[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> the committee will come to order. before we start i want to give notice to every member you will find in your desk drawer in addition to a chart of the members of the committee, a

chart of all the staff on both sides of the aisle. it's one of the things that's driven me of the last 20 years is not knowing who all the people are that work for us and keeping up with them as they change. that will be in youree desk drawer. without objection the chair may declare that hearing in recess at any point. so ordered. if you h housekeeping measures before he began. first we will adjourn the public portion of this committee at ea12:30 and move upstairs to the classified classified portion could second want to welcome back to the committee mr. easley after his brief hiatus. do you remember where we were? and finally after consultation with minority i ask unanimous consent that mr. clyde george be allowed to question question witnesses at day's hearing. without objection, so ordered. he would serve observe the one-year anniversary of putin's

illegal and brutal invasion of ukraine. the american people have responded with extraordinary support for ukranians the millions of f americans have donated their time and money to charitable organizations helping the ukrainian people. some have even volunteered to fight alongside the ukrainian defense forces. congress has responded by appropriating over $100 billion in military, economic and humanitarian assistance to ukraine and our nato allies but to date the frustration has distribute over 75 billion of that money in courting -- these are unprecedented numbers and it requires an unprecedented level ofof oversight that this commite and by congress. we are up to the task or last year chairman smith started monthly classified briefings for administration officials that c have continued into the w majority. many of us have traveled to

ukraine in surrounding countries to witness first-hand the train and equip mission. we have classified information to a available to all members and her staff have constantly being briefed with the latest developments by the department for today is the first time the committee and house are holding an open public hearing on the matter. i've asked the inspector general of the undersecretary because it's imperative the american people understand where our security assistance is going in how it's being used and what protections are in place to ensure it doesn't fall into the wrong hands. oversight is about more than accounting comments about ensuringac the frustration is setting strategic goals and implementing a policy to achieve this. thus we -- why we are here with very real concern. since it beginning the present has been overly worried in my view that giving ukraine what it

needs to win with the investigatory and this hesitation is onlynv prolonged e war and driven up the cost in terms of dollars and lives. this conflict must end and the president must be willing to do what it takes to end it throughe victory. continued reluctance only empowers putin and it sends the wrong signal to present z and the communist party. without i yield to mike brand and collate the ranking member. >> thank you and i i welcome our newitnesses and thank you for wt you've done on classified settings to update us on the effort in g ukraine. we appreciate the cooperative relationship between the executive and the legislative branch on this matter in more than anything we appreciate your leadership and supporting ukraine in the course of last year. it's hard to imagine the massive undertaking in the last year since russia made his decision

too invade and weeks and to some degree months before the invasion when we came to realize from our intelligence committee that this is going to happen. we were the only country in the world that thought this was going to happen. even ukranians themselves up to the day of the invasion that we were exaggerating the intelligence and the intelligence in this wasn't actually going to happen sodhe pretty much a dead stop the biden administration had to pull together massive coalition to do something with the countries had never contemplated doing and certainly hope they would never have tonl do. we have done that with remarkable outcome or the way the coalition was pulled together and the weapons thatet have given to enable them to be successful combined with their unbelievable courage and tenacity is a a remarkable comp which meant and i think we need

to understand it in that perspective. obviously we would like ukraine to win tomorrow and for russia to be completely pushed out but we have to be realistic about the challenge we face and how we bohave t gone about that challee and how effectively been in doing that. the purpose of this hearing specifically is on oversight. i think that had a lot of oversight on this effort from the very beginning and that's part of the reason why the effort has been so successful. their constant efforts to stories primarily coming from russian propaganda about corruption in weapons going to where they are not supposed to be the people will look at this and i knowe the chairman has doe this in great detail has found there's no instance of that happening. we have seen the effectiveness and the best evidence clearly and unequivocally the fact that the ukrainians have been as successful on the battlefield as they have been if the weapons of

support we were sending them was sent elsewhere or stolen or misused they would have lost a long time ago. one of the other things even us and the u.s. of the work coming and supporting ukraine along with everybody else and thought ukrainians didn't stand a chance. we thought the russians would be in kyiv in a week or two and a month at the most. the fact that they have been as successful as they have been as the best evidenceth we have the assistance and support that we are sending them as being as well used as well use as it possibly can. i want to touch upon the point the chairman made about how the administration has not been quick enough. one of the things we c a have hd not just from critics of the war but don't want to support it but even from people who do support it if there can't be a blank check and the criticism you take if you want to make it sound that you are still with ukraine and you want to be responsible

and that's appropriate. you don't just send that everything thatt people that people ask work with thefo blink of an eye without thinking about it. we think about it and we give ukraine what they will need. i'm going to go ahead and hit upon one of those examples because i think it's a really good o example. the f-16 for which everyone has become obsessed in recent weeks, we have considered that and i've had many conversations with witnesses before and dod is well on the honest truth is the cost of trying to get the f-16 up and ready to operate in ukraine, even if we basically say there's nothing more important to spend all our time and resources in doing it in that scenario we could maybe get some operational f-16 into ukraine and eight months if we really pushed it. you don't just have to train the pilots you have to train a mechanic and youou have to haven airfield that canom accommodate

