    What else do we have in terms of a through-line? I believe 
we are in a fight against global fascism, but that does not 
necessarily mean they have operational ties to the extent that 
we can prove them.
    Give me the real scoop on how closely they are aligned 
right now.
    Mr. O'Brien. I think there are probably details that are 
more suitable for another venue.
    Senator Schatz. Sure.
    Mr. O'Brien. President Putin sees Hamas as a way to 
distract us and to weaken the coalition that we have built 
against him.
    His unwillingness to condemn what Hamas did October 7 and 
his unwillingness to use any leverage he might have to get them 
to, say, move out of Gaza cities so that it is not the subject 
of the focus it is now, is a sign that he prefers to see us 
distracted by this fight and he prefers to see Hamas a sort of 
second front against us, and that is the connection that is 
most troubling.
    Senator Schatz. If Putin is successful do you think he 
then--I mean, we obviously understand he has additional 
territorial ambitions, but obviously--but my question is if he 
is successful does he deepen ties with some of these terrorist 
organizations because he has now got some new capacity having 
won the war?
    I do not want to contemplate this, but I think that that is 
what we are really talking about here. If we do not provide 
funding, that could be it. We hope that we provide funding and 
we hope that if we do not, somehow the Ukrainians and the 
Europeans and everybody else pulls a rabbit out of a hat.
    I think that we need to be clear-eyed about what it would 
mean to--for a second time vote no on a supplemental or do 
Israel only or do a CR with no hope of a supplemental. I want 
to understand what does Putin do next if he wins.
    Mr. O'Brien. He wants instability around his borders. If 
Ukraine loses, he will promote instability in the Baltics and 
around Eastern Europe across the Black Sea. He will also reach 
into Africa and the Middle East where we see him already 
active. He will try that anyway, but he will be much more 
powerful if we walk away.
    Senator Schatz. Thank you.
    Mr. Pyatt, how are we managing the energy infrastructure 
question? Obviously, Putin is trying to weaponize civilian 
infrastructure against the people of Ukraine. How do we help? 
What can we be doing?
    Mr. Pyatt. The most important thing we have done is 
mobilized our allies and partners around the world. The United 
States has provided significant assistance.
    I was in Kyiv in December the week that the first tranche 
of Department of Energy-sourced hardware from the United States 
was delivered to Poland and then onward into Ukraine.
    There was a profound sense of relief as if the cavalry had 
arrived, but since then, as I mentioned, we built this G-7+ 
coalition involving our G-7 allies and the regional neighbors 
and key institutions like the EBRD to mobilize assistance, to 
listen to the Ukrainians, to source this stuff.
    To give you an example, one of Putin's principal targets 
last year were these high-voltage auto transformers which 
connect the national Ukrainian grid. His objective was to 
fracture the grid, to deny Ukraine the ability to move power 
around the country and keep houses warm.
    We have worked with Japan, we have worked with Korea, to 
source the auto transformers and the equipment that Putin is 
destroying. We have a lot in the pipeline, but we face supply 
chain challenges.
    The other aspect of this, Senator, if I can for a minute on 
your question to my colleague, Assistant Secretary O'Brien, I 
was ambassador in Ukraine when the occupation of Crimea 
happened and I remember vividly at that moment working with 
many members of this committee. I remember the analysts stating 
confidently that that would keep Putin busy for a decade.
    That was not the case. In fact, a few weeks later I had a 
CODEL that I was hosting. I remember distinctly Senator 
Barrasso and Senator McCain were coming to Ukraine. We were 
going to go to Donetsk, to the capital of Donbas.
    That CODEL--that trip was scrubbed at the last moment 
because Russian-supported forces had begun to flow into Donbas. 
I think we need to take Putin at his word. His objective is the 
dismemberment of Ukraine and if he is successful in that effort 
he will then move on to his next targets.
    I fully agree with my colleague, Jim, but also would 
underline the immediate tactical relevance of the support we 
provide in the energy sector.
    As I said, that equipment delivered last December some of 
it was plugged into the grid in a matter of days and so the--
and the ability to continue to do that kind of procurement is 
directly linked to the resources that are part of this 
emergency supplemental.
    Senator Schatz. In other words, we need this money to get--
for Ukraine to get through this winter. Set aside the defensive 
and offensive capabilities. In order for people in Kyiv to not 
freeze we need some resources so that we can back-stop whatever 
mischief Putin may be doing to the grid?
    Mr. Pyatt. That is exactly right, and then on Ranking 
Member Risch's point about connecting the dots, I would point 
out that the greatest threat to the energy grid today are the 
Shahed drones and which Russia is now beginning to 
industrialize the production of those. We can talk about that 
in a classified setting, but there is a direct Iran-Russia 
nexus in the attacks on Ukraine's energy system.
    Senator Schatz. Thank you.
    Senator Shaheen  [presiding]. Thank you, Senator Schatz. I 
am up next and I would like to bring the conversation back to 
what I think we talk about a lot, but sometimes we forget; the 
human cost of this war.
    Last year I met with a group of Ukrainian women soldiers 
and one of the things they said to me I have repeated multiple 
times since that meeting and that is give us the weapons to 
fight the Russians so that the United States does not have to.
    Well, I had a chance to meet with one of those young women 
again recently. This is Andriana. Some of you may have met with 
her when she was in Washington a couple of weeks ago.
    She was driving in a civilian car on the front lines of the 
war because they did not have armored cars and she hit a 
Russian anti-tank mine and she was temporarily paralyzed.
    As you can see from the photos, she has spent some time in 
recovery--9 months. She had to relearn how to walk, but as she 
said to me when she came back to Congress, she is planning to 
go rejoin her unit because she is committed to this fight, and 
we had a really fun exchange about Ukraine's motto, which is 
freedom or death, and how she could identify with New 
Hampshire's state motto, which is live free or die.
    Well, Ukraine is fighting so that we do not have to and 
people are dying to make sure that they can be a free country 
that is not occupied by Russia and they are fighting for 
democracy in the United States and around the world, and the 
United States, I believe, needs to continue to support this 
effort because not only is it in Ukraine's and NATO's and 
Europe's interest, but it is in our own national security 
interest.
    Senator Schatz, I think was asking about the nexus between 
Russia and Hamas. Secretary O'Brien, can you talk a little bit 
more about what that nexus is?
    How does the U.S. response to Putin's war in Ukraine serve 
the broader national security interest of not only defeating 
Russia, but of deterring Iran and beating back our other 
adversaries?
    Mr. O'Brien. Thank you, Senator, and there is no one more 
eloquent than a Ukrainian fighter talking about her commitment 
to freeing her country.
    As I said in my opening statement, this is about the 
foundation of freedom and stability that the U.S. has spent 80 
years building and Ukraine has, after a few decades of finding 
its way as an independent country, unequivocally made the 
commitment that it wants to be a part of that foundation.
    The rest of the world looks at us and asks are we ready to 
take this opportunity and bring 35 million talented people into 
the space that will help us as we move forward over the next 
decades.
    If we say no to that, they will judge us as having turned 
our backs on the world and not caring about other places that 
also want to be a part of that foundation. It will set us back 
decades and will, I think, just make hollow the commitment that 
thousands of Americans made starting in the 1940s if we miss 
this opportunity.
    Senator Shaheen. Thank you. I certainly share that.
    Assistant Secretary Pyatt, last month I chaired a 
subcommittee hearing on the importance of the Black Sea region.
    Can you talk about how Russians' actions in the Black Sea 
specifically affect Europe's energy potential and what can 
happen as the result of the vision that would allow energy from 
Central Asia to come across through the Black Sea region and 
supply southern Europe?
    Mr. Pyatt. First of all, Senator, thank you for your strong 
focus on the Black Sea region because you are exactly right, 
this is one of the fulcrums of the energy map of Europe today.
    I think one thing that will be true whenever this war comes 
to an end, the center of gravity of Europe will shift to the 
south and the east.
    The Black Sea becomes vitally important and the redrawing 
of the energy map around the Black Sea that is taking place--
Romania's investment and work that Romania is doing with 
support for my bureau to develop its offshore wind industry in 
the Black Sea, the new pipeline infrastructure that I have been 
involved in supporting through multiple jobs, the southern gas 
corridor, to bring gas from Central Asia to European consumers, 
the investment that we made to support new pipelines linking 
Greece to the countries of the western Balkans to allow them to 
break their 100 percent dependency on Gazprom.
    What is happening in this Black Sea region is of vital 
importance. Right now it is significantly impeded by Russia's 
occupation of Crimea and the military threat that Russia has 
presented to the Black Sea.
    An important aspect of that which directly impacts American 
companies is the pipeline which goes from Kazakhstan to bring 
crude oil produced by Chevron and Exxon Mobil out into the 
Black Sea, which is vulnerable to the conflict that Russia has 
brought to the region.
    As I look at the--and in this global responsibility that I 
have today, I have to think about the geopolitics of our energy 
interests around the globe, but the region that you focused on 
in the Black Sea is of absolutely critical importance and we 
are fortunate there to have very strong allies.
    I have been to Bulgaria, Turkey, Romania three times in 
this role precisely because of how important it is to shaping 
the energy geopolitics of Europe and the wider region as we 
look to the future.
    Senator Shaheen. Thanks very much. I agree.
    Senator Murphy.
    Senator Murphy. Thank you very much, Senator Shaheen. 
Thanks to all three of you for being here today and for your 
great work on behalf of the United States and our interest in 
supporting a independent and sovereign Ukraine.
    Listen, I do not understand the games that our Republican 
friends are playing with Ukraine aid. I think this is an 
existential moment. We are at the zero hour with respect to 
Ukraine's needs.
    I want to pass comprehensive bipartisan immigration reform 
as badly as anyone, but to hold Ukraine hostage to unlocking 
that very difficult knot is dangerous for us and the world, but 
I am there in good faith, trying to listen to my Republican 
friends to try to get a path forward here.
    This is really one side of the equation, the support that 
Ukraine needs, and I hope that we find a path in the next 2 
weeks to be able to get Ukraine the supplemental assistance it 
needs.
    The other side of this equation is what we can do to make 
it harder for Russia to be able to sustain this level of 
operation and so I wanted to ask maybe both you, Ambassador 
Pyatt and Ambassador O'Brien, about how Russia's long-term 
prospects look to be able to afford this war and what the 
United States can do.
    Here is a note. Russia started out spending about 4 percent 
of GDP on military endeavors. This budget for the upcoming year 
will have them spending 6 percent of GDP on their military. 
That puts them in the top five in the entire world in terms of 
the percentage of their economy dedicated to military spending.
    Note that number one on that list is Ukraine that is 
spending 33 percent of its GDP--33 percent of its GDP on the 
military.
    The IEA projects that Russia's share of globally traded oil 
is going to fall by 50 percent by 2030 and that their net 
income from gas sales is going to fall from $75 billion to $30 
billion.
    You are spending already 6 percent of your GDP and you have 
a potential catastrophic fall coming in oil and gas revenue. 
That is one of the things, maybe the primary factor, that may 
push Russia to the table to try to drive a conclusion to this 
conflict.
    What can we do as members of Congress and how can we 
support your efforts to continue to make it harder for Russia 
to finance this war and how much of that is dependent on our 
allies in India and our adversaries in China making different 
decisions than they are today?
    I will stop there and ask both of you to comment on that 
quickly.
    Mr. Pyatt. Quickly, Senator, thank you for the question and 
you are exactly right in terms of the structural decline in oil 
and gas revenue that Russia is confronting. We are working as 
hard as we can to accelerate that trend.
    We do that through two mechanisms. One is by accelerating 
our energy transition both here in the United States, but also 
globally as the Biden administration has done through the 
Inflation Reduction Act to reduce the dependence on fossil 
fuels.
    The other aspect of this is what we are doing 
systematically to reduce Russia's future energy revenue. Just 
last week, for instance, we leveled new sanctions against a 
project in the Arctic, Arctic LNG II, which is Nova Tech's 
flagship LNG project which Nova Tech set in motion with the 
aspiration of developing Russia as the largest LNG exporter in 
the world.
    Our objective is to kill that project and we are doing that 
through our sanctions working with our partners in the G-7 and 
beyond.
    I think the other aspect of this, and it goes back to 
Senator Shaheen's point about the Black Sea, is how we work 
with the countries that have historically depended on Russia 
and on Russian energy and have been paying into the Kremlin's 
resources.
    We have done that quite successfully in Europe. We need to 
keep focusing on the Asian front. We do that through the price 
cap coalition and I think it is important also to recognize 
that the price cap has worked in its dual objectives of 
reducing the Kremlin's revenues while also keeping Russian 
crude oil on global markets in order not to destabilize further 
a global energy market that the Kremlin has profoundly 
destabilized.
    Let me invite Jim to add.
    Mr. O'Brien. I completely agree with what Geoff has just 
said. I will try to focus a little more on the future here, 
that Russia is losing its lucrative markets. That is what got 
it rich enough to afford this war.
    It is losing out in the sectors of innovation that are 
going to drive economic development in the future. We look at 
this and say does it put pressure on Putin to get to the table. 
Well, yes, it does. It is going to take a little time. He 
started the war with $640 billion in a rainy day fund.
    By the start of this year, despite record profits last 
year, he was down around $580 million. We immobilized $300 
million of that and he has spent down further from there. That 
gives him a year, 2 years maybe, of run room on that that rainy 
day fund that all came from selling oil and gas, so that is 
gone.
    The second thing is that we do not see Russia able to play 
in the sectors that are going to drive innovation and economic 
growth in the future, the areas of quantum mechanics, 
artificial intelligence, the energy transition, including the 
new nuclear technologies that are coming on board.
    Senator Risch, your work on this I really appreciate 
because Russia entangles countries in these long-term networks 
of corruption with generation-long Rosatom contracts.
    We are now competing for those again and taking those 
sectors away from Russia. That changes the long-term prospect 
from what it was. The result of all this is we anticipate that 
Russia's GDP is going to be at least 20 percent smaller by 2030 
than it would be if Putin had not started this war.
    It is a long-term strategic loss for him and it creates a 
great opportunity for us in a number of important sectors.
    Senator Murphy. Thank you.
    The Chairman [presiding]. Senator Van Hollen.
    Senator Van Hollen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank all 
of you for your service and your testimony.
    I just want to underscore what the chairman and others have 
said. I am sure all of you know this is a moment of truth for 
the Congress and for the United States in terms of the need--
urgent need to continue to support our Ukrainian friends.
    They are losing lives and giving blood. The least we can do 
is provide military assistance, and as all of you indicated it 
is important in itself to protect sovereignty and democracy in 
Ukraine, but this is also a much broader challenge.
    If we do not go forward with the continued assistance, it 
will undermine the NATO alliance and other European partners, 
and we all know other autocrats around the world like President 
Xi are watching very closely as he keeps one eye on Taiwan and 
it would send a terrible message to our allies in the Indo-
Pacific--Japan, Republic of Korea, and everybody else.
    This is really a critical moment for the Congress and I 
want to thank all of you and the President for his leadership 
on this.
    Ambassador Pyatt, thank you for your service in Greece, and 
as you well know--you worked on this--one of the key facilities 
that was built to help supply U.S.-based LNG to Ukraine and 
others in the region was at the port of Alexandropoulos. Thank 
you for that effort.
    I do want to pick up on some of Senator Murphy's points 
with respect to the oil price cap. I am a big supporter of it.
    I think it was a innovative approach by the President and 
our allies to put this price cap on Russian oil and the impact, 
as you said, has been to reduce Russian oil revenues and, of 
course, oil revenues are the primary source of revenue for 
Russia and its war machine.
    I do want to talk about further implementation and 
enforcement of the price cap. Reuters reported that Russian oil 
and gas revenues more than doubled in October just last month 
compared to September, so a doubling in revenues.
    The reports indicate that Russia is using a shadow and gray 
fleet to help avoid sanctions and it also raises the question 
of the extent to which we, the United States, and our partners 
are really enforcing the price oil cap if revenues doubled in 1 
month.
    Could you speak to that, please?
    Mr. Pyatt. Thanks, Senator, and I think your question and 
the data you put on the table illustrates the challenge that 
markets will try to find a way around these things.
    The work that we do with the Office of the Sanctions 
Coordinator at the State Department, working closely with OFAC, 
to keep turning the screws is absolutely critically important--
of critical importance.
    That is why we recently delivered sanctions against two 
shipping companies who were found to be operating outside of 
the price cap notwithstanding the attestations. That is why 
both the Treasury and the State Department have been 
intensively engaged with shipping operators and with insurance 
providers to encourage high standards of scrutiny of the 
attestations that are part of this process.
    I think I would also highlight the importance of the 
dialogues that I have had personally with key ship owners and 
shipping countries in order to highlight our resolve to 
continue putting a very bright spotlight on activities which 
are brushing up against the edge of the price cap.
    Fortunately, the vast majority of the global shipping 
fleet, these are publicly traded companies, oftentimes with 
headquarters that are housed in London or New York. They are 
extremely sensitive to the kind of scrutiny that the U.S. and 
our price cap coalition allies can provide.
    We do need to keep an eye on this shadow fleet--the growth 
of the shadow fleet and the reality that what was up until last 
year a fairly homogenized global crude oil market has now been 
bifurcated into two channels.
    Senator Van Hollen. Thank you.
    If I could, because I see my time is running out, thank 
you. I just think we got to keep the pressure on.
    My last question relates to the reconstruction effort. We 
had Scott Nathan, the head of DFC, before this committee not 
that long ago. As you know, we took OPEC and tried to beef it 
up into the DFC.
    One of the things that apparently was left behind is OPEC 
allowed for much more easily available political risk insurance 
the way OMB scores it than DFC. That was not the intention.
    The intention was for that to be more robust. Are you aware 
of this issue and can we fix it so that when it comes to 
getting more investment in Ukraine, under politically and other 
risky circumstances, we have all the tools available?
    Ms. McKee. Thank you, Senator, for your question. Yes, I am 
aware and I do know that DFC carries political risk insurance 
which embedded and which is war risk insurance identified as 
one of the constraints to mobilizing new investors.
    In addition, we are working very closely to ensure that 
there is access to finance and capital and other key drivers of 
growth for those companies that never left Ukraine including 
American companies in the agriculture sector or the IT sector 
in particular as well as energy and other key areas of 
opportunity.
    I know that Secretary Pritzker is working closely with 
Scott to make sure that we do all we can collectively to help 
buy down some of that risk and make those tools available so 
that we can stimulate the economic growth necessary.
    Senator Van Hollen. I just understand that the way OMB is 
scoring this right now is handicapping those efforts and so I 
look forward to following up with all of you on that question.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Thank you.
    Senator Rubio.
    Senator Rubio. Thank you all for coming in.
    It is my personal belief and I have tried to make this 
argument that the three challenges of what is happening in the 
South China Sea and the Taiwan Straits, what is happening with 
Iran's desire to build a Islamist regional order centered on 
Tehran, and what is happening and what Putin has done in 
Ukraine--that those three things in combination--any one of the 
three can--holds the real risk of escalation and spiraling into 
something worse, but the combination of the three really are an 
inflection point that will determine, in my view, much of what 
the rest of the century is going to look like.
    It is in that context I think we have to analyze what is 
happening in Ukraine. I want to be frank with you about our 
problem.
    Our problem is I am not sure that that argument from a 
growing number of people--let me just be colloquial about it 
and tell you what I hear. People come up to me and say the 
following: we have 5,000, 6,000 people a day crossing our 
border. We have got all these other needs. We are running up 
this enormous debt.
    Now, obviously, we got to help Israel. We still have to 
build up our military because the real risk is China. Where--
why is Ukraine important in that context?
    I hear that constantly and I hear that from people that a 
year and a half ago wanted to do more. I hear that from people 
that are not necessarily fans of Vladimir Putin.
    I think it is unfair to say that people that have questions 
about the effort in Ukraine are somehow pro-Putin. I also think 
one of the dangers we face in these three challenges that I 
think are definitional for the rest of the hundred years or the 
rest of the century is the tradeoffs that are going to have to 
happen. We are going to have to make policy decisions because 
one of the risks we run is being overextended.
    Now, I understand, and this is just not critical--I 
understand. I agree with all the things about we cannot allow 
borders to be changed unilaterally and we have to stand with 
our allies.
    I am not diminishing any of those things and I--but these 
arguments that--those arguments are too vague. They make sense 
here, but I am just telling you they are too vague and I think 
that they are also--this notion that we need to do whatever it 
takes or however long it takes is also misguided not because 
that--not necessarily what we need to do but because that is 
not going to be enough for people that are asking these 
questions.
    I would just say if you had an opportunity, any of you 
three or all of you three, to talk to someone, say, someone 
that came up to me a week ago and said, why are we still 
putting all this money in Ukraine, I hate Putin, I hate what he 
has done--but we have got all these other things domestically 
and in other parts of the world that are more important 
including China and now what is happening in the Middle East, 
are we going to be spending $60 billion every 6 months for how 
long, given the debt that we already have?
    What would you say to them and how would you explain to 
them that this fits in to our national interest and that 
perspective I have just outlined?
    Mr. O'Brien. That is really well framed, Senator, so I will 
do my best here.
    I think the first thing I would say is you got to shore up 
your own base. If we are going to confront China over the next 
decade--it is 1.4 billion people that is looking to write the 
rules that the world economy will run on--we go at them with a 
coalition of 50-odd countries. Europe is about 600 million to 
700 million of that. We are 350 million. With that already we 
are set to compete really effectively.
    Ukraine, though, is a challenge by Putin trying to fray 
that foundation. We have to shore that up if we are going to--
if we are going to have the heft to compete with China over 
time.
    The battle over Ukraine also allows us to reinvigorate our 
own industrial base. We are creating new energy technologies 
and putting them in place around the world.
    We are building new defense technologies, the work that is 
being done in IT--all of that is included in this supplemental 
and that is going to make us better able to defend Taiwan, to 
work in the South China Sea, than we have otherwise.
    The final point I would make is this is the wrong time to 
walk away because Ukraine is winning. It has already taken back 
half the territory Putin seized since February 2022.
    It has opened up the Black Sea grain lanes that Putin tried 
to shut down in July. Did that mostly with its own creativity 
around a whole set of interesting drones and other technologies 
that are going to contribute to our security as Ukraine gets 
closer to NATO.
    Those are all reasons you do not walk away when you are 
partway through the job.
    Ms. McKee. I would just add my--and thank you for the 
question. It was well framed.
    My dad asked me the same question, why are we supporting 
Ukraine and I--the answer that I gave him was that if we do 
not--American leadership has unlocked the alliances and the 
mobilization of all of the support that we have seen.
    Number one, we are not alone. We are in this together, and 
number two, if we falter in our support, Russia will win, and 
they will not stop at Ukraine and we have been able to support 
through economic assistance, humanitarian assistance, and 
security assistance without having our own soldiers on the 
ground and we want to do everything we can to prevent that from 
happening.
    The Chairman. Senator Duckworth.
    Senator Duckworth. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you 
all three of the witnesses appearing today.
    Secretary O'Brien, it is good to see you again so soon 
after our discussion during the recent hearing that Senator 
Shaheen and Ricketts convened on Black Sea regional security.
    I also had the opportunity to meet with Penny Pritzker just 
last week and just yesterday I sat down with Ukraine's energy 
minister as well. All of our conversations focused on how 
bolstering Ukraine's economy today can give them direct returns 
in terms of their GDP and also more immediate revenues to get 
them on a stronger path to self-sustainment even during an 
active war.
    Bottom line, there is still a lot of work to be done, but 
also a lot of opportunity here and moving quickly to pass a 
supplemental support package is necessary to capitalize on that 
opportunity.
    I feel that sense of urgency, particularly as we approach 
the winter months and the anticipated increase in threats to 
Ukraine's energy sector. They mentioned to me that last year 
there were 300 direct hits on Ukraine's energy sector, a grid 
or a power station or something like that, and certainly they 
anticipate even more drones being massed against their power 
system.
    I want to associate myself with my colleagues and I also 
appreciate your testimony, Secretary Pyatt, about the United 
States leadership in support of Ukraine's energy sector.
    I would love to give you a chance to chat about how 
important Ukraine is to the region in terms of energy and what 
it can do going towards the future.
    I had a--I sat down yesterday and talked at length about--
with their minister of energy about SMRs, their leadership role 
in nuclear, their ability to develop nuclear technology in 
particular with American firms like Westinghouse, what Romania 
is doing with SMRs and all of that.
    I would love for you to speak to that and how it is 
important to make these investments now because they can 
actually contribute towards that energy future--that clean 
energy future.
    Mr. Pyatt. Thank you, Senator, for the question and I think 
you framed it very well.
    It is important to recognize Ukraine is not a charity case. 
In economic and development terms it is an opportunity. 
Developing that opportunity depends on restoring a level of 
peace.
    As we look to the future you are going to have a Europe 
which has decoupled from Russian energy supplies, which means 
that there is a hole of about 130 BCM per year in energy supply 
that Europe is going to have to fill. Over the short-term some 
of that is American LNG, but that is a very expensive option.
    Ukraine has fantastic resources on wind, on solar, on 
biomass. It has Europe's second largest civil nuclear industry. 
It has developed and has demonstrated an extraordinary 
technological acuity.
    Just look at how clever Ukrainian soldiers have been in the 
application of satellites, of drone technology. The same--these 
are all the skill sets that Ukraine will need to prosper as a 
member of the European Union.
    My colleague, Assistant Administrator McKee, referred to 
the statement which European President von der Leyen delivered 
today welcoming the significant progress that Ukraine has made 
on its reforms and her and the Commission's determination to 
move ahead with Ukraine's accession to the European Union.
    I would say as somebody who served as an American 
ambassador in the EU for 6 years, Europe--what Ukraine 
represents, a demographically young population, a population 
which is fantastically committed to the values of the European 
Union, Ukraine is the only place in the world where people have 
fought and died under the flag of the EU for the values that 
are represented in the European constitutions.
    I think the investments and the leadership that Secretary 
Pritzker is providing to help our companies and companies 
around the world begin to make plans for the day after and to 
work with the Ukrainians to keep pushing forward with the 
reforms which are fundamental to creating the environment where 
American energy companies--renewable energy companies can come 
into Ukraine, where we can use Ukraine to help to fill the huge 
challenges that our global supply chain faces.
    Ukraine--in the Soviet Union, Ukraine was the center of 
Soviet metallurgy, the center of Soviet petrochemicals 
industries. All of those latent skills are still there.
    You talked about nuclear. Ukraine has a company in Kharkiv, 
Turboatom, which is one of the few facilities in all of Europe 
that has the industrial capacity to produce the large steel 
enclosures that are part of building modern nuclear reactors.
    I applaud your focus on this and I know I speak for all 
three of us and how systematically we are focused on trying to 
lay the foundation for that better future that the Ukrainian 
people so richly deserve.
    Senator Duckworth. Thank you. I am out of time. Thank you, 
Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Senator Menendez.
    Senator Menendez. Thank you.
    Secretary O'Brien, maybe you can work with me in going 
through a series of questions here and some rather brief 
answers.
    Is it not true that our support of Ukraine avoids the need 
to risk American lives in a larger potential European war by 
denying Russia the opportunity to send forces into potentially 
NATO allies?
    Mr. O'Brien. Yes.
    Senator Menendez. Is it not true that the impact of a 
Ukrainian defeat would be far more expensive than remaining 
committed to Ukraine?
    Mr. O'Brien. Yes.
    Senator Menendez. Is it not true that what we are doing is 
creating American jobs by spending funds on modernization of 
our military, replacing comparatively older weapons that we 
provide to Ukraine that are not essential to U.S. readiness?
    Mr. O'Brien. Yes, and Secretary Austin was very clear about 
this in his testimony last week.
    Senator Menendez. Is it not--although this is not our 
purpose, but is it not true that Ukraine's operations on the 
battlefield have exposed Russian weaknesses and operational 
capacity and readiness, which benefits the United States as we 
learn about any potential conflict against Russia?
    Mr. O'Brien. Yes.
    Senator Menendez. Is it not also true that this conflict 
has catalyzed the U.S. Defense Industrial Base, enabling it to 
set up production lines necessary to support the United States 
and other partners, for example, Taiwan, down the road if 
necessary?
    Mr. O'Brien. Yes. The U.S. and the base of our allies, as 
well.
    Senator Menendez. Now, is it not also true that Xi Jinping 
in China is watching what is going on in Ukraine and how we, 
the United States, and the Western world is responding to that 
conflict?
    Mr. O'Brien. I imagine he is.
    Senator Menendez. I would think that not only is he 
watching, but he is calculating. He is calculating as to can my 
military do what I think they can do, and I saw the much 
vaunted Russian military against at that time a inferior 
fighting force by size and capacity be able to stand up to 
Russia.
    He has got to be saying that to himself as it relates to 
any desires on Taiwan. He has got to be saying that to himself 
as it relates to whether the international community is going 
to respond as the international community has responded on 
Ukraine by sanctions and other efforts. Is that a fair 
assessment?
    Mr. O'Brien. It makes sense to me, Senator.
    Senator Menendez. Okay. Is it not also true that the 
supplemental dollars, much of which will be spent in the United 
States here in creating jobs here at home as we support an ally 
abroad, that that is a positive economic opportunity for us, 
but the impact of a Russian victory on the European economy and 
U.S.-European trade if that was the case, would that not be a 
huge negative?
    Mr. O'Brien. Yes.
    Senator Menendez. Then, lastly, if we were--some of our 
colleagues here who seem to want to link the critical elements 
necessary to support Ukraine and for that fact the state of 
Israel, and to support Taiwan that is all called for in this 
supplemental, they want to link it to things that have nothing 
to do with the ability for us to help these countries be able 
to help us stand up for the international proposition that you 
cannot by force take another country's territory and that there 
are consequences for it.
    What would the Europeans--what would the world say if we 
walked away from Ukraine? If we said, okay, no mas, enough, 
what would be the consequence of that?
    Mr. O'Brien. I think the world would judge us weaker and 
foolish for walking away from a tremendous opportunity to build 
the alliance that has brought us here.
    Senator Menendez. Not only would it say we are weaker and 
foolish, who would join us if they know that at some point we 
will cut and run?
    Mr. O'Brien. I think, Senator, the question answers itself. 
No one.
    Senator Menendez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Senator Barrasso.
    Senator Barrasso. Thanks so much, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Pyatt, I just wanted to ask you this, just listening to 
Senator Menendez using the words weaker and foolish.
    In late 2021 the State Department sent an interim 
international energy engagement guidance to embassies, 
essentially barring the U.S. government support for future 
fossil fuel projects.
    This could affect terminals in Europe who currently would 
be receiving U.S. LNG. Shortly after the cable went out Putin's 
armies invaded Ukraine. It is astonishing to me that the same 
Administration that issued this foolish anti-American energy 
guidance refused to impose sanctions on Putin's Nord Stream 2 
pipeline before the war.
    Seems like the Administration would rather sanction 
American energy. Does the policy outlined in this cable still 
remain in effect?
    Mr. Pyatt. Senator, the energy engagement guidance remains 
in effect, but I would also note that the geopolitics of energy 
after February of 2022 looks different.
    The United States is now the world's largest LNG producer 
and we are going to retain that status for years and years to 
come. Europe looks to the United States for its energy 
security.
    Europe is the largest market for American LNG. That will 
continue for years to come. Seventy percent of our LNG exports 
last year helped Europe to escape its dependence on Russia.
    I think the landscape has changed and the--I would note 
also that the energy guidance was drafted with carefully 
defined exceptions including exceptions both for humanitarian 
development reasons and also for geopolitical reasons and that 
is--a lot of the work that I do and my team does is thinking 
about those geopolitical arguments.
    Senator Barrasso. Well, thank you. I regret that it still 
remains in effect and I would love to see it eliminated.
    Ms. McKee, I want to talk about Ukrainian children. One of 
the biggest victims of Russia's unprovoked war are Ukrainian 
children. Since Russia's invasion of Ukraine, the world watched 
Russian President Putin bomb orphanages, attack schools, shell 
children's hospitals.
    That is not enough. Russia has also abducting, 
transferring, and forcefully adopting thousands of Ukrainian 
children. They are just taken away.
    Almost a year ago the U.S. ambassador to Russia committed 
to me on this committee to address the issue. She pledged to 
coordinate with the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, Bridget Brink, 
and I met with Ambassador Brink last week to document and 
expose these horrible practices.
    Ambassador Tracy also promised to help get these children 
back to their parents, so please update me on the status of the 
efforts.
    Ms. McKee. Thank you, Senator, for your question, and I 
would agree wholeheartedly that the most tragic victims of the 
conflict are the Ukrainian children who have been forcibly 
ripped from their homes and their homeland.
    We are working closely with several organizations to not 
only connect those dots that Ambassador Tracy and Ambassador 
Brink signaled to you that we are committed to, but we are 
documenting and ensuring that the follow-up to be able to 
return them if they were orphans to some family member who can 
be identified through DNA testing and other tracing elements as 
well as ensuring that the pipeline, if you will, from Russian-
occupied territory back into Russia and other places is severed 
as quickly as possible and that requires courage and bravery on 
the part of those that are inside those areas to identify, 
stand up for, and share the names and locations with us.
    I cannot in this setting share with you a significant 
amount of detail, but I can tell you that we are laser focused 
and that I know Ambassador O'Brien and the State Department and 
Ambassador Van Schaack are also focused on this terrible 
collateral, if you will, of Putin's wanton aggression.
    Senator Barrasso. Do you have a general range on how many 
Ukrainian children the U.S. may have helped reunite with their 
families at this point?
    Ms. McKee. I will have to get back to you with that number.
    Senator Barrasso. Okay. In this setting what you can in 
terms of what system has been established--you said you could 
not go into all the specific details--but can you talk a little 
bit about the system that has been established to document and 
expose the practices by Russia?
    Ms. McKee. We have a network that started before the 
invasion of basically access to justice, sort of legal aid 
clinics. That network employed about 20 attorneys and we had 
seven sites.
    Today we have over 22 with over 70 attorneys that are 
providing legal advice and guidance to those who fear their 
children have been taken as well as starting to document and 
create the file so that ultimately accountability and 
prosecution can take place.
    Senator Barrasso. Then a final question, if I may, Mr. 
Chairman. This is to Mr. O'Brien.
    In terms of a counter offensive 5 months ago Ukraine 
launched its counter offensive against Russian forces. Since 
then the gains at the front line have been limited--positive, 
but limited.
    Last month President Zelensky said Ukraine's success in the 
battle for the Black Sea will go down in history books, 
although it is not being discussed much today.
    What is needed for Ukraine to be even more successful in 
their counter offensive and what strategies have been most 
effective in pushing back Russia?
    Mr. O'Brien. Certainly, a briefing in a classified setting 
would let me go into more, and maybe a more expert witness. I 
would say two things.
    Ukraine has won back 50 percent of the territory Russia 
took since February of 2022. The second piece that is 
important. Putin is playing a waiting game like many Muscovite 
rulers before him, so it is difficult to get a decisive battle.
    What we need is what is in the supplemental--that is, the 
ability to fight this fight over some time and we do see real 
success. In the Black Sea, Russia attempted to stop Ukraine 
from exporting.
    In July, exports were down two to two and a half million 
tons. They are already more than doubled and expect to see them 
go up substantially more.
    That is because of what Ukraine has done with its 
technology and its new weapon systems, more of which would be 
provided by the supplemental.
    Senator Barrasso. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Thank you.
    Senator Risch.
    Senator Risch. I thank all of you for your service. I 
appreciate it. Good messages you had here for us today.
    If I can send one message back to the Administration and 
that is this thing cannot go on forever. There is no question 
about it. Patience will wear thin and it is not a good 
situation.
    I have been an advocate from the beginning about giving the 
Ukrainians everything short of nuclear and the Administration 
has always responded with, oh, we do not want to escalate.
    You have got to escalate. If you do not escalate, you are 
going to lose. Then--by the way, they have done eventually 
everything I have asked them to do. They still need to do more 
on the ATACMS and I want to see the F-16s. Give it to them and 
let them get this thing over with so we can move on.
    That is my message is let us act like we want to win this 
and let us move it as quickly as we can.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. The record will remain open through the end 
of business tomorrow for questions for the record. I would ask 
that you respond. Friday is a legal holiday.
    With that and our thanks again for everything you have done 
for our country and for being here today, the hearing will be 
adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 11:56 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
                              ----------                              