the f-16 and you have to have the parts to make it work. we looked at that and we determined that is not a wise use of the resources necessary to end the fight. that's what no blank check means they be you don'tt just send it without thinking about it. about it and came to the intelligent conclusion that this is not the right system in oh by the way for the generated -- generation fighter will struggle to survive. they areur isolated circumstancs where the ukrainians can use the mid-29 that they have. what we are getting is the air defense system that they desperately need to survive right now and the artillery and the weapon systems that they need. the administration is doing exactly whatee we need to do getting equipment as quickly and responsibly as possible to make this work. e i want to make everybody aware of the fact the russians are fighting a massive information campaign. yes they are fighting on thear

battlefield i and i look forward to hearing t more details about that today but they are trying to break the coalition. the russian military has performed a incredibly poorly ad the ukrainians have performed incredibly heroic lean towards not going the way they want it to. heno knows his only hope is to break the coalition that's trying to support ukraine. they are trying to do that in a variety of ways that you can see the developments about how well nadel started this with expansion and a lot of arguments that are out there that any break in the coalition they see they are poking and they are prodding. they want to undermine the biden administration so while we have constructive criticism with what's going on let's make sure that criticism is g constructive and we maintain our unity. and for the folks on the other side of the aisle to say anything positive that the biden

administration but to acknowledge the incredible job that's been done inet last yearn maintaining that unity. they are not jumping at every shiny object that seems to be criticism in the biden administration like the f-16. right now is the question. getting every single weapons system we can to ukraine. there's a decision beingng made about whether it's consequential , it's about how can we maintain the support? is not a limitless amountin of money or equipment. those decisions are being made wisely and i look forward to this hearing in its appropriate to have aggressive oversight as we have since the beginning. that's part of the reason we have been as successful as we have been. p with that i yield back i look forward to hearing from our witnesses. >> i think the ranking member. the honorable colin kahl has been the primary official for

dod response to ukraine. the honorable dr. robert storch isse the inspector general who came together with the ig the state department and usaid to developof investigations on the assistance we are providing to and lieutenant general doug sims is the operations for joint staff and he is as the chairman and of joint chiefs in developing operational guidance ukraine. i welcome the witnesses and thank you for your time and thank you for your preparation. i know it takes a lot takes a lot an effort in that it is appreciated and helpful. dr. kahl we will start with you. >> thank you. chairman rogers ranking member smith members of the committee it's an honor to appear before you today alongside my good friend lieutenant general sims and dr. storch from our department but i want to begin by expressing the unwavering support of the department of

defense train suffered insecurity in russia's unprovoked and berlin patient out the support is shared by the american people. i want to thank you for your crucial and continued help to get ukraine the military capabilities and other assistance it needs to remain in the fight and thank you for holding this important hearing at this. critical time for the security of ukraine, of europe and of the world. as we mark one year since russia's further invasion of ukraine it's clear russia has failedth to achieve any of its objectives for its military is paying a tremendous cost. ukraine remains united and determined to expel russian forces from its territory in nato unity is stronger now than it decades decades producing intense fighting in eastern ukraine as russia exploits ukrane tenaciously. what's happened in coming months is providing ukraine with the capabilitiesai it needs can chae

theng dynamics. if i could take if humans to lay out our prior to capabilities and the ones we are providing to ukraine now i and in the coming days but first we focus on the late integrated approach to air defense to counter russia's attacks on civilian infrastructure. the pager capability from united states as well as provided by germany and the netherlands will give ukraine fans long range capability. these are complicated by medium and short-range capabilities provided by the states as well as our allies and partners.y second we contain to work with allies and partners to to deliver a study flow of artillery rounds at other ammunition. third to enhance ukraine's ability to maneuver the united states will provide abrams tanks uk is committed to challenger challenger tank andd other european states will provide other tanks.s. this battle tanks are complemented by vital tape ability from united states

including the striker vehicles and other fighting vehicles. with expanded u.s. led collective training to enable ukrainians to better maneuver persistency ukraine is possible thanks to the tremendous bipartisan support fromm others. as you know we have provided $31.7 billion in support since russia wants its invasion became allies and partners have provided $18 billion in addition to a recent department of defense appreciates the supplemental appropriationss which provided for drawdown authority funding for service to replace items to ukraine in funding for the ukraine security assistance initiative. even as we focus on getting ukraine ukraine would it needs we have always prioritized accountability in ukraine has to. we have gaps in our ability

practices in a combat environmenty f to address the rk mechanismsn using that go above and beyond their standardon practices. one year ago russia launched a -- threatening european security transatlantic unity and the security of the world. today an independent sovereign democratic ukraine indoors. incredible people and armed forceses of ukraine remain unbroken and nato and the wider community around the world is stronger than ever. the stakes remain significant for your determined ukraine's fight against tyranny andd oppression and to extend the american values that are clearly -- thank you for the opportunity to testify and i look forward to your questions. >> i call on general sims for two summers a statement. >> ladies and gentlemen good morning. i appreciate the days

opportunityan to update you on e u.s. military efforts to help the ukrainian people in our continued fight against russian vision for today marks a three to 69th day since russian forces invaded and began their illegal and unprovoked parscale invasion of ukraine. has limited in the current situation between ukraine and russiaod is static with both sis implyings heavy amount of artillery in significant numbers of casualties boehner boehner follow-on session and prepared to discuss the ukrainian position that generally and as you've seen apart an open source is the most active portion of the battlefield s is around the- as i breathe for the russian army with the bogner group has fought savagely to beat ukraine's -- and playing stream amounts of artillery and thousands of perfectly mobilized soldiers and personnel contracted from prisons the

russians have made incremental gains a significant cost. ultimately as i've described before the fighting is replicating conditions of the first world war. key changes as paradigm is creating an armed forces capable of breaking the state of fighting. in this regard since i last updated this committed a concentration of u.s. efforts to focus on combining equipment and munitions his people and train to the antenna ever to the intent effort of theg. us mility designed to generate combat credible forces capable oft combining fire to achieve maneuver and increase the overall capability of ukrainian armed forces. importantly this training effort is not solely the work of the u.s. armed forces but a cohesive approach with our allies and partners. collective training is ongoing throughout europe and dramatically increases you training combined organization. all told since january u.s.

military trained another 1000 ukrainians, trained by the united states in a total of just over 4000 predators speak ukrainians are training them multiple locations in your burger kingkr with u.s. servicemembers and trainers. they seen the recent increase in maneuver related equipment. the bradley striker and howitzer combined with simba vehicles is notably increasing the capability of ukrainian armed forces. in addition the u.s. continues to supply critical munitions an individual equipment from vihowitzer ammunition to medical and cold weather gear and finally a critically important ukraine's ability to continue to defeat russian efforts to destroy civilian infrastructure u.s.de forces will complete the training and equipping of ukraine's first patriot. our air defense experts provide

key training. we are confident ukrainians will employ patriots with the same expertise they are demonstrating every day with their current air defense capabilities. thank you for what this committee and this congresss hae donees and continue to do to provide oversight and resources in support of ukraine as they continue to fight against the illegal in him purport -- i'm provoked -- your support and that of thee american people has had a profound impact on ukraine's future but i look forward to your questions and discussion today. you. >> thank you journal. >> chairman rogers rookie member smith and members of the committee thank you for inviting me to appear today to discuss the department of defense inspector general's comprehensive independent oversight of u.s. security assistance to ukraine as well as our activeov participation in a government approach to ensuring robust oversight of tht

full range of american assistance and they are falling to 2022 russian invasion of the dod ig completed for ukrainian related oversight project with a fifth report released yesterdayd currently have 20 ongoing and planned audit evaluations focused on among other things ensuring tax dollars are used properly, that the appropriate accountability for weapons andnd other material in u.s. stocks are purply replenished so they are available. additionally the dod oig investigative service is actively engaging conducting fraud prevention and investigative activities to play a critical role in ensuring the integrity of u.s. assistance to ukraine. the dod oig has more than 90 professionals engaged in oversight of security assistance to ukraine. in 2022 we should to management visor visor that identified several areas of concern that could directly impact the

ability to transparently track and report the supplemental appropriations for ukraine. earlier this year we initiated an audit dod's execution of funds appropriated to assist ukraine. we have long beends focused on d use monitoring and enhanced end use monitoring. the dod tracking of our country's partners employ military assistance and sensitive equipment after they are transferred to them. as early as 2020 we should report on how the dod was conducting a military assistance to ukraine. in ukraine. in october of 2022 we published a classified report identifying challenges of persons responsible with limited or no personal presence and the actions of dod took to address those situations. as the situation above evolves we initiated our third evaluation in ukraine and we will continue to focus on this

important area. yesterday we publicly released their most recent report on the ukraine effort making recommendations to assistep the army with maintenance inventory and other pre-positioned equipment in the area. in addition the topics above are planned projects cover a waterfront of security to ukraine addressingve critical issues like the replenishment of u.s. stocks intelligence sharing security control for the transport of weapons and equipment their maintenance and sustainmentce the noncompetitive contracts and the training of armed forces and as noted at the outset the stations are drawing on their experience around the world to conduct outreach and investigation to help prevent and address fraud or other criminal -- we are not conducting this oversight on. we are partnering closely with the department of state oag and the u.s. agency for international development oig and many others across the community and if coronate

approach to ensure comprehensive oversight of all u.s. assistance in ukraine. along with our oversight partners the working group brings together 20 oversight entities and a whole of governmentri approach. just last month my office and u.s. a.i.d. voyaging corgis with the larger working group published our joint strategic site plan was publicly described are completed and ongoing work. as detailed a plan we are deploying a proven model that is has been used for years to ensure comprehensive oversight of overseas and safety operations and we will work together in this effort for as long as the conflict in the need for oversight continues. at the end of january i traveled with the leaders of the usaid oig to germany poland and ukraine to obtain the latest to build on our coronate approach and to deliver an unambiguous

message to america and achieve high-level ukrainian officials about the expectations for accountability for u.s. assistance. the trip make the situation is fluid with agile oversight to the dod be oig working hand in glove with their oversight partners will continue to make continued oversight to assistance ukrane the matter of highest party and content to keepit the congress and the pubc informed about our work. thank you for the opportunity to speak with you they and i look forward to your questions. >> thank you mr. storch and before them with the questions i want to remind everybody the maps you have in front of you while there unclassified we haven't beenss commission by the department so i ask you to leave those here when you leave and i recognize myself for five minutes. dr. kahl of russia were successful in taking ukraine -- howl that compared to an effort

if russia taking taiwan? >> we have seen what our world looks like when revisionist authoritarians go on the march and uncheck the free world in a carve-out influenced by gobbling up their neighbors. that world was in the 1930s and it culminated in the worst human tragedy of history. >> what is the likelihood that could happen? of russia's successful borcina successful in ukraine it will embolden other aggressors to do similar things. i yield the bounce of my time to nk chairman rogers were his imitation to be here today and for yielding me his time to discuss this important matteryof oversight. as we all know the united states is authorized over $100 bill w in aid which are government holds a responsibility to the american people. that is used for true justin

intended purpose. the responsibility of congress to ensure every bit attacks their money is being effectively used to assist the ukrainian people in their fight against russian aggression. two weeks ago i had the pleasure of joiningag the chairman to vit several of our nato allies producing an update on the war effort in ukraine in the ongoing oversight work related to u.s. military aid. accountability of the weapons coshipped in his paramount. especially the most sensitive weapons to ensure they are being used for their intended purpose and not diverted for nefarious purposes and they supply multiple deployments and multiple combat deployments in my 20 years of navy service i'm fully aware of the challenges of maintaining visibility and control of critical military hardware and component when the theater is kinetic.