              Additional Material Submitted for the Record


              Responses of Mr. James O'Brien to Questions 
                  Submitted by Senator James E. Risch

    Question. What is the endgame for U.S. support to Ukraine?

    Answer. We are working so Ukraine wins. Toward this end, we are 
providing the assistance necessary to help Ukraine: 1) prevail over 
Russia's aggression and deter future aggression; 2) fend off Putin's 
attempts to destroy its economy; 3) keep strengthening its democracy 
and rule of law; 4) create a future force necessary to secure the 
peace; and 5) work towards its EU and NATO accession goals.
    Putin and potential aggressors around the world think they can 
outlast us--that the United States and its allies and partners will 
lose focus and will be unable to sustain our support for Ukraine. We 
must prove them wrong.

    Question. What do you assess to be the primary factors that limit 
Ukraine's ability to retake territory more rapidly and what does 
Ukraine need in order to overcome those factors?

    Answer. Russia is waging war both on the battlefield and against 
Ukraine's economy. Putin is seeking to break Ukraine's economy, 
including its ability to generate revenue, and hopes that by striking 
on the home front he can undermine Ukraine on the battlefield. 
Therefore, Ukraine needs security, economic, and humanitarian support 
to ensure Russia's strategic failure.
    I would refer you to the Department of Defense for a military 
analysis of Ukraine's ability to retake additional territory currently 
under Russian occupation. Working with the Department of Defense, we 
have identified the following military capabilities as high priorities 
for Ukraine: air and missile defense, artillery, armor, anti-armor, 
fixed wing, and maritime security capabilities, along with critical 
maintenance and sustainment requirements. Ukraine also needs support 
with demining activities, including training and equipment to build 
local capacity to remove explosive remnants of war.
    Meanwhile, Ukraine needs continued direct budget support to keep 
first responder and essential services in the fight; they will use this 
assistance to bring in U.S. investment and open avenues for Ukrainian 
revenue generation to replace our aid.

    Question. What concrete action is the Administration taking to help 
Ukraine retake its occupied territory, versus merely helping them hold 
the current battle lines and survive?

    Answer. The Administration continues to work closely with Ukraine 
to identify evolving needs on the battlefield as their brave troops 
fight to counter Russia's aggression, restore Ukraine's territorial 
integrity and retain its sovereignty. Toward this end, the United 
States is providing Ukraine with the political, security and economic 
assistance necessary to 1) prevail over Russia's aggression; 2) build a 
solid democracy based on the rule of law; 3) create a future force 
necessary to secure the peace; and 4) integrate with the EU and 
ultimately, NATO.
    The United States has provided approximately $44.2 billion in 
security assistance to Ukraine to help Ukraine defend its territory and 
protect its people. This security assistance has included a wide range 
of capabilities, to include: Patriot air defense system, Abrams tanks, 
and 155mm artillery ammunition, among other systems. We continue to 
provide Ukraine with security assistance according to its evolving 
battlefield needs, but we urgently need the additional resources 
requested by President Biden to ensure we can deliver the capabilities 
Ukraine needs to defend itself.
    In addition, we continue to engage with Allies and partners around 
the world to encourage them to provide their own security assistance to 
Ukraine and to coordinate our efforts. Our Allies and partners, 
particularly those in Europe, have stepped up to provide significant 
capabilities to Ukraine. As a measure of Allied support, the United 
States currently ranks in 14th place among all countries in terms of 
security assistance to Ukraine as a percentage of GDP.
    Meanwhile, the United States is working with Kyiv to build 
Ukraine's defense industrial base and future armed forces to shoulder 
more of its needs without foreign assistance.
    Furthermore, to counter Putin's attempts to wage economic war on 
Ukraine by collapsing the Ukrainian economy, destroying the energy 
grid, and weaponizing winter, the United States and our Allies and 
partners are supporting urgent recovery needs and programming 
requirements to make Ukraine less reliant on foreign budget support.
    This war is winnable. With our sustained support, and that of our 
Allies and partners, Ukraine's forces will be able to continue to take 
the fight to Russia's forces and push them back.

    Question. In your assessment, what would be the outcome if the 
United States ends military and economic support for Ukraine?

    Answer. A lapse in U.S. support for Ukraine would immediately 
impede Ukraine's performance on the battlefield, would compromise the 
security of our NATO Allies, would call into question the core values 
of the United States and our commitment to a free and fair 
international system, and would affirm for Putin that he can wait out 
Ukraine's supporters.
    Additionally, other security assistance donors follow our lead, 
which is why our continued support is important to get Ukraine the 
timely security assistance it needs. It would risk Allied and partner 
unity on sanctions and other restrictive economic measures meant to 
change Russia's calculus for waging this war.
    Lessons of the 20th century make it clear: if we don't stop 
aggressors early, we get pulled into a larger war. It is important that 
when aggressors strike, the United States rallies Allies and partners 
to fight back; this reinforces Transatlantic security and is a long-
term signal of deterrence against Russia, Putin, and those autocratic 
systems that would seek to replicate his actions elsewhere.

    Question. Why is the Administration only requesting $7 billion for 
FY24?

    Answer. This is one of several authorities. We are also helping 
Ukraine recover so that it can make and buy more weapons on its own.
    The Presidential Drawdown Authority (PDA) provided in section 
506(a)(1) of the Foreign Assistance Act has been used to provide 
Ukraine equipment from DoD stocks and other defense services. PDA 
supports the rapid delivery of urgent defense capabilities, compared to 
FMF and USAI that generally require a procurement process usually 
occurring over an extended period of time (unless being used to 
purchase or incentivize donations of urgent capabilities from partners 
in the short-term). A total of $7 billion in PDA would allow for the 
United States to continue to provide the Ukraine Armed Forces what it 
needs on the battlefield as well as meet other global needs, if 
necessary. About $4.9 Billion in transfer authority is still available 
under past drawdowns to provide assistance to Ukraine.
    DoD's request for both an additional $7 billion in PDA and $18 
billion in requested replenishment funding will allow the U.S. to 
continue utilizing PDA to provide needed assistance to Ukraine and 
procuring additional systems to replenish both previous and future 
transfers.

    Question. What is your estimated timeline for security assistance 
deliveries through USAI and FMF?

    Answer. We are continually working to expedite deliveries as 
quickly as possible in close coordination with Allies and partners, who 
are also providing their own security assistance to support Ukraine's 
defense needs. While deliveries of new procurements are subject to U.S. 
industry timelines, we have used both USAI and FMF effectively to 
obtain what Ukraine needs in the short-term. We have used USAI military 
grant assistance funds to procure capabilities from industry and 
partner countries while focusing FMF grant assistance mostly on 
incentivizing short-term donations of critical military equipment from 
partners and allies. Some of these capabilities can be delivered in 
weeks, while others represent the beginning of a longer-term 
procurement process. Delivery timelines ultimately depend on individual 
capabilities being procured. Ukraine has already received a significant 
amount of capability through these mechanisms, to include air defense 
systems like NASAMS and HAWK; 155mm artillery rounds; counter battery 
radars; and strike and ISR Unmanned Aerial Systems. Given operational 
security reasons, we are unable to comment on specific details of 
pending deliveries of previously committed items. However, in concert 
with the Department of Defense, we could offer additional information 
in a classified setting.

    Question. How are State and USAID planning to work with the U.S. 
private sector in Ukraine reconstruction?

    Answer. State and USAID work together with the U.S. private sector 
to support businesses in Ukraine, facilitate trade, and promote 
American business investment. We also are working closely with the 
Government of Ukraine in support of its efforts to attract foreign 
investment more generally.
    On September 14, President Biden appointed former Commerce 
Secretary Penny Pritzker to serve as the Special Representative for 
Ukraine's Economic Recovery. Special Representative Pritzker works to 
increase coordination with allies on Ukraine's economic recovery, 
mobilize the private sector to increase commercial activity and jobs 
creation in-country, and establish the enabling conditions that will 
support private-sector investment and Ukraine's integration into 
Western markets.
    State is providing funds to the World Bank's Multilateral 
Investment Guarantee Agency (MIGA) to help strengthen Ukraine's private 
sector, including by making capital financing and risk insurance 
available to boost the economy and tax base.
    State and USAID are helping overhaul Ukraine's energy grid, making 
it cleaner, resilient, and more integrated with Europe. These 
investments will also support Ukraine's energy market reforms to combat 
monopolies and to spur more private investment, which will enable 
Ukraine to become a major energy exporter.
    In addition to State/USAID-funded programming that benefits the 
private sector, USAID has leveraged over $30 million in private sector 
donations and pro-bono support in key USG priority areas such as 
documenting war crimes, enhancing cybersecurity, and mitigating the 
costs of private sector investment in Ukraine.
    USAID's Agriculture Resilience Initiative (AGRI) Ukraine initiative 
supports Ukraine's export and agricultural sector needs and helps 
alleviate the global food security crisis. USAID has leveraged more 
than $250 million in private sector, donor and foundation contributions 
in support of AGRI-Ukraine.
    USAID is complementing the International Development Finance 
Corporation's (DFC) efforts to mobilize private capital and support the 
Ukrainian private sector using DFC's financial tools. DFC and USAID 
have signed an MoU with the GOU to work together in identifying and 
developing private sector projects in Ukraine for consideration for DFC 
support.

    Question. How can the seizure and repurposing of frozen Russian 
assets contribute to Ukraine's economic recovery?

    Answer. Our support is crucial to keeping Ukraine in the fight. We 
are working with partners and Allies to help Ukraine's economy get back 
on its feet and, over the long run, thrive. The United States and our 
G7 partners have committed to keeping Russia's sovereign assets 
immobilized until there is a resolution of Russia's war that addresses 
Russia's violation of Ukraine's sovereignty and ensures Russia has paid 
for the damage it has caused.
    Seizing Russian sovereign assets raises complex legal and policy 
issues. Most of the assets are not located in the United States, and 
even for those assets that are within U.S. jurisdiction, we do not 
currently have domestic legal authority to take these actions. I know 
there is Congressional interest in seizing Russian sovereign assets to 
use for Ukraine's recovery and that proposed legislation would provide 
the President with authority to do so. I look forward to working with 
Congress on this important issue.

    Question. Why hasn't the Administration provided the more advanced 
versions of ATACMS to Ukraine?

    Answer. The United States is in constant communication with Ukraine 
about its most pressing assistance needs as it defends against Russia's 
invasion of its territory. We recently provided a type of ATACMS 
capable of ranging out to 165 km that can provide a significant boost 
to Ukraine's battlefield capabilities. This new capability gives 
Ukraine the ability to strike deep area targets in Ukraine to deny 
Russia's forces a safe haven in occupied territory. We are committed to 
continuing to provide Ukraine's forces with the military aid they need 
to succeed on the battlefield and defend their freedom and 
independence--and to ensure Russia's strategic failure.

    Question. Why has the Administration failed to move more swiftly 
and accelerate this process?

    Answer. The United States will continue to use a wide range of 
available tools to respond to Ukraine's urgent battlefield requirements 
with urgency and purpose. Decisions to transfer U.S. systems to Ukraine 
require close coordination within the U.S. Government as well as with 
Ukraine, and often with key Allies and partners as well. We will 
continue to provide priority capabilities to Ukraine, including air 
defense and artillery ammunition, in consultation with Ukraine and will 
work around the clock to continue deliveries to support Ukraine.

    Question. When Ukrainian pilots have been trained, does the U.S. 
intend to provide Ukraine with F-16s? Why or why not?

    Answer. The United States continues to do all we can to strengthen 
Ukraine's ability to defend itself, including joint efforts with our 
Allies to train Ukraine's pilots on the F-16. As the training takes 
place over the coming months, our coalition of countries will continue 
to discuss when to provide fourth-generation fighter aircraft, how many 
we will provide, and who will provide them. The Netherlands, Denmark, 
Norway, and Belgium have already announced their intent to donate F-16s 
to Ukraine. We will review all necessary third-party transfer requests, 
and these F-16s will be the foundation of Ukraine's F-16 capability and 
its future NATO interoperable air force. The United States does not 
plan to provide F-16 aircraft to Ukraine at this time, but we will 
continue to work closely with our F-16 coalition partners and Ukraine 
to determine how many F-16s Ukraine will need to field an effective 
capability, including how many squadrons of 24 planes Ukraine will 
need. After this decision is made, the U.S. will consult with our 
coalition partners on additional sourcing of aircraft, if needed, as 
well as support capabilities, including munitions.

    Question. When Ukrainian pilots have been trained, does the U.S. 
intend to provide Ukraine with F-16 maintenance support and parts for 
repair? Why or why not?

    Answer. The Air Force Capability Coalition, which the United States 
co-leads with the Netherlands and Denmark, intends to address training, 
sustainment, infrastructure, aircraft, and munitions as a part of the 
joint effort with our allies and partners to provide Ukraine fourth-
generation fighter aircraft. Maintenance, including spare parts, will 
be a necessary factor to consider before providing Ukraine with F-16s. 
We are working closely with our counterparts in the F-16 coalition to 
decide who will best be able to provide key support and maintenance 
functions for Ukraine's F-16s, as well as who will assist in training 
Ukraine's F-16 maintainers.

    Question. What restrictions has the U.S. put on military equipment 
provided to Ukraine?

    Answer. Ukraine's frontline units effectively employ military 
assistance at a large scale every day on the battlefield as they defend 
their country against Russia's aggression. The U.S. will not approve 
transfers if we assess that a recipient will be unable to adequately 
secure U.S. origin materiel consistent with the provisions of the 
underlying agreements supporting the sale or transfer of such 
equipment. Standard U.S. restrictions on third party transfer and end-
use violation apply to all U.S. origin equipment provided to Ukraine. 
However, we have also been clear with Ukraine that the U.S. does not 
support Ukrainian use of U.S.-supplied equipment for direct attacks 
inside Russia. Additionally, before providing Ukraine with cluster 
munitions, Ukraine provided assurances and publicly declared that it 
will not use cluster munitions in urban areas or engage targets in 
Russia, while also recording where these munitions are used and 
prioritize post-war demining efforts in these areas to mitigate any 
potential harm to civilians.

    Question. What has the Administration done to ensure those 
requirements are met?

    Answer. We continue to engage closely with Ukraine regarding usage 
of U.S.-provided systems. The Ukrainian Government has also shown they 
take this responsibility seriously. We are working with Ukraine to 
minimize the risks associated with the decision to provide cluster 
munitions. The Government of Ukraine has offered assurances on the 
responsible use of cluster munitions, including that these rounds will 
not be used in civilian-populated urban environments, and that Ukraine 
will record where these rounds are used, which will help with demining 
efforts. Ukraine also has committed to post-conflict de-mining efforts 
to mitigate any potential harm to civilians.
    Additionally, the United States takes very seriously our 
responsibility to protect American defense technologies and prevent 
their diversion or illicit proliferation. This is true even as we are 
realistic that we are sending weapons to help Ukraine defend itself in 
an active conflict. The Biden administration released the U.S. Plan to 
Counter the Illicit Diversion of Certain Advanced Conventional Weapons 
in Eastern Europe (https://www.state.gov/u-s-plan-to-counter-illicit-
diversion-of-certain-advanced-conventional-weapons-in-eastern-europe/
#:%7E:text=
in%20Eastern%20Europe-,U.S.%20Plan%20to%20Counter%20
Illicit%20Diversion%20of,Conventional%20Weapons%20in%20
Eastern%20Europe&text=Summary%3A%20The%20United%20States'%20
priority,territory%20against%20Russia's%20further%20invasion) on 
October 27, 2022, to safeguard conventional weapons, enhance regional 
border security, and build capacity of law enforcement forces. To 
advance this plan, we are actively engaging with the Government of 
Ukraine and synchronizing policies with key Allies and partners to 
ensure accountability of assistance, to mobilize resources, and to 
deliver training, even amidst Russia's continued war.
    We welcome the Ukrainian Government's formation of a commission to 
strengthen monitoring of donated military equipment. We are confident 
in the Ukrainian Government's commitment to appropriately safeguard and 
account for transferred U.S.-origin defense equipment.

    Question. Many other countries have pledged support to Ukraine. To 
what extent are other countries fulfilling their commitments to 
Ukraine?

    Answer. We are not alone in supporting Ukraine--led by us, our 
Allies and partners are also stepping up. On the security assistance 
front, our partners and allies have contributed more than $35 billion 
dollars in assistance for Ukraine. This is supplemented by more than 
$65 billion in other assistance. Since Russia's 2022 full-scale 
invasion, we've provided over $2.6 billion in FMF to regional partners 
and allies which have helped incentivize and unlock donations of 
critical and urgently needed military equipment, including air defense.
    Countries are continuing to take positive steps to fulfill their 
commitments to transfer key capabilities, including Norway, Belgium, 
Denmark, and the Netherlands, who have committed to provide F-16s to 
Ukraine, and will join us in providing F-16 pilot training to help 
prepare Ukrainian forces to utilize this capability and regain control 
of their airspace. Others, like Germany's announcement in October of an 
additional $1.1 billion in new assistance, for a total of $5.4 billion 
in security assistance in 2023 for key systems, including Patriot and 
IRIS-T air defense systems, are now delivering newly produced systems, 
like the IRIS-T. Timelines for defense production mean many of these 
deliveries will take longer, but will be able to continue to help 
Ukraine receive key systems to support their fight for years to come.

    Question. Please describe those conditions and the extent to which 
they have been effective.

    Answer. The United States has leveraged conditions tied to our 
budget support and other assistance to help Ukraine win the war and win 
the future through reform and recovery. These reforms align with 
Ukraine's stated goals of advancing its Euro-Atlantic integration and 
attracting private investment toward Ukraine's recovery, both of which 
are in the U.S. national interest.
    U.S. budget support has been conditioned on the implementation of 
reforms by the Government of Ukraine to improve transparency, 
strengthen governance of its public institutions, and fight corruption. 
Conditions in the IMF program and those from EU funding have also 
pushed Ukraine to take on ambitious reforms, most notably in 
anticorruption and good governance practices.
    Ukraine met all USG conditions for disbursement of budget support 
to date, and as shown by Ukraine's passage of anti-monopoly and asset 
declaration legislation, our approach is working to help Ukraine 
continue its progress on the reforms needed to cement its place as a 
transparent democracy in the heart of Europe.

    Question. The President's supplemental request does not properly 
specify the purposes for which each account will be used. The request 
for substantial new resources under the Migration and Refugees 
Assistance account (MRA) is particularly concerning because, 
apparently, the Administration can't tell us how previously 
appropriated funds were used, let alone how new funds will be 
prioritized.
    Can you address this lack of specificity and state for the 
committee record the planning levels, broken down by account and 
purpose, that informed this request?

    Answer. Russia's brutal assault on Ukraine threatens Europe, NATO, 
and the basic rules of the international system on which we rely for 
our own security. We must continue to support Ukraine's self-defense. 
President Biden requested $16.3 billion for State and USAID to ensure 
that Ukraine can sustain Ukraine's fight for survival, and to provide 
critical assistance to those impacted by the situation in Ukraine. This 
funding will keep Ukraine in the fight by keeping lights on and 
emergency services functioning, it will help Ukraine's economy become 
more self-reliant by supporting exports, advancing key reforms and 
opening opportunities for American businesses and others to invest in 
Ukraine's future. Funding will also support civil society, independent 
media, and accountability for war crimes.
    Foreign Military Financing (FMF) has proven essential to 
incentivizing and backfilling donations to Ukraine from regional 
partners and allies and providing direct support for Ukraine's military 
requirements. The $1.7 billion FMF requested in this supplemental will 
support Ukraine and countries impacted by the situation in Ukraine to 
bolster capabilities such as air defense, artillery, armor, anti-armor, 
maritime security, among other, along with critical maintenance and 
sustainment activities. These funds are essential to ensure Ukraine has 
the support it needs to meet urgent military requirements as it defends 
itself from Russia's brutal invasion, both in the short and long-term.
    Our request includes $11.75 billion in Economic Support Funds (ESF) 
for support to Ukraine's budget. Our partners are making significant 
contributions to share the burden of assistance. Already, they have 
provided more than half of humanitarian assistance and three-quarters 
economic assistance for Ukraine. Ukraine also needs the support of the 
International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank. However, the IMF 
can only sustain its efforts if there is sufficient donor support to 
ensure Ukraine's financing gap is filled, and that is where our 
contribution is essential. Reducing or delaying budget support would 
put the IMF program, and basic economic stability in Ukraine, at risk. 
It would also imperil Ukraine's military efforts, as they currently 
direct their domestic revenue to war-fighting expenses. Turning our 
backs on these partner efforts would have lasting implications for our 
own security and our own standing in the world.
    The $2.228 billion in Assistance for Europe Eurasia and Central 
Asia (AEECA) is critical to address capacity, transmission, 
distribution, and security of energy, while building on energy reforms; 
it will also support the agricultural sector, which must be a major 
driver of economic growth and tax revenue. This will include storage, 
infrastructure for transportation and logistics to enable higher-value 
exports and critical infrastructure for rail and road transportation. 
This funding is critical to helping Ukraine restore the economic 
activity and government revenues necessary to move beyond its need for 
budget support. Supplemental AEECA funding is being requested primarily 
for Ukraine, where the vast majority will be programmed, but limited 
funds may also be targeted at lessening key Russian levers of influence 
or shoring up partner countries in the region. For example, a portion 
of funding may be directed to support Ukraine's global agriculture 
exports by establishing new logistics routes through Moldova.
    For Ukraine, the requested humanitarian assistance ($9.125 billion 
global request for International Disaster Assistance (IDA) and 
Migration and Refugee Assistance (MRA)) is likewise essential. We 
provided humanitarian assistance to approximately 16 million people 
inside Ukraine in FY 2023. Without supplemental funding, that figure 
would likely shrink to just 4 million people. This funding will enable 
the United States to continue providing life-saving support and ensure 
that those who have been displaced or impacted by Putin's war have 
access to essential aid and services, especially during the harsh 
winter months. To date, MRA assistance has supported the displaced, 
including refugees and other vulnerable populations, and host 
communities both inside Ukraine and in the region. MRA supports Health, 
Protection, Shelter, WASH Nutrition and livelihoods programming.
    The $360 million requested in International Narcotics Control and 
Law Enforcement (INCLE) funds would continue to support civilian 
security needs in Ukraine through September 2024. This supplemental 
funding would support INL's surging of emergency equipment to law 
enforcement partners securing newly liberated and war-damaged areas, 
enhancing Ukrainian capacity to investigate and prosecute war crimes, 
and bolstering anti-corruption reforms critical to winning Ukraine's 
future. Without this supplemental funding, INL will be forced to 
significantly limit its emergency equipment assistance support to 
Ukrainian law enforcement and border security partners, including for 
vehicles, personal protective equipment, unmanned aerial systems, and 
other lifesaving and operational equipment.
    Lastly, the $100 million in Non-proliferation, Anti-Terrorism, 
Demining and Related Programs (NADR) funding would be used to sustain 
ongoing humanitarian demining efforts while simultaneously continuing 
to train and equip the Ukrainian Government's own demining teams to 
address explosive remnants of war, independent of sustained U.S. 
assistance in the long term. Demining assistance is a critical enabler 
for restoring critical infrastructure, including energy infrastructure 
as winter approaches, as well as for restoring agriculture and other 
economic activity. NADR funding would also be used to support: export 
control, threat reduction, and countering weapons of mass destruction 
assistance that addresses Russia's supply chains and sanctions evasion; 
provide counter Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear, and 
Explosives (CBRNE) assistance and training to key Ukrainian partners; 
secure CBRNE facilities, materials, and expertise; strengthen Ukraine's 
border security; and prevent regional arms diversion.