mr. storch i'd like to start with you as the department of defense inspector general. and all of your inspections in oversight in the country and out have you found any instances of sensitive weapons like stinger missiles being either launched or diverted to those not authorized to have them? >> thank you very much for that question. i'm obviously not able to talk about any certain situations that we have not substantiated any. -your knowledge every sense sensitive weapons currently under control of those that should have them? >> thank you very much for the aretion but that's why we engaged in laser focused on this issue and robust oversight to make sure we are doing audits and evaluations that look at the weapons from the time they enter the port transferred throughout as they get p to the ship and pointedly going to the country and as i i mentioned this to me we are conducting our third a evaluation with regard to the

sensitive assets and enhanced monitoring to ensure the department of defense is conducting that monitoring in a row busway. additionally we haveve the dcis service. they have vast experience all over the world and doing investigations in conflict situations t so again we are vey much alert to any instance where that sort of conduct would occur. >> i understand your office is currently working on among other things an audit of dod award and the constricted non-competitively awarded contract in support of ukraine. has there have been any, fraud or or abuse uncovered are reported, to your office in thee investigations? >> i appreciate the question i want to be careful to not get ahead of my skis because the audit is ongoing. we are looking at those issues in our audit and we will report on what we find that the purpose of the audit is to ensure the doj has the controls in place to

make sure that doesn't happen. courting to your testimony said there were posters and ukrainian and english language sent out about a particular hotline where people could call if they wanted to report something. without compromising any identity have any whistleblowers come forward with information using that particular method of reporting? >> thank you for referencing the hotline. something we have worked closely on. the goal is to provide an avenue for people to report what they think may be wrong. we have gotten all sorts of applications over that and we continue to look at them. >> mr.irman for the record it like to submit an article from "usa today" that says u.s. is resilience in ukraine if that money landed in corrupt pockets updated yesterday. without objection so ordered.

the gentleman's time has expired. the chair recognizes the ranking member. >> thank you very much. dr. kahl i want to follow up on what chairman rogers was asking about with the policy behind this. this policy is not without risk. first of all it is costing enormous amount of money in tens of billions and we are acutely aware the fact that we do not want to get into a direct conflict with russia and we don't want nato to get into a direct conflict with russia but can he stay for a squarely why you still believe this is the correct policy to support ukraine in the four and what the implications for her own national security? it's a legitimate question by the american taxpayer with why are we using money such a long way away. and constituents ask what has that got to do with me? i want you to to have the

opportunity to say why this matters to u.s. national security. >> the entire international system is at the heart of the u.n. and it sounds wonky but the rules-based border that undergirds ultimately minimizes the number of conflicts and wars that you see. countries like russia are left to go on the march to swallow up their neighbors at the strong do what they do in the suffer the rule of law will be replaced and we will live in a very dangerous world. ie want to give you one example. you're sitting in tehran or pyongyang or beijing and you are contemplating aggression against your neighbor and all of the circumstances that's conceivable you'll ask yourself what would be the reaction of the international community and have the international stood by and the united states exercise its

leaders upot to rally not only democracy in europe and north america. countries aroundnd the world to ukraine sayed. other countries would take it that aggression would be punished and that would make the world a much more dangerous place. >> very well stated. theyon are a lot of people were concerned about this and point to our policies in iraq and certainly there were a ton of mistakes made there and allowed us people forget on your point of sovereignty would kick that whole thing out with saddam hussein tried to take over kuwait and set his eyes on saudi arabia. how we handled that is highly debatable in terms of long-term and what we did in 91 in 2003 but the principle of w sovereigy in the principle is exactly what you stated not allowing russia or china to think they can simply grab by force.

as we speak we are very aware of the taiwan situation with china. it's more than a half-dozen countries have sovereign territory now with china to one degree or another claims and if russia says ukraine should be part of russia china has the same argument in iran controlled by vietnam the philippines japan and by india and all across the world. it kicks off very dangerous situation if president putin is successful in ukraine. i think we need to remember that even while we are aware of the cost and the necessity of making sure we check where this moneyit is going which is mr. storch outlined, we are doing. the policy is crucial to the

peace and stability of the world and ultimately to our own national security united states. none of that makes it easy. we all want peace in ukraine as quickly as possible for right now it has been stated clearly the path to peace in ukraine is simple. putin can stop this war and take his troops out of sovereign ukraine and that stops the war in the blink of an eye. until that happens we have to support ukraine to force people into that choice. the chair recognizes the gentleman from south carolina mr. wilson. >> thank you for this important bipartisan hearing on the issues of ukraine and. immediately the effect i that i have some attorneys come his party but i want to thank the witnesses for being here today. i believe the world is in a global competition between democracies for the rule of law opposed authoritarians with rule of guns.