    Question. How is U.S. financial and economic assistance being 
geared toward supporting Ukraine's ability to grow its own revenue 
streams so it can sustain its own budget and reduce its need for 
foreign aid?

    Answer. This is central to Secretary Pritzker's strategy. U.S. 
assistance helps to sustain Ukraine's economy, facilitate economic 
activity like exports that generate tax revenue, as well as advance 
reforms and position Ukraine to attract the private sector investment 
that will help the country return to self-reliance.
    The United States is helping Ukraine strengthen its transport 
routes through the Danube River and the Black Sea to increase export of 
materials and generate additional tax revenue. We are providing 
equipment to accelerate ship loading/unloading at its river ports which 
will help decrease turnaround times and scale up operations. We are 
also supporting changes to speed up transit of exports across borders. 
Ukraine estimates that as a result of improvements made to export 
routes since late summer, it will collect additional tax revenues, 
perhaps more than 10 percent of the total shortfall between budget and 
expenditures. We will keep supporting improvements.
    State and USAID are helping overhaul Ukraine's energy grid, making 
it cleaner, resilient, and more integrated with Europe. These 
investments will also support Ukraine's energy market reforms to combat 
monopolies and to spur more private investment, which will enable 
Ukraine to become a major energy exporter.
    As part of the post-war recovery, Ukraine will have to rebuild its 
tax system and tax base. To this end, we are assisting the Ukrainian 
State Tax Service (STS) on continuity of operations and post-conflict 
operational readiness by modeling Ukraine's tax administration regime 
after Western tax administration systems, including sharing best 
practices in anti- corruption, and assisting in the areas of debt 
management, taxpayer services, international taxation, compliance risk 
management, and audit operations.

    Question. How is the Administration engaging allies in Europe, at 
the European Union, and especially countries along Ukraine's border to 
encourage them to support Ukraine's economic growth and allow Ukraine 
to continue exporting its products to regional and global markets?

    Answer. The United States is not alone in supporting Ukraine. We 
have rallied partners to respond swiftly and as a unified force. In 
fact, the total security and non-security assistance provided by our 
partners exceeds that provided by the United States. This includes our 
partners providing roughly double what the United States has in 
humanitarian and budget support assistance.
    The United States also participates in the Multi-Agency Donor 
Coordination Platform (MDCP) for Ukraine together with the Ukrainian 
Government, the European Union, G-7 partners, and international 
financial institutions. This close collaboration has ensured that donor 
assistance has risen to meet a wide range of needs for Ukraine's 
economic recovery, while avoiding duplication.
    The United States also remains committed to partnering with 
Ukraine's neighbors to enhance regional export capacity via the 
expansion of alternative export routes and the modernization of 
Ukraine's border crossings. This means improving critical 
infrastructure for rail and road transportation and transshipment, 
expanding access to train car parts and railway assembly lines, and 
assisting our Black Sea Allies, partners, and the private sector, along 
the Danube in modernizing transportation linkages.

    Question. How did the Administration arrive at the $11.8B as what 
they believe to be sufficient contribution from the United States for 
this purpose?

    Answer. Partners, including the EU, Japan, Canada and the UK, are 
stepping up in unprecedented ways, which is allowing us to taper our 
support significantly--from $1.5 billion per month in 2022 to a planned 
$825 million a month by late 2024. And we are working with Ukraine to 
further increase their self-sufficiency, which will allow us to 
continue to reduce U.S. support. The request of $11.75 billion in ESF 
for budget support represents the minimum amount needed to help cover 
Ukraine's baseline needs, after accounting for other international 
support. Precipitously reducing support now, however, risks handing 
Putin a victory. For Ukraine's IMF program, which underpins the 
international effort to prevent economic collapse, to proceed, the IMF 
must be able to demonstrate at its December review that Ukraine's 
financing gap for the next year will be filled.

    Question. How does the Administration assess Ukraine will reach 
goal of $42B? Where do you assess the rest of the contributions will 
come from? For 2024, please provide a list of known and expected 
contributors and the amounts to be provided by each.

    Answer. Ukraine expects to meet up to $10 billion of its 2024 
budget financing gap through a combination IMF financing and debt 
relief, with the remainder to be covered by official financing from 
bilateral donors. Other bilateral donors have not formally announced 
their commitments for 2024. In 2023, the EU established itself as the 
leading donor of budget support, alongside significant contributions 
from other G7 partners (Japan, Canada, the UK), among others, and the 
crucial contribution of the United States. Russian attacks on Ukraine's 
industry and export infrastructure in 2023 complicated Ukraine's 
efforts to raise more revenue domestically.

    Question. How is the Administration engaging with European allies 
to ensure they are also using their direct budgetary support to 
encourage Ukraine's economic growth and contribute to building its 
self-sufficiency?

    Answer. The United States has rallied European and global allies 
and partners to respond swiftly and as a unified force to bolster 
Ukraine's economic viability. In fact, the total security and non-
security assistance provided by our partners exceeds that provided by 
the United States. As of November 16, the United States has provided a 
total of $74.6 billion and other donors have provided a total of $91.4 
billion in assistance to Ukraine. In terms of humanitarian and budget 
support assistance, our partners have provided roughly double what the 
United States has provided:

   humanitarian assistance: U.S. $2.4 billion, other donors 
        $4.5 billion;

   budget support: U.S. $22.9 billion, other donors $43.6 
        billion. The United States is one of the co-chairs of the 
        Multi-agency Donor

    Coordination Platform (MDCP) with the Government of Ukraine, the 
EU, G-7 partners, and international financial institutions. This close 
collaboration has ensured that donor assistance has risen to meet a 
wide range of needs for Ukraine's economic recovery, while avoiding 
duplication. In addition, the United States uses the MDCP mechanism to 
coordinate with partners and Allies to support Ukraine's reform agenda.

    Question. What other funds or mechanisms does the United States 
have at its disposal to support the Government of Ukraine if the 
aforementioned direct budgetary support funds are not sufficient?

    Answer. Without additional appropriations, the United States will 
not be able to provide budget support to Ukraine. We have been using 
base and supplemental appropriations to help Ukraine defend itself and 
sustain its economy, as well as to advance reforms. While these 
programs work to help Ukraine win the war and win the future, they 
cannot supplant budget support.

    Question. What is the Administration's estimate of how many 
Ukrainian refugees plan to return to Ukraine after the war?

    Answer. Given the numerous and highly individualized factors which 
go into every refugee's decision about their return to their country of 
origin, we cannot predict how many refugees will return to Ukraine 
after the war. However, in a July survey of Ukrainian refugees carried 
out by UNHCR, only 6 percent had no plan or hope to return. 14 percent 
planned to return in the next 3 months, and 62 percent hoped to return 
at some point. 18 percent were undecided about return. Per UNHCR data, 
there are almost 6.3 million refugees from Ukraine, 5.9 million of whom 
live in Europe. As of September 2023, according to UN statistics, 4.6 
million people have returned to their homes either from abroad or from 
other locations inside Ukraine.

    Question. What conditions do you believe will convince Ukrainian 
refugees to return?

    Answer. A refugee's decision to return to their place of origin is 
a highly personal one and should be safe, voluntary, and dignified. 
When surveyed, Ukrainian refugees have consistently placed the highest 
importance on security as a factor that would enable their return. 
Refugees also cited access to work as one of the most important factors 
that would enable them to return, along with access to electricity and 
water services, and access to health services. However, given the 
countless individual factors that influence a refugee's decision to 
return, it is impossible to predict who will return and under what 
circumstances.

    Question. Does the Administration assess that Russia is committing 
genocide in Ukraine? Why or why not?

    Answer. Since Russia's initial invasion of Ukraine in 2014, we have 
closely monitored the wide-ranging abuses and atrocities committed in 
Ukraine by Russia's forces. We assess that since the full-scale 
invasion in February 2022, Russia's forces have committed war crimes in 
Ukraine. Members of Russia's military forces and other Russian 
Government officials have committed crimes against humanity in Ukraine. 
These conclusions do not foreclose any potential future determinations 
of other atrocity crimes. We will continue to closely monitor, 
document, and analyze the situation in Ukraine and provide support to 
others to do the same. We are fully committed to holding Russia 
accountable for all crimes it has committed against Ukraine.

    Question. What actions are [sic] the State Department considering 
to better stop the sale of Russian oil, which in turn leads to the flow 
of hard currency into the Kremlin's coffers and the expenditure of that 
currency on armaments used to continue their invasion of Ukraine?

    Answer. The United States is committed to keeping the pressure on 
Putin to end his war against Ukraine while limiting impacts on global 
energy markets. While we are committed to thwarting Russia's future 
energy projects and helping our allies phase out their dependence on 
Russian energy, we do not seek to cut off flows of Russian crude oil 
and petroleum products on global markets, because that would reduce 
global supply and raise global prices, increasing revenues back to 
Putin. Rather, the oil price cap policy works to prevent Russia from 
earning a steep wartime premium on its oil sales while ensuring 
reliable supply of oil on global markets. As evidenced by OFAC's 
October 12 and November 16 designations of entities accessing Coalition 
services to move Russian oil above the price cap, we take allegations 
of price cap violations extremely seriously. We will continue to 
exercise our authorities to act where appropriate.
    Coalition policy, including import bans on Russian crude oil and 
petroleum products, continues to constrain Russian revenues and limit 
the impact of Russia's war against Ukraine on global prices. Even while 
Russian oil revenues partially recovered as global prices rose this 
summer, the sustained period of constrained oil revenues in 2023 has 
had significant and ongoing economic effects, including the drawdown of 
fiscal reserves and changes in the current account that have driven 
ruble depreciation.
    Russian oil tax revenues fell by 36 percent in the first 10 months 
of 2023, compared to the same period in 2022. In response, Russia 
announced domestic measures, including energy tax hikes and subsidy 
cuts for domestic supplies of diesel and gasoline, to maintain revenue 
for the federal budget and shift energy revenue losses to its industry. 
While these actions may temporarily boost government revenues in the 
immediate term, they also further increase pressure on Russia's 
domestic industry.
    We also see Russia responding to our pressure by increasing its 
reliance on a limited number of markets and turning to service 
providers that lack a track record of safety and environmental 
standards. This increases costs and risks both for Russia and for 
purchasers of Russian oil.
    On October 12, the Coalition published a joint Advisory for the 
Maritime Oil Industry and Related Sectors regarding recent irregular 
and high-risk shipping practices that generate significant concerns for 
both the public and private sector in global maritime oil trade. We are 
committed to working with allies and partners, as well as industry, to 
reduce these heightened risks and ensure Russia pays for the costs it 
is attempting to impose on others.

    Question. Please provide us with your assessment of the connections 
and cooperation between Russia and Iran and Russia and Hamas and other 
proxies involved in the recent Israel-Gaza conflict.

    Answer. Iran remains Russia's top military backer. Russia has used 
Iranian-origin UAVs in continuous attacks against Ukraine, including 
deplorable attacks on Ukrainian cities targeting critical 
infrastructure. Russia has not only procured hundreds of Mohajer and 
Shahed-series UAVs from Iran, but it is also working with Iran to 
produce them inside Russia. By providing Russia with these UAVs, Iran 
has directly enabled Russia's war of aggression against Ukraine. 
Interactions between Iran and Russia in matters regarding the selling 
of advanced weapons, especially more advanced UAVs, are continuing.
    Russia has refused to condemn Hamas following its horrific October 
7 terrorist attack on Israel, and Russia recently hosted Hamas 
officials in Moscow. Reports that the Wagner Group is transferring Air 
Defense Systems to Hizballah are concerning. We and our partners have 
been clear: Hizballah and other actors should not try to take advantage 
of the ongoing conflict. The United States does not want to see this 
conflict expand into Lebanon or the broader region. The likely 
devastation for Lebanon and its people would be unimaginable and is 
avoidable.

    Question. What, if any, training or military support has Russia 
provided to Hamas?

    Answer. At this time, we do not have any information to provide on 
Russian military support to Hamas.

    Question. What diplomatic support has Russia provided to Hamas?

    Answer. Though at least 19 Russian nationals were killed in Hamas's 
October 7 attack on Israel, Russia has refused to condemn Hamas for the 
horrific attack and recently hosted Hamas officials in Moscow. Hamas 
and Putin represent different threats, but they both have engaged in 
egregious and horrific attacks killing civilians and damaging civilian 
infrastructure. Both Hamas and Putin represent a threat not only to the 
countries that have been attacked, but also to our national security.

    Question. What type and amount of military assistance is North 
Korea providing Russia? What is Russia doing for North Korea in 
exchange for this aid?

    Answer. The USG has information that the DPRK delivered arms to 
Russia for use in Ukraine. Our information indicates that the DPRK has 
provided Russia with more than 1,000 containers of military equipment 
and munitions. Last month, we released imagery showing the movement of 
these containers from the DPRK into Russia by ship and across Russia by 
train to the frontlines of Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine.
    In return for its support to Moscow, we assess that Pyongyang is 
seeking military assistance from Russia, including fighter aircraft, 
surface-to-air missiles, armored vehicles, ballistic missile production 
equipment or materials, and other advanced technologies. We are 
monitoring closely whether Moscow will provide Pyongyang with these 
materials, and we have already observed Russian ships offloading 
containers in the DPRK, which may constitute the initial deliveries 
from Russia.

    Question. Is Moscow now directly aiding the DPRK's missile and 
nuclear program?

    Answer. We do not have specific information to provide at this time 
on any assistance Moscow is actually providing to the DPRK's missile 
and nuclear program. We note that Russian President Putin held his 
meeting September 13 with Kim Jong Un at Russia's Vostochny Cosmodrome 
and announced his intention to cooperate with the DPRK on its satellite 
program.

    Question. How has China helped Russia to circumvent international 
sanctions?

    Answer. Since Russia launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine, 
we have made clear to the PRC that providing Russia the means to 
systemically evade sanctions would have serious implications for our 
relationship and the PRC's relationships around the world. We 
nonetheless have ongoing concerns that PRC entities may consider 
providing support that Russia could use to advance its war against 
Ukraine. We remain vigilant in monitoring these actions. We will impose 
costs on PRC entities supporting Russia's war effort, as we did when 
the United States on January 26 sanctioned PRC firm Spacety and China 
HEAD Aerospace under E.O. 14024, both of which were involved in 
providing satellite imagery Wagner used to conduct military operations 
in Ukraine. Since Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine began, we 
have sanctioned 17 PRC entities and placed 22 PRC entities on the 
Entity List for their role in supporting Russia's war of aggression. We 
also refer to you the Department's quarterly report to Congress on the 
PRC's support to Russia.

    Question. How is China supporting Russia's warfighting effort?

    Answer. Since Russia launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine, 
we have made clear to the PRC that arming Russia or providing Russia 
the means to systemically evade sanctions would have serious 
implications for our relationship and the PRC's relationships around 
the world. The PRC has said publicly that it will not provide lethal 
aid to Russia for use against Ukraine. As Secretary Blinken has said, 
we have not seen any evidence to contradict that. We nonetheless have 
ongoing concerns that PRC entities may consider providing dual-use 
items and other support that Russia could use to advance its war 
against Ukraine. We remain vigilant in monitoring these actions.

    Question. Does the Administration believe that welcoming a 
potential role for China in Ukraine could create space or drive a wedge 
between Russia and China? If so, why does the Administration hold this 
view?

    Answer. The United States would welcome any country--including the 
PRC--playing a constructive role in securing a just and lasting peace 
for Ukraine that is consistent with the UN Charter and respects 
Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity. We have no illusions 
about the nature of the PRC's strategic partnership with Russia, 
however, and are realistic about the degree to which Beijing is willing 
to be constructive.
    The PRC is committed to supporting its most important partner while 
projecting a neutral posture to the world. The United States and many 
other countries have warned the PRC against providing Russia economic 
and material support that enables Russia's war machine. We continue to 
monitor Beijing's activity closely, coordinating with our allies and 
partners, and continue to raise this directly with Beijing.
    We are following Ukraine's lead and respect Ukraine's decisions on 
how best to defend its sovereignty and restore its territorial 
integrity and we will work closely with Ukraine and other allies and 
partners, especially those in Europe, to ensure that the reconstruction 
process is conducted in a fair and just way. We will also work with 
Ukraine to advise them of the risk of doing business with untrusted 
vendors before, during, and after their reconstruction process.
    The PRC is increasing its coercive practices in developing 
countries, which have been hit hard by Russia's war against Ukraine. 
The Administration is committed to materially expanding development 
finance to countries hard hit by the spillovers of Russia's war, as 
part of its efforts to provide a credible alternative to the PRC's 
coercive and unsustainable financing.
                                 ______
                                 

            Responses of Mr. Geoffrey R. Pyatt to Questions 
                  Submitted by Senator James E. Risch

    Question. What is the endgame for U.S. support to Ukraine?

    Answer. We are working so Ukraine wins. Toward this end, we are 
providing the assistance necessary to help Ukraine: 1) prevail over 
Russia's aggression and deter future aggression; 2) fend off Putin's 
attempts to destroy its economy; 3) keep strengthening its democracy 
and rule of law; 4) create a future force necessary to secure the 
peace; and 5) work towards its EU and NATO accession goals.
    Putin and potential aggressors around the world think they can 
outlast us--that the United States and its allies and partners will 
lose focus and will be unable to sustain our support for Ukraine. We 
must prove them wrong.

    Question. What do you assess to be the primary factors that limit 
Ukraine's ability to retake territory more rapidly and what does 
Ukraine need in order to overcome those factors?

    Answer. Russia is waging war both on the battlefield and against 
Ukraine's economy. Putin is seeking to break Ukraine's economy, 
including its ability to generate revenue, and hopes that by 
distracting on the home front he can undermine Ukraine on the 
battlefield. Therefore, Ukraine needs security, economic, and 
humanitarian support to ensure Russia's strategic failure.
    I would refer you to the Department of Defense for a military 
analysis of Ukraine's ability to retake additional territory currently 
under Russian occupation. Working with the Department of Defense, we 
have identified the following military capabilities as high priorities 
for Ukraine: air and missile defense, artillery, armor, anti-armor, 
fixed wing, and maritime security capabilities, along with critical 
maintenance and sustainment requirements. Ukraine also needs support 
with demining activities, including training and equipment to build 
local capacity to remove explosive remnants of war.
    Meanwhile, Ukraine needs continued direct budget support to keep 
first responder and essential services in the fight; they will use this 
assistance to bring in U.S. investment and open avenues for Ukrainian 
revenue generation to replace our aid.

    Question. What concrete action is the Administration taking to help 
Ukraine retake its occupied territory, versus merely helping them hold 
the current battle lines and survive?

    Answer. The Administration continues to work closely with Ukraine 
to identify evolving needs on the battlefield as their brave troops 
fight to counter Russia's aggression, restore Ukraine's territorial 
integrity and retain its sovereignty. Toward this end, the United 
States is providing Ukraine with the political, security and economic 
assistance necessary to 1) prevail over Russia's aggression; 2) build a 
solid democracy based on the rule of law; 3) create a future force 
necessary to secure the peace; and 4) integrate with the EU and 
ultimately, NATO.
    The United States has provided approximately $44.2 billion in 
security assistance to Ukraine to help Ukraine defend its territory and 
protect its people. This security assistance has included a wide range 
of capabilities, to include: Patriot air defense system, Abrams tanks, 
and 155mm artillery ammunition, among other systems. We continue to 
provide Ukraine with security assistance according to its evolving 
battlefield needs, but we urgently need the additional resources 
requested by President Biden to ensure we can deliver the capabilities 
Ukraine needs to defend itself.
    In addition, we continue to engage with Allies and partners around 
the world to encourage them to provide their own security assistance to 
Ukraine and to coordinate our efforts. Our Allies and partners, 
particularly those in Europe, have stepped up to provide significant 
capabilities to Ukraine. As a measure of Allied support, the United 
States currently ranks in 14th place among all countries in terms of 
security assistance to Ukraine as a percentage of GDP.
    Meanwhile, the United States is working with Ukraine to build both 
their defense industrial base and future armed forces to shoulder more 
of its needs without foreign assistance.
    Furthermore, to counter Putin's attempts to wage economic war on 
Ukraine by collapsing the Ukrainian economy, destroying the energy 
grid, and weaponizing winter, the United States and our Allies and 
partners are supporting urgent recovery needs and programming 
requirements to make Ukraine less reliant on foreign budget support.
    This war is winnable. With our sustained support, and that of our 
Allies and partners, Ukraine's forces will be able to continue to take 
the fight to Russia's forces and push them back.

    Question. In your assessment, what would be the outcome if the 
United States ends military and economic support for Ukraine?

    Answer. A lapse in U.S. support for Ukraine would immediately 
impact Ukraine's performance on the battlefield, would compromise the 
security of our NATO Allies, would call into question the core values 
of the United States and our commitment to a free and fair 
international system, and would affirm for Putin that he can wait out 
Ukraine's supporters.
    Additionally, other security assistance donors follow our lead, 
which is why our continued support is important to get Ukraine the 
timely security assistance it needs. It would risk Allied and partner 
unity on sanctions and other restrictive economic measures meant to 
change Russia's calculus for waging this war.
    Lessons of the 20th century make it clear: if we don't stop 
aggressors early, we get pulled into a larger war. It is important that 
when aggressors strike, the United States rallies Allies and partners 
to fight back; this reinforces Transatlantic security and is a long-
term signal of deterrence against Russia, Putin, and those autocratic 
systems that would seek to replicate his actions elsewhere.

    Question. What will the role of Ukraine's energy industry play in 
the reconstruction process?

    Answer. The energy sector is a foundation of Ukraine's future and 
will drive restoration and economic revitalization across all sectors. 
The private sector will be an important part of this process. Ukraine's 
energy industry will lead in the design and implementation of a modern, 
more distributed, sustainable, and resilient energy system fully 
aligned with Europe. Ukraine's power and natural gas sectors have the 
future potential not only to meet domestic needs but to expand exports 
to Europe. Ukraine has the potential to become a clean energy supplier 
to Europe and a model for energy transition around the globe. 
Rebuilding Ukraine's energy systems could enable Ukraine to become a 
hub for diversifying energy sector supply chains, nuclear/SMR equipment 
manufacturing, nuclear services, and critical minerals and critical 
mineral processing.

    Question. How are State and USAID planning to work with the U.S. 
private sector in Ukraine reconstruction?

    Answer. State and USAID work together with the U.S. private sector 
to support businesses in Ukraine, facilitate trade, and promote 
American business investment. We also are working closely with the 
Government of Ukraine in support of its efforts to attract foreign 
investment more generally.
    On September 14, President Biden appointed former Commerce 
Secretary Penny Pritzker to serve as the Special Representative for 
Ukraine's Economic Recovery. Special Representative Pritzker works to 
increase coordination with allies on Ukraine's economic recovery, 
mobilize the private sector to increase commercial activity and jobs 
creation in-country, and establish the enabling conditions that will 
support private-sector investment and Ukraine's integration into 
Western markets.
    State is providing funds to the World Bank's Multilateral 
Investment Guarantee Agency (MIGA) to help strengthen Ukraine's private 
sector, including by making capital financing and risk insurance 
available to boost the economy and tax base.
    State and USAID are helping overhaul Ukraine's energy grid, making 
it cleaner, resilient, and more integrated with Europe. These 
investments will also support Ukraine's energy market reforms to combat 
monopolies and to spur more private investment, which will enable 
Ukraine to become a major energy exporter.
    In addition to State/USAID-funded programming that benefits the 
private sector, USAID has leveraged over $30 million in private sector 
donations and pro-bono support in key USG priority areas such as 
documenting war crimes, enhancing cybersecurity, and mitigating the 
costs of private sector investment in Ukraine.
    USAID's Agriculture Resilience Initiative (AGRI) Ukraine initiative 
supports Ukraine's export and agricultural sector needs and helps 
alleviate the global food security crisis. USAID has leveraged more 
than $250 million in private sector, donor and foundation contributions 
in support of AGRI-Ukraine.
    USAID is complementing the International Development Finance 
Corporation's (DFC) efforts to mobilize private capital and support the 
Ukrainian private sector using DFC's financial tools. DFC and USAID 
have signed an MoU with the GOU to work together in identifying and 
developing private sector projects in Ukraine for consideration for DFC 
support.

    Question. How can the seizure and repurposing of frozen Russian 
assets contribute to Ukraine's economic recovery?

    Answer. Our support is crucial to keeping Ukraine in the fight. As 
we support Ukraine on the battlefield, we are working with partners and 
Allies to help Ukraine's economy get back on its feet and, over the 
long run, thrive. The United States and our G7 partners have committed 
to keeping Russia's sovereign assets immobilized until there is a 
resolution of Russia's war that addresses Russia's violation of 
Ukraine's sovereignty and ensures Russia has paid for the damage it has 
caused.
    Seizing Russian sovereign assets raises complex legal and policy 
issues. Most of the assets are not located in the United States, and 
even for those assets that are within U.S. jurisdiction, we do not 
currently have domestic legal authority to take these actions. I know 
there is Congressional interest in seizing Russian sovereign assets to 
use for Ukraine's recovery and that proposed legislation would provide 
the President with authority to do so. I look forward to working with 
Congress on this important issue.

    Question. Why has the Administration failed to move more swiftly 
and accelerate this process? Many other countries have pledged support 
to Ukraine.

    Answer. Since February 2022, the United States has mobilized $520 
million in energy assistance with another $500 million in process from 
already approved supplementals. This support is key to ensuring that 
Putin's efforts to weaponize the winter fail by providing critical 
equipment to repair Ukraine's damaged electricity grid and power 
generation facilities. A stable power grid enables Ukraine to maintain 
the safe operation of its nuclear power plants and enables continued 
operation of critical infrastructure including water supply, 
sanitation, communications, railways, and district heat. The United 
States is leading efforts through the G7+ Energy Coordination Group to 
coordinate international support for Ukraine's most pressing energy 
sector needs, where the allies have done even more than the United 
States.
    The $16.3 billion requested for State and USAID in the National 
Security Supplemental request for Ukraine will provide critical support 
for the Ukrainian Government as it works to protect the Ukrainian 
people against Russian aggression. The supplemental request also 
includes economic and civilian security assistance, to help the 
Government of Ukraine continue essential operations including energy 
generation and critical governance and regulatory reforms.

    Question. To what extent are other countries fulfilling their 
commitments to Ukraine, specifically regarding the protection and 
reconstruction of its energy infrastructure and assistance to its 
energy industry and reforms?

    Answer. Through the G7+ Energy Coordination Group, international 
partners have coordinated well over a billion dollars in energy-related 
assistance, including over $270 million to the Ukraine Energy Support 
Fund; over a $1 billion in financial support to European Bank for 
Reconstruction and Development to enable the repair, maintenance, 
hardening, and purchasing of fuel supplies to the Ukrainian power and 
gas networks; over $15 million in contributions to the International 
Atomic Energy Agency to assist efforts in securing and maintaining the 
safe operation of Ukraine's nuclear power facilities; and bilateral 
donations of grid equipment, power generators, and heating points 
support, totaling more than 7,000 tons of equipment from 35 countries, 
worth hundreds of millions of dollars.
    The United States is working closely with the Government of 
Ukraine, along with partners from the EU, UK, Japan, Canada, and other 
countries to promote continued progress on implementing needed reforms; 
support the modernization of Ukraine's energy system, ensuring 
Ukraine's electricity grid remains stable and resilient; and engage the 
private sector needed to rebuild Ukraine's energy sector. The EU 
accession process provides a clear path forward on market reforms, and 
Ukrainian officials are unified on the importance of market reforms to 
create an open, transparent, predictable, and profitable energy sector 
business environment.

    Question. Please describe those conditions and the extent to which 
they have been effective.