ukraine must be victorious to deter the chinese communist party from attacking the 24 million people of taiwan. they must be victorious to stop iran and its efforts to vaporize israel as it develops intercontinental ballistic missiles to devastate american families.ae without mr. storch there've been billions in u.s. weaponry initially going to ukraine and more coming to stop putting. we are all concerned about accountability and the american people need to know the somehow in all the legislation that is best to provide funding there've been 39 provisions that provide reports to be provided for congress for oversight and accountability. what is the dod inspector general's plan and what is the cordage with this state

department usaid and otherat relevant iag and to protect the american taxpayer? >> thank you very much for the question. we are actively engaged on an ongoingg basis the state oig u.. deal aig and all of our partners in ensuring conference of oversight over all aspects of the system to ukraine. my office the dod oig is primarily responsible for security assistance and we have as we speak approximately 20 ongoing planned audits and evaluations that cover every aspect of that security assistance including the broad range i mentioned in my statement. working with our partners to make sure there aren't s any cas with regard to the different types of assistance being provided and we are reporting out transparently the oversight time dimension and we will continue. we have a report coming at the

beginning of april on the nda that will provide an update on the move will continue to update the jsoc so everyone's informed. it's up to us to ensure there is appropriate oversight across-the-board with a taxpayer properly anda equipment is used properly. publicized sothis the americans can address with the expenditures are. dr. on them concerned about delivery to ukraine in taiwan and our allies are making the best of their ability to provide. for example we are providing 31 abrams tanks. the media present we would send tanks in the future and they leave out with a thousand abrams tanks dwayne ashley had 22,000

abrams tanks. we can do better. what's being done working with chairman rogers b and others to have them extradited military sales. we hear it may take a year to get equipment to ukraine. >> thank you congressman. there are two sets of authorities authority is the dod to get ukraine weapons. a drawdown allows us to draw from stocks and to put things on contract. when we draw things out of stocks generally get arise within the ukraine in days or weeks. don contract it sometimes weeks and a handful of months and sometimes longer than that. it depends on which authority we are using. we have sent a tremendous amount

of security assistance and ukraine. i don't know if there's any historical precedent for it and that is come out of our stocks and has come rapidly. i share your frustration with the broader military process and we are getting afterry that problem through a tiger team at the department of defense to 80 process improvements that can streamline these things is still too slow and all i would say is there nothing as we draw things down from our stocks makes the problem. it's an apples and oranges issue. we are a light with the usi authority. >> we need to follow the example of the czech republic and plastic poland. send them equipment immediately. >> the chair recognizes mr. courtney for five minutes. >> i want to recognize your efforts in holding current

updates and briefings to this committee and in my opinion that helpsn the process which provids the bipartisan votes to pass supplemental funding over the last year. again the witnesses have been part of that process and thank you for your contribution. what i think my friend mr. wilson indicated included in the supplemental funding bills were specific explicit language by congress directed towards the offices of the inspector general to being gauge at the maximum level and begin mr. storch if you could confirmus that for the record. again you've been around for a long time thank goodness. again there is congressional support that your efforts are taking place. >> yes sir, thank you very much for the question. they very much appreciate that support and they commit to the

greatest possible transparency in our oversight efforts. >> when we talk about a blank check we in the congress had our eyes wide open sending these large amounts of funding authorized and appropriated and we wanted to oversight every step of the way. dealing with ukraine's efforts to deal with fraud and abuse dr. kahl there's an international organization to keep scores of countries efforts in terms of dealing with corruption and fraud in its transparency international. in the last year at thent same time the sun precedent it infusion of money has been flowing and not just from the u.s. but also from the eu ukraine's position on transparency international rankings improved. it's one of the two countries in the world and went up sixn places.

i wonder if you without backdrop could talk about your perspective and the ukrainian government approaching this whole subject and making sure the help goes to the right place. >> thank you. i've worked the ukraine issue about nine years and that entire period corruption was the number one issue we raised with ukrainian officials but i think there had been improvements over time. in our engagements with senior ukrainian officials this and the secretary talked to hisiv counterpart every other other week. it taught importance of accountability and transparency on corruption are stressed but it's not just with our talking points say. we have to put our effort into it and we provided ukranians with ways to track assistant in scanners and software and done

remote visits to sites. we don't see any evidence of diversion in our reporting. we think they are using properly what they've been given that we willll continue to push out the importance of accountability and transparency for all the reasons you mentioned. >> i would say he courageously took steps to remove officials, some close to his office and political supporters which shows tremendous commitment to not just talking about trying to address the problem. actually taking action to remove people which again demonstrates a trick commitment. that should also be acknowledged in terms of the seriousness with which he and his administration is pursuing this goal.

with that mr. chairman i'd like to enter a newspaper article i'd like to ask the piece in this morning's "washington post" on ukraine's top internal enemy be admitted to the record. that walks you through the whole question of how they improve their score in the midst of dealing with existential threats to their country without i country without i yield back. >> i think thank the gentleman from connecticut. the chair recognizes gentleman from colorado mr. lambert for five minutes. thank youou chairma and thank yu for four having this hearing and thank you all for being here today. general sims it like to ask you the first question mr. vladimir putin announced the extension of russia's participation in the new start treating for this follows an earlier declaration by the u.s. state department that russia was violating the new s.t.a.r.t. treaty so it appears that russia has taken new start hostage and is using it to try to get us to stop

funding ukraine. is the joint staff developing plans and options should russia further violate its limitations in new start quick sprint since if it starts uprooting of nuclear delivery systems above the caps? >> thank you for the question. i will say some fine-tuning for follow-up and pass the policy implications to dr. kahl. we continue to maintain the strongest force in world and monitored the nuclear situation hearound the world to include russia and if i was an american i would not be worried about the situation. >> very good and dr. kahl if you could follow up on that water some of the diplomatic or other things the administration is doing in response to russia's latest stance? it's a really important question but as a a practical matter it

doesn't make a lot of different. they were already out of compliance withedy inspections. it's also interesting putin decided to suspend as opposed to leave the treaty and i think that's an indication that it won't be effective leverage over lethe biden frustration. it matters for the safety of the american people and for the world. frankly rushes and no position for an unconstrained nuclear -- givenn their money and sanctions export control. i think this is a way for him to generate some headlines but as a practical matter it's not a situation that russia remains a dangerous power withs nuclear weapons. >> thank you and i think it's a mistake for president biden to re-up newe- start when he first took office without any discussions of at all with the

russians. i think he should have gotten more concessions or further understandings. however i will complementt the president and the ranking member will be glad to hear this that it was right for him to go to ukraine recently and i think that sends the rightuk signal. we all hope and to that there is no use of nuclear weapons by russia and ukraine technical or anything else and we don't want to give away what our response be should that happen and a lot would depend on the specific circumstances. what would be some of the consequences to russia should the unthinkable thing happened? the. >> thank you for that and i'm happy to talk about this in greater detail -- but what i will say here is we have made it clear to russian leader said that the highest through intelligence channels and

secretary austin to his russian counterpart chairman of the joint chiefs of staff for national security adviser and his counterpart in the kremlin and the use of nuclear weapons in ukraine on any scale would be considered or world changing event and it would bring about severe consequences far in access to anything the russians have experienced to date and a lot of the restraints we have been operating under would no longer obtain. the good news is i don't think so. are likely to doo >> they'd have to lose far more than what they have the game. lastly general sims russia has made i think exaggerated claims that it's used hypersonic weapons in ukraine just as they exaggerate a lot of things about their capabilities. can you shed further light on that question? >> we know they have employed commensurable munitions but i

won't go into detail on the particulars but they are doing so at great expense. they arere finding out their weapons of all types are in dire straits in many cases and what they are also seeing is ukranians had been prepared for their weapons and are shooting down theirnd weapons at a very high rate. >> very good. thank you again for beingng here and i yield back mr. chairman. >> the chair recognizes the common from californiaco mr. garamendiin for five minute. >> thank you chairman and thank you for the work you are personally doing in reaching out and trying to make sure the supplies are getting to where they need to go particularly the journey he took two weeks ago to greece, romania and poland. my question first goes to you mr. storch. thank you for your detailed explanation of their various projects you have and your

colleagues have underway. like to briefly or is necessary summarized reports you have provided over the last year or year and a half. there seem to be two different pieces to that. one of which you have not talked to in that suggestedch improvements in the auditing and transfer of weapons and the like. if you'd like to go into battle more and secondly if you could summarize the findings of thosei reports following up on the question earlier about what you actually found. yes sir thank you very much for the question but as you say the reports over the past year since 2022 invasion have fallen largely into categories but a couple of themth have looked at issues that we identify relating to the way in which the money was appropriated and being tracked and the way in which it's being entered into the system. the concerns there are there

aren't additional preventive that could result in a lack of transparency or any transparency of those funds. the department has been making progress and we continuepa h tok at that and recently initiated an audit looking at the execution of the funds appropriated. that's an ongoing priority of how is the money being. >> and with the procedures in place we have made recommendations. >> is the department following on your recommendations in making progress to achieve the goals that you have stated? >> yes sir. the first adviser didn't have specific recommendations in the second had one recommendation and that included procedures that were more robust ensuring things are tracked properly. the department has made progress in that area and we are continuing to track in and we

will continue to look at that in the course of the ongoing audit. >> the second thing is the findings beyond the recommendations the procedures in the findings. did you find any indication that there was a diversion of equipment of any kind? >> again the second set of projects are valuations looking at the controls that dod has over the end use monitoring and once the weaponry goes into ukraine there needs to be appropriate accountability and tracking. the dod has the responsibility to do that. in the first of those reports we did make a number of recommendations and most of those have been addressed and the record has been close. their couple that are outstanding related to night vision goggles and steps being taken. the department has made progress in those areas and we are going to look at the current state of that in connection with the

newly announced eu and evaluation that i mentioned. there has been progress about the ongoing process. >> i would, quickly i'm very pleased you are setting up a robust operation in ukraine itself like can be established within the embassy and the various auditing groupsgr necessary to carry it out. is that the case? >> what we have done sir is the forward-deployed a significant number of people into the region to do oversight over the supply and training mission most of which occurred before any weapons crossed into ukraine. then using the same techniques not just my office but across the ig community during the covid pandemic very doing additional monitoring related to the eu mdm and getting information from the military personnel at the embassy regarding what's currently being done. we need to go further and when

we will. at this point we haven't. >> the bottom line is that programs are working and equipment is getting where it needs to go. we are doing oversight to make sure the department has all the controls is to make sure that happenso. >> you have not found problems of any great significance, is that correct? >> again a lot of these audits in the valuations are pending. we have limited findings in the department has been tracking them so yes. >> the gentleman's time has expired in -- we look at the gains that ukraine is made with assistance from around the world and what's happening to russian forces to about 40% of its prewar tanks and 97% of the russian army is in ukraine. even without they aree struggling. the issue is for us pmaa

missions that were provided to ukraine. in last year's mdaa we provided funding and contracting tools to accelerate or punishing our munitions stockpiles and weapons magazines but i want to talk though about where i think there's a strategic mismatch. we give those contracting tools yet how we evaluate where thee needs are is a contradiction to that. the needs are supposed to be evaluated on the threats in europe. what is the threat scenario and as we see the dod has up to two years to determine that threat scenario the scenario two years down the road and whatever's happening at that time in europe and we are today accelerating the replenishing of our munitions stockpile, given two years to determine what the needs and threats are and

setting up to do a weapons stockpile that maybe ms. mash with what we see two years from now doesn't seem to me to bee a good policy. dr. kahl can you tell us based on our force structurean requirements on munitions and ground forces in europe how to make sure we are making the right determinations about what to build today so we don't have again a mismatch. we are talking about weapons magazines being depleted today. if we are building weapons that may not have a role in where we need to be two years from now how do we correct that n mismat? saying thank you. it's a very importantmi questio. we need specific investments because of the money that congress has generously given us and the authority to recapitalize our munitions and addressing supply chain models and creating a longer-term demand for the industry. with the ukraine conflict showed us frankly our industrial base

was not at the level we needed it toe be with general munition. our paredes are making sure we arear increasing production for the things we anticipate for ukraine. an example is the howitzer and the guided multiple launch rocket system. those are going to matter a year from now, two years and three years from now. nobody i can predict. ukraine will need a military that can defend its territory should get russian bid again. the other thing we are doing is to replenish our own stock. beyond that we can go into the specific details of a classified setting in terms of how we are making targeted investments.

that leads me to the next question to allocations we are making today to ukraine are based on a pre-ukraine russian complex scenario so we are holding back those missions based on that scenario are we in inadvertently holding back the things that ukraine may need-based on an antiquated scenario?k also how are the determinations made about what we are doing to replenish our stockpiles and what we are spending in ukraine how's that interacting with our needshe and pacom? >> actually is a very important point. we have a total munitions requirement against which we need munitions for a whole range of contingencies. they are not sent to anyone contingency at the pool we can draw on from a range of different scenarios. we have adjusted that to account for the fact a that russia is bogged down in ukraine in their land forces have changed the

dynamic for a future richard -- russian contingency for the same time we have operational plans and other parts of the rio north iran china. secretary austin has been laser focused on making sure as we drive down from our own stocks we are giving ukraine what it needs without undue risk to those other plans and we have so far kolfage that that we also need to recapitalize so we need toto build up and hedge in case that happens. >> thank you mr. chairman. >> i recognize the gentleman from new jersey for five minutes. >> thank you and appreciate the insight and the most recent visit to the region. the amazing thing that the united states does better than anybody is logistics the ability to move men, equipment, resources is short of

remarkable. i want to touch base three years ago there was disturbing reports on the industrial base issues on our ammo plants explosives and accelerants. we had been very much focused on that having not actually sped up the recapitalization. i think. being first place but we have a ways to go. my question goes to dr. kahl and the general. putin leaves no chance and when he speaks to the country in the world but to imply the nuclear option over and over again and it finds an audience in the united states and people are worried if that would happen. we have seen time and time again this discussion about the red vines and what they are and if we a year to what the red line

was then certainly it may or may not be the red line today and that's why i want to talk about the evolving and changing red vines for the calculations weng have made an high mars is one of those discussions. early on what calculations are going into effect that something we are providing is or is not going to change the red lines and how do we determine what those red lines are and how have they changed if you could go first. civic is something we watch closely for all the reasons that were mentioned including from the outset of the war on nuclear matters. we have attempted not to take the bait while in private making it clear to them that if they were to cross certain lines using weapons onar any scale wht a world changing event that

would be. as a general manner i don't think we are holding back security systems from ukraine at the moment. i think most of the decisions we are making are driven first and foremost iowa ukraine needs right now given the amount of money the american tax paper is given the department to to work with and how do we use that money for what they need right now and then the other is what can be provided that doesn't have future impacts on her own abilities to respond to our own security crises in other parts of the world. those are the two things we are measuring in at the moment we feel relatively comfortable in where we are and that dynamic but it's something we consult with our intelligence colleagues constantly to make sure we don't sell to terorte ourselves. .... committee

and congress about what we are able to send to them. how much of an impact has that has a red does and see her go. >> i would tell you what we have sent over the last year has made a gigantic difference to the ukrainians. if you start where we were last year at the onset, it was about providing things at the moment that they needed it. they were javelins, they were stinger missiles. they were things they needed to defeat the russian army as they came across a border around the country for those things were provided in good order. they were used extremely well by the ukrainians. as a conditioned change so too did the request from the ukrainians in terms of what they thought was necessary as we talk with are you creating counterparts but we thought would be most advantageous and available to them. all the while as mentioned

earlier balancing us our current readiness and our ability to meetet requirements from the world. those have certainly morphed over time. of tanks and our partners make the same assertions. they have all been done with these things in mind. i filled her confident we will go d forward we will continue to do so and make decisions in a very thoughtful and understanding manner. >> exactly my point to be or not back because of nuclear threats. these are determinations made by what is best buy ukrainians and their use at any time. without a yield that, thanks. think like mark and it's a gentleman from tennessee precooked thank you, mr. chairman preach at the panel being here for the time a the oversight of u.s. military support to ukraine. can you tell us roughly how much money has been government totaled to the ukrainian efforts as we began last year?

>> it depends a little bit how you counted i believed over 113 billion approximately. >> how much of that is for lethal aid we consider standard military equipment? >> and afraid i do know that number at my fingertips. >> breakdown 60/40, 80/20 was going to government what's going to military aid? click security assistance, economic assistance, there is a humanitarian assistance. i think a little over 60% is military assistance projects i asked this question because whether our constituencies back home or for or against this where they do not have the benefit of the hearings we have in the classified briefings that we have. is coming on the heels the collapse of special inspector general reports among other things rampant corruption eroded

the capabilities of the afghan national defense and security forces as well as legitimacy of the afghan government. we need to make sure we do not make the same mistakes in ukraine. a month ago jon kirby claimed he has not seen any sign so far that her budgetary systems any kind of corruption would you agree thatat statement? >> so, on the issue of corruption one of the things we do all these reviews to the integrity of the systems in place and controls are there we have d cis that is there to investigate any allegations that mightwi arise. with regard to the afghanistan report i would just say that i'm i am that has been issued. it's obviously very different situation from ukraine. different missionre in ukraine needing troops on the ground is not building a millage if the ground up. its primary elite training and

supply mission something our office is very well-equipped oversee. >> inspector general went on to say in his reporttt the nine states played into the hands of political leaders contribute second corruption by spending money faster than it can be accountedr for. i think we still be out to spend 100 billion we ought to break that not have a clear message from dod. we have had hearings we have suggested that. iyy understand the strategy and the benefit is, but want to make sure people back home get this. i did not have blaster for instance in a briefing unnamed senior official topped 100 kamikaze switch plated drones to ukraine. it was zeus them did not know where exactly they come from or use that. the statements are helpful. i think you had mentioned earlier we have a proven model maybe you could elaborate make

us feel little bit better this proven model you are referencing has worked somewhere else. quick sister absolutely. we have a proven model is the lead ig model that has been used in overseas contingency operations showingrk how we can work together as an oversight community to provide competence of oversight. we currently are engaged for instance on oversight over the operating during the sentinel initial over the horizonon counterterrorism mission that's followed on inbe afghanistan. we have a number dod oig related to that. we report out quarterly in our work in that area. it's an area within a lot of other work as well. the point of it is with ukraine we have not just the three of us but actually 20 different oversight entities including gao. including all the military audit agencies and all of the rest

working together to ensure there are not any gaps covering the waterfront and all times of assistance, humanitarian, other assistance for it we are doing oversight over all of it. the american public knows of taxpayer dollars are being spent. >> 's or specific example due within a certain timepo say 30 days make more clarity we all think it is accounted for there is a lot of despair we asked for specific examples of we know how this equipment is counted for. >> for doing a robust series of oversight to make sure accountability of equipment from the very beginning until it gets intoet ukraine. then continued work with rick nixon gentleman from california for fivefi minutes.

>> thank youo mr. chair thank yu for the witnesses for your testimony today. we recently marked the one year of russia's illegal invasion of ukraine. during that year the united states and many other nations havero stepped up to provide a united states has provided approximately $30 billion in security assistance. that has been instrumental in allowing ukraine to keep fighting. it is important we conduct thorough oversight ofig taxpayer dollars going to this cause. and i think we've been doing just that. dr. kagan we want the war to end quickly and on ukraine's terms pretty stated in your testimony that our goal is to put ukraine in the strongest possible position for future negotiations. within the five-year near-term focus areas, how is the department working with industry to maximize production and supporting ukraine i'm building our defense stocks that have been leveraged to date?

>> thank you for that. so dod is working with industry for certain capabilities continued meeting the needs offo ukrainian forces while touring the united states is ready to defend itself and allied partnersnd. this is a balancing act. dod has identified over $2 billion of industrial -based investments. i'm traveling, sickness, multiple launch systems. one ofll our 5-millimeter and patriot missiles. we try to make best use of multiyear authorities to make sure getting after the munitions challenges more broadly. >> thank you. hopefully a quick end to this conflict we must plan for the long-term. how do the five focuss areas of all overtime? and what long efforts can we

start planning for deployment and the long-term to ensure for continued defens against russia. that does not seemed like it is going to go away. >> of the present that were in it for as long as it takes. i can outlast the ukrainians come at last united states, at last the of the world. this is the latest of a string of miscalculations by putin. i think as lieutenant general sims noted what we have prioritized has adjusted across the course of the war. in the initial part of the war when it was essential to an about of kyiv who is important right now there's drones, soviet legacy ammunition, artillery and air defense systems. nato standard artillery systems and providing them high bars and

gamblers are. on morseer we focus focus air defense, patriot, also change the dynamic for the spring and summer. i do think it is incumbent upon all of us to think about what ukraineer needs over the medium term to make sure they can defend whatever they clawback from the russians. and deter the russians from going at it again when and if there is a halting to the fighting or a peace settlement or even if there isn't so the department is focused on a constantly on that analysis. >> you think we are succeeding to that end? >> i think we are. look, i think if we are all honest with ourselves where we things to be a year ago when russia launched this investigation had dire pessimistic assessment. will i do not know how it going to and we can know one, russia has lost.

the intent is to cover all of ukraine that didn't happen and it's not going to happen. they intended to divide nato, nato is stronger for their intended for russia to emerge out of this war great power and a multi