    Answer. The United States has leveraged conditions tied to our 
budget support and other assistance to help Ukraine win the war and win 
the future through reform and recovery. These reforms align with 
Ukraine's stated goals of advancing its Euro-Atlantic integration and 
attracting private investment toward Ukraine's recovery, both of which 
are in the U.S. national interest.
    U.S. budget support has been conditioned on the implementation of 
reforms by the Government of Ukraine to improve transparency, 
strengthen governance of its public institutions, and fight corruption. 
Conditions in the IMF program and those from EU funding have also 
pushed Ukraine to take on ambitious reforms, most notably in 
anticorruption and good governance practices.
    Ukraine met all USG conditions for disbursement of budget support 
to date, and as shown by Ukraine's passage of anti-monopoly and asset 
declaration legislation, our approach is working to help Ukraine 
continue its progress on the reforms needed to cement its place as a 
transparent democracy in the heart of Europe.

    Question. How is U.S. financial and economic assistance being 
geared toward supporting Ukraine's ability to grow its own revenue 
streams, specifically through energy industry, so it can sustain its 
own budget and reduce its need for foreign aid?

    Answer. U.S. economic assistance helps to sustain Ukraine's 
economy, facilitates economic activity like exports that generate tax 
revenue, advances reforms, and positions Ukraine to attract the 
required private sector investment needed to return to self-reliance. 
In the energy sector, our assistance supports the decentralization of 
Ukraine's energy grid, ensures the effectiveness of transparency, anti-
monopoly and market-based measures in the energy sector, and creates 
the basis for a cleaner, greener, and more independent grid integrated 
with the European energy market. Ukraine's energy sector will be a key 
driver in powering Ukraine's economic recovery across all sectors and 
enabling Ukraine to position itself as a net exporter of energy to the 
rest of Europe.

    Question. How is the Administration engaging allies in Europe, at 
the European Union, and especially countries along Ukraine's border to 
encourage them to support Ukraine's economic growth with regard to its 
energy industry and promote Ukraine's connection and integration the 
European energy systems and markets?

    Answer. The United States works with global partners to mobilize 
assistance to repair and improve the resiliency of Ukraine's critical 
energy infrastructure. The United States and international partners--
primarily through the G7+ coordination mechanism--have coordinated 
hundreds of millions of dollars in energy-related assistance, 
delivering more than 7,000 tons of equipment from 35 countries.
    Secretary Blinken will co-host the next G7+ ministerial on November 
21, focusing on winter preparation and critical energy needs.

    Question. What actions are [sic] the State Department considering 
to better stop the sale of Russian oil, which in turn leads to the flow 
of hard currency into the Kremlin's coffers and the expenditure of that 
currency on armaments used to continue their invasion of Ukraine?

    Answer. The United States is committed to keeping the pressure on 
Putin to end his war against Ukraine while limiting impacts on global 
energy markets. While we are committed to thwarting Russia's future 
energy projects and helping our allies phase out their dependence on 
Russian energy, we do not seek to cut off flows of Russian crude oil 
and petroleum products on global markets, because that would reduce 
global supply and raise global prices, increasing revenues back to 
Putin. Rather, the oil price cap policy works to prevent Russia from 
earning a steep wartime premium on its oil sales while ensuring 
reliable supply of oil on global markets. As evidenced by OFAC's 
October 12 and November 16 designations of entities accessing Coalition 
services to move Russian oil above the price cap, we take allegations 
of price cap violations extremely seriously. We will continue to 
exercise our authorities to act where appropriate.
    Coalition policy, including import bans on Russian crude oil and 
petroleum products, continues to constrain Russian revenues and limit 
the impact of Russia's war against Ukraine on global prices. Even while 
Russian oil revenues partially recovered as global prices rose this 
summer, the sustained period of constrained oil revenues in 2023 has 
had significant and ongoing economic effects, including the drawdown of 
fiscal reserves and changes in the current account that have driven 
ruble depreciation.
    Russian oil tax revenues fell by 36 percent in the first 10 months 
of 2023, compared to the same period in 2022. In response, Russia 
announced domestic measures, including energy tax hikes and subsidy 
cuts for domestic supplies of diesel and gasoline, to maintain revenue 
for the federal budget and shift energy revenue losses to its industry. 
While these actions may temporarily boost government revenues in the 
immediate term, they also further increase pressure on Russia's 
domestic industry.
    We also see Russia responding to our pressure by increasing its 
reliance on a limited number of markets and turning to service 
providers that lack a track record of safety and environmental 
standards. This increases costs and risks both for Russia and for 
purchasers of Russian oil. On October 12, the Coalition published a 
joint Advisory for the Maritime Oil Industry and Related Sectors 
regarding recent irregular and high-risk shipping practices that 
generate significant concerns for both the public and private sector in 
global maritime oil trade. We are committed to working with allies and 
partners, as well as industry, to reduce these heightened risks and 
ensure Russia pays for the costs it is attempting to impose on others.
                                 ______
                                 

               Responses of Ms. Erin McKee to Questions 
                  Submitted by Senator James E. Risch

    Question. What is the purpose of the security assistance we provide 
Ukraine? It appears that to me that our objective is to deny a Russian 
victory rather than to enable Ukraine to achieve its strategic 
objectives.
    What is the endgame for U.S. support to Ukraine?

    Answer. USAID defers the question on strategic objectives to the 
State Department.

    Question. What do you assess to be the primary factors that limit 
Ukraine's ability to retake territory more rapidly and what does 
Ukraine need in order to overcome those factors?

    Answer. USAID defers the questions on retaking territory to the 
State Department.

    Question. What concrete action is the Administration taking to help 
Ukraine retake its occupied territory, versus merely helping them hold 
the current battle lines and survive?

    Answer. USAID defers the questions on retaking territory to the 
State Department.

    Question. In your assessment, what would be the outcome if the 
United States ends military and economic support for Ukraine?

    Answer. Regarding economic support, without budget support and 
development assistance, Russia will win the war, undermining U.S. 
interests and wasting the nearly $75 billion that the U.S. has already 
provided to Ukraine. If the United States ends economic support, 
Ukraine will rely on emergency financing measures that will further 
debilitate its economy, increase inflation, and decrease the confidence 
of private sector investors. Ukrainian first responders' ability to 
respond to attacks by Russia missiles on Ukrainians and Ukrainian 
infrastructure will be diminished. Thousands of Ukrainians will be at 
risk of freezing this winter and elderly and other vulnerable 
populations will be unable to sustain themselves and their families. 
Health workers won't be able to deliver urgent healthcare to 
Ukrainians.
    Putin is trying to destroy Ukraine's economy to ensure Ukrainians' 
fight for freedom will fail. As a result, our budget support is 
critical to sustaining Ukraine's economy amidst the war's devastation. 
Finally, our development assistance helps Ukraine's private sector and 
tax base grow, which will reduce Ukraine's reliance on humanitarian 
assistance and budget support in the future.

    Question. A joint assessment by the Ukrainian Government, World 
Bank, and European Commission estimated the cost of recovery in Ukraine 
will be over $411 billion.
    How are State and USAID planning to work with the U.S. private 
sector in Ukraine reconstruction?

    Answer. The U.S. Government is not focused on large-scale physical 
reconstruction efforts in Ukraine. State and USAID are exploring 
options to work with the U.S. private sector to support businesses in 
Ukraine, facilitate trade, and promote investment for economic 
recovery. We also are working closely with Ukraine's government in 
support of its efforts to attract foreign investment more generally.
    The Department of State's Office of Global Partnerships (E/GP) has 
launched the Ukraine Partnership Series that will work with other 
Department offices and initiatives to promote public-private 
partnerships as a vehicle to revitalize Ukraine's economy.
    USAID supports the Ukrainian Ministry of Economy's ``Advantage 
Ukraine'' platform, established in September 2022 as a one-stop shop 
for foreign investors, which identifies current and future investment 
opportunities. USAID also works with ``Invest Ukraine'', the Ukrainian 
Government's Investment Promotion Agency, to support investments.
    USAID publicizes opportunities in Ukraine for U.S. private sector 
actors through convenings such as the September 2023 ``Doing Business 
in Ukraine'' conference hosted by the Center for Strategic & 
International Studies, and the April 2023 U.S.-Ukraine Partnership 
Forum, which brought together senior business executives and Ukrainian 
and U.S. Government officials to focus on building the foundation for a 
dynamic economic recovery in Ukraine.
    USAID has established a working group known as Assist Ukraine to 
engage directly with the private sector in support of Ukraine. USAID 
has leveraged more than $30 million in private sector donations and 
pro-bono support in key U.S. Government priority areas such as 
documenting war crimes, enhancing cybersecurity, and mitigating the 
costs of private sector investment in Ukraine.
    USAID established the Agriculture Resilience Initiative (AGRI) 
Ukraine in July 2022, an initiative critical to supporting Ukraine's 
export and agricultural sector needs and to help alleviate the global 
food security crisis. To date, USAID has leveraged more than $250 
million in private sector, donor, and foundation contributions in 
support of AGRI-Ukraine.
    USAID is co-investing with the private sector, including with 
export-oriented businesses, for expanding grain handling capacity and 
using their own established instruments to provide liquidity for 
farmers. In addition, USAID is supporting and complementing the 
Development Finance Corporation's (DFC) efforts to mobilize private 
capital and support the Ukrainian private sector using DFC's financial 
tools.
    DFC and USAID have signed a memorandum of understanding (MoU) with 
the Government of Ukraine to work together in identifying and 
developing private sector projects in Ukraine for consideration for DFC 
support.
    State is providing funds to the World Bank's Multilateral 
Investment Guarantee Agency (MIGA) to help strengthen Ukraine's private 
sector, including by making capital financing and risk insurance 
available to boost the economy and tax base.
    State and USAID are helping overhaul Ukraine's energy grid, making 
it cleaner, resilient, and more integrated with Europe. These 
investments will also support Ukraine's energy market reforms to combat 
monopolies and to spur more private investment, which will enable 
Ukraine to become a major energy exporter.
    State and USAID, and key donors such as the EU, are supporting 
critical reforms of Ukraine's judicial system. These reforms are an 
important element in improving Ukraine's business enabling environment.

    Question. How can the seizure and repurposing of frozen Russian 
assets contribute to Ukraine's economic recovery?

    Answer. Russia should pay for the damage it is causing to Ukraine.
    For any details concerning the seizure and repurposing of Russian 
assets, we refer you to the Department of State, which can provide the 
latest state of play on this issue.

    Question. I understand Ukraine is short on air defenses for the 
coming winter. Despite the likelihood that Russia will soon begin 
bombing Ukraine's power station, work to get Ukraine air defense is 
slow. The retrofitting of Ukraine's Buk air defense launchers to fit 
Sea Sparrow missiles is only happening at a rate of 5 per month.
    Why has the Administration failed to move more swiftly and 
accelerate this process?

    Answer. USAID defers the question on air defense to the Department 
of Defense and the Department of State.

    Question. Many other countries have pledged support to Ukraine.
    To what extent are other countries fulfilling their commitments to 
Ukraine?

    Answer. The United States rallied our partners as a unified force 
to respond swiftly to Russia's illegal invasion of Ukraine, ensuring 
that donor assistance meets a wide range of needs in Ukraine. USAID has 
continued to urge our partners to ramp up their support. With U.S. 
leadership, more than 50 countries worldwide have provided support to 
Ukraine. As of November 2023, other donors make up more than half of 
all support to Ukraine.
    Europe's total budgetary support to Ukraine is set to surpass that 
of the United States in 2023. According to press reports, the European 
Union (EU) is managing the largest operation of in-kind humanitarian 
donations in its history, including more than 95,000 tons of medical 
supplies, energy equipment, vehicles, and emergency shelters. European 
countries have also borne the brunt of the refugee crisis Putin created 
with his war, with millions of Ukrainians forced to flee to European 
countries, forcing national and local governments to provide additional 
assistance to Ukrainian refugees. As of November 2023, our EU partners 
(including EU member states) have worked to fulfill these commitments 
by providing more than $43 billion in financial and budgetary support 
in humanitarian and emergency assistance, not including their military 
support or in-country spending on refugees. Furthermore, EU leadership 
pledged to support Ukrainian refugees and has worked to fulfill this 
promise by making $18 billion available to support more than 4.5 
million refugees from Ukraine who have sought protection in the EU.
    Non-EU donors have also stepped up with significant contributions. 
The United Kingdom will provide up to $3 billion from 2024 to 2027, 
Japan will provide another $2 billion in 2023, Norway announced a $7.5 
billion support program over 5 years, and Switzerland announced $1.9 
billion for reconstruction. Japan, despite its historical stance on 
refugees, has accepted approximately 2,000 Ukrainian refugees as part 
of the Kishida administration's promise to stand with Ukraine.
    U.S. leadership is essential for support to Ukraine, as is the 
invaluable work our partners do to fulfill their commitments.

    Question. We understand that starting this summer, the U.S. applied 
conditions on economic assistance to Ukraine.
    Please describe those conditions and the extent to which they have 
been effective.

    Answer. In August 2023 the United States implemented a 
conditionality framework to encourage progress on key governance and 
anti-corruption reforms in Ukraine. The U.S. Government's conditions 
were intended to: (1) Account for the use of U.S. budget support; (2) 
Monitor Ukraine's progress on a full reform agenda agreed to between 
the Government of Ukraine (GOU) and the International Monetary Fund 
(IMF); (3) Encourage Ukraine to show incremental progress on key 
reforms that also align with IMF conditionality.
    These conditions have proven effective in ensuring that the GOU 
remains committed to a reform agenda, even during wartime, and to 
showcase progress on the promises made to the citizens of Ukraine to 
root out corruption and provide greater accountability and 
transparency. The U.S. Government will continue to impose 
conditionalities on future assistance to Ukraine to ensure that the GOU 
continues to deliver reforms, and prevent backsliding on reforms tied 
to previous conditions for U.S. foreign assistance.
    Conditions for receiving the August 2023 direct budget support 
(DBS) payment aligned with Ukraine's existing IMF program and required 
the Ministry of Finance to publish a consolidated report of the special 
accounts that execute the GOU's expenses. Embassy Kyiv, along with U.S. 
Government interagency partners, determined that the Government of 
Ukraine had met the August condition, and the World Bank subsequently 
released the August 2023 DBS payment to the GOU in September 2023.
    Conditions for receiving the September 2023 DBS payment required 
the President of Ukraine to submit legislation on the reform of the 
Special Anti-Corruption Prosecutor's Office (SAPO), to the Verkhovna 
Rada, Ukraine's Parliament. This proposed legislation would need to 
strengthen SAPO's independence, improve SAPO's leadership selection 
process, and establish mechanisms for greater accountability and 
transparency. SAPO reform is a feature of IMF and EU requirements, 
reflecting the broad consensus of Ukraine's international partners and 
demands of the Ukrainian people. In September 2023, Ukraine's Ministry 
of Justice delivered a law to the Rada in line with what the U.S. 
Government requested. The Rada passed the first reading of the 
legislation in November 2023.

    Question. The President's supplemental request does not properly 
specify the purposes for which each account will be used. The request 
for substantial new resources under the Migration and Refugees 
Assistance account (MRA) is particularly concerning because, 
apparently, the Administration can't tell us how previously 
appropriated funds were used, let alone how new funds will be 
prioritized.
    Can you address this lack of specificity and state for the 
committee record the planning levels, broken down by account and 
purpose, that informed this request?

    Answer. USAID defers the question to the Department of State.

    Question. It is evident that compared to military and humanitarian 
assistance, public support for economic assistance is waning most 
rapidly among the American people and the United States will have a 
more difficult task in justifying this type of assistance as time goes 
on. It is critical that the U.S. gear all economic assistance toward 
helping Ukraine rebuild its own internal revenue streams so that the 
government can become less reliant on foreign aid to continue 
operating.
    How is U.S. financial and economic assistance being geared toward 
supporting Ukraine's ability to grow its own revenue streams so it can 
sustain its own budget and reduce its need for foreign aid?

    Answer. U.S. economic assistance is appropriately focused on 
increasing Ukraine's own revenue in order to reduce the need for donor 
support for Ukraine's budget. For example, economic assistance beyond 
direct budget support is directly supporting firm and sector-level 
growth, encouraging greater private sector investment, and creating 
jobs. The objective of this assistance is to create a modern regulatory 
and enabling environment required to rebuild Ukraine's economy, and 
increase the capacity of Ukraine to continue exporting agricultural 
products as a key driver of their economy.
    These actions create revenue growth that will build a foundation 
for an expanded tax base and support a national economy that will 
reduce reliance on direct budget support in the future. Activities 
being supported by supplemental funds include grants to small and 
medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), entrepreneurs, business associations, 
and others in the private sector, expansion of vocational training, 
expanding access to finance, and working with the U.S. International 
Development Finance Corporation and International Financing 
Institutions to support economic recovery and encourage foreign direct 
investment.

    Question. How is the Administration engaging allies in Europe, at 
the European Union, and especially countries along Ukraine's border to 
encourage them to support Ukraine's economic growth and allow Ukraine 
to continue exporting its products to regional and global markets?

    Answer. The Administration has been coordinating closely with 
counterparts from the European Union (EU) and states that border 
Ukraine to catalyze Ukraine's economic growth through efforts to 
increase the export of the country's agricultural commodities. 
Agriculture represents 20 percent of Ukrainian GDP (pre-war) and is a 
vital sector for Ukraine and global food security. In the first year of 
the Agriculture Resilience Initiative (AGRI) Ukraine Initiative, USAID 
leveraged $250 million from donor partners, the private sector, and 
foundations. This initiative supports the purchase and delivery of 
critical inputs for farmers who have limited supplies or limited 
mobility, improves and increases export logistics and infrastructure, 
and increases farmers' access to financing to enable a full crop 
harvest.
    The Administration is also coordinating closely with EU and partner 
governments on Ukraine's border, such as Romania and Poland, to 
increase the capacity of commodity flow out of Ukraine. For example, 
the U.S. Government is working with partner governments, port 
operators, and the private sector through a mix of equipment purchases 
and technical assistance to increase Ukraine's ability to export grain 
via the Danube ports and land border crossings.
    It is critical that the U.S., in close coordination with our allies 
and partners, lead these efforts to support the Ukrainian agricultural 
sector. Farm and agribusiness failures in Ukraine would introduce 
increased opportunities for investment by the People's Republic of 
China (PRC) in the Ukrainian agriculture sector, providing the PRC with 
greater influence over Ukraine's economy and politics.

    Question. The supplemental request recommends a minimum of $11.8B 
in direct budgetary support for the Ukrainian Government for 2024. 
Ukraine has estimated a funding gap of $42B for 2024 that needs to be 
met by international contributions.
    How did the Administration arrive at the $11.8B as what they 
believe to be sufficient contribution from the United States for this 
purpose?

    Answer. The Administration's supplemental request recommendation 
for a minimum of $11.8 billion in direct budgetary support for the 
Ukrainian Government for 2024 is based on both the International 
Monetary Fund's (IMF) assessment of Ukraine's external financing needs 
to prevent an economic crisis combined with an informed estimate of 
what other allied and partner donors can provide.

    Question. How does the Administration assess Ukraine will reach 
goal of $42B? Where do you assess the rest of the contributions will 
come from? For 2024, please provide a list of known and expected 
contributors and the amounts to be provided by each.

    Answer. The United States' close collaboration with partners has 
ensured that donor assistance has risen to meet a wide range of needs 
in Ukraine. The European Union (EU) committed approximately $19 billion 
in 2023 and is actively deliberating on a proposed new 4-year 50 
billion Euro package beginning in 2024. Others have made commitments 
similar to their 2023 levels, including Japan ($5.5 billion), Canada 
($1.8 billion), and the United Kingdom ($1 billion).
    As a result, the Administration's recommendation of approximately 
$11.8 billion estimates that partners, allies, and other sources, 
including the World Bank, IMF, and private creditors, will cover 
approximately three-quarters of Ukraine's external financing needs in 
2024. In this scenario, other donors will continue to provide more in 
economic support than the U.S., as has been true since the start of the 
full-scale invasion of Ukraine.

    Question. How is the Administration engaging with European allies 
to ensure they are also using their direct budgetary support to 
encourage Ukraine's economic growth and contribute to building its 
self-sufficiency?

    Answer. USAID has continued to urge our partners to ramp up their 
support, and we will do so as long as this war rages on. The EU has 
stepped forward as an indispensable partner through its support to 
Ukraine. The EU and member states have made available approximately $19 
billion in financial assistance for 2023, disbursed in regular monthly 
increments to ensure stable financing for the running of the Ukrainian 
state.
    In parallel to these efforts, the Administration is working with 
partners, including through the Multi-Donor Coordination Platform 
(MDCP), to increase economic support to accelerate Ukraine's return to 
financial independence. However, without continued assistance in 2024 
from the United States, we do not assess that there is a credible path 
to fill the gap needed to stabilize the economy and prevent economic 
collapse despite the ongoing war.

    Question. What other funds or mechanisms does the United States 
have at its disposal to support the Government of Ukraine if the 
aforementioned direct budgetary support funds are not sufficient?

    Answer. Currently, USAID does not have other funds or mechanisms to 
support the budgetary gap that direct budget support fills. USAID 
assistance programs, particularly in agriculture, firm-level private 
sector support, and mobilizing capital are geared towards economic 
recovery to boost Ukraine's private sector and tax base, thus reducing 
Ukraine's reliance on budget support over time.

    Question. After 20 months of war, millions of Ukrainian refugees 
are settling into new lives in foreign countries. This may make them 
less likely to eventually return to Ukraine.
    What is the Administration's estimate of how many Ukrainian 
refugees plan to return to Ukraine after the war?

    Answer. USAID defers the questions to the Department of State.

    Question. What conditions do you believe will convince Ukrainian 
refugees to return?

    Answer. USAID defers the questions to the Department of State.

    Question. Russia continues to strike civilian targets in Ukraine 
and has committed war crimes and atrocities against its people.
    Does the Administration assess that Russia is committing genocide 
in Ukraine? Why or why not?

    Answer. USAID defers the question to the Department of State.

    Question. According to the Wall Street Journal, ``Oil and gas tax 
revenue to the Russian budget in October more than doubled from 
September and rose by more than a quarter from the same month last 
year.'' This is in part because Russia now uses a huge ``shadow fleet'' 
of aging and dangerous tankers to transport its oil around the world. 
The average price for Russian (Urals) crude is now only about $15/per 
barrel lower than the price of Brent crude. It thus seems that the 
price cap on Russian oil has failed.
    What actions are the State Department considering to better stop 
the sale of Russian oil, which in turn leads to the flow of hard 
currency into the Kremlin's coffers and the expenditure of that 
currency on armaments used to continue their invasion of Ukraine?

    Answer. USAID defers the question to the Department of State.

    Question. I understand Hamas leadership has visited Moscow at least 
three times this year, and cooperation between Russia, Iran, and 
proxies like Hamas continues to grow.
    Please provide us with your assessment of the connections and 
cooperation between Russia and Iran and Russia and Hamas and other 
proxies involved in the recent Israel-Gaza conflict.

    Answer. USAID defers the questions to the Department of State.

    Question. What, if any, training or military support has Russia 
provide to Hamas?

    Answer. USAID defers the questions to the Department of State.

    Question. What diplomatic support has Russia provided to Hamas?

    Answer. USAID defers the questions to the Department of State.

    Question. I am even more alarmed at reports that Russia and the 
DPRK have revitalized their defense relationship.
    What type and amount of military assistance is North Korea 
providing Russia? What is Russia doing for North Korea in exchange for 
this aid?

    Answer. USAID defers the questions to the Department of State.

    Question. Is Moscow now directly aiding the DPRK's missile and 
nuclear program?

    Answer. USAID defers the questions to the Department of State.

    Question. I have previously expressed my concerns about the 
deepening alignment between China and Russia, even as China publicly 
signals its desires to mediate and play a role in Ukraine's 
reconstruction--potentially undermining U.S. and allied efforts to 
shore up a resilient, democratic Ukraine.
    How has China helped Russia to circumvent international sanctions?

    Answer. USAID defers the questions to the Department of State.

    Question. How is China supporting Russia's warfighting effort?

    Answer. USAID defers the questions to the Department of State.

    Question. Does the Administration believe that welcoming a 
potential role for China in Ukraine could create space or drive a wedge 
between Russia and China? If so, why does the Administration hold this 
view?

    Answer. USAID defers the questions to the Department of State.
                                 ______
                                 

              Responses of Mr. James O'Brien to Questions 
                     Submitted by Senator Tim Scott

    Question. As we support Ukraine's fight, I believe it is imperative 
that the American people have a firm understanding of: A) why it is 
within our interest to do so; and B) what success on the battlefield 
should look like. With that in mind, can you provide an assessment--in 
an unclassified or classified manner--of the exact assets the 
Administration believes Ukraine needs to succeed?

    Answer. Success means Ukraine wins on the battlefield and Russia's 
aggression fails to achieve Putin's ultimate objectives. Toward this 
end, we are providing Ukraine with the political, security and economic 
assistance necessary to: 1) fight and prevail over Russia's aggression; 
2) build a solid democracy based on the rule of law; 3) recover 
economically and create a future force necessary to secure the peace; 
and 4) enact reforms to enable integration with the EU and ultimately, 
NATO.
    To win the war and ensure Putin's strategic failure, through FY 
2024, Ukraine needs air defense, artillery, armor, anti-armor, fixed 
wing, and maritime security capabilities, among others, along with 
critical maintenance and sustainment requirements. This can be achieved 
through direct support to Ukraine and through incentivizing and 
backfilling donations and/or production of urgently needed capabilities 
for Ukraine with regional partners and allies.
    To counter Putin's attempts to wage economic war on Ukraine by 
collapsing the Ukrainian economy, destroying the energy grid, and 
weaponizing winter, the United States and our Allies and partners need 
to support urgent recovery needs and programming requirements to make 
Ukraine less reliant on foreign budget support.
    Ukraine needs support with non-proliferation efforts and ongoing 
demining activities, including training and equipment to build local 
capacity to remove explosive remnants of war.
    Ensuring Ukraine prevails is not only possible, but also necessary 
for the future of Ukraine and for the security of Europe, the United 
States, and the global rules-based order. Putin and potential 
aggressors around the world think they can outlast us--we must prove 
them wrong.

    Question. Of the $44.2 billion in security assistance we have 
provided to Ukraine since the onset of the war, how much remains 
unobligated?

    Answer. Since Russia's February 2022 invasion of Ukraine, the 
United States has provided approximately $44.2 billion in security 
assistance to Ukraine through Foreign Military Financing (FMF), 
Presidential Drawdown Authority (PDA), and the Ukraine Security 
Assistance Initiative (USAI). This represents the total value of 
assistance notified to Congress to support Ukraine's armed forces, 
either by transferring defense articles from Department of Defense 
stocks directly to Ukraine through PDA, or by using FMF and USAI 
foreign assistance funds to directly procure capabilities from industry 
and partner countries.

    Question. What percentage of [the $44.2 billion in security 
assistance we have provided to Ukraine since the onset of the war] has 
been spent here in the United States?

    Answer. U.S. support to Ukraine to help them win against Russian 
aggression reinforces Transatlantic security and is a long-term signal 
of deterrence and inhibits Russian aggression globally now and into the 
future. For 5 percent of our budget, we have shattered much of the 
Russian military. Meanwhile, the funding provided is going to the U.S. 
Defense Industrial Base--creating jobs and enhancing our national 
strength.
    The vast majority of U.S. security assistance to Ukraine--whether 
via Presidential Drawdown Authority, Foreign Military Financing (FMF), 
or the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative (USAI), will support U.S. 
industry. Congress also appropriated funds to replenish defense 
articles from U.S. stocks provided to Ukraine under the Presidential 
Drawdown Authority. This funding will be used to purchase U.S. 
replacement defense articles and services from American companies in 
our defense industrial base. FMF provided to Ukraine directly or to 
partners and allies impacted by the situation in Ukraine (largely to 
backfill and incentivize donations of military equipment to Ukraine) 
will also be used to purchase U.S. defense articles and services from 
U.S. companies. The same applies to USAI funding. This money is going 
right back into the U.S. economy and it's going to create jobs, it's 
going to sustain jobs, it's going to provide opportunities for 
Americans. The first four supplementals that we received were invested 
in over 30 states here in the United States.
    And that's real money going in the pockets of Americans.

    Question. Can you explain why the lend-lease authority was not used 
to assist Ukraine?

    Answer. We appreciate that Congress has provided a range of 
authorities to ensure that Ukraine can receive the equipment it needs 
to defend itself, and we worked closely with the Department of Defense 
to assess the potential effectiveness of the lend-lease authority for 
Ukraine. Challenges include the financial responsibility the recipient 
has for any damage to the equipment, the impact on DoD of potentially 
having equipment be absent from its stocks for years and then 
reintegrated, and the likelihood that Ukraine will need to permanently 
maintain these capabilities--not give them back to us. We want Ukraine 
to build a modern, interoperable military capable of defending itself 
against future aggression, which will require long-term investments in 
Western capabilities.

    Question. Do you believe Congress should consider reauthorizing the 
lend-lease authority at this critical juncture in Ukraine's 
counteroffensive?

    Answer. We have found the other authorities Congress has provided 
for the United States to assist Ukraine to be very effective. Though we 
may explore use of the Lend-Lease authority in the future, for now we 
are focused on using existing authorities most effectively and 
expeditiously. Specifically, this includes Foreign Military Financing, 
Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative, and Presidential Drawdown 
Authority and associated replenishment funding, all of which are 
included in the Administration's National Security Supplemental 
Request.

                                  [all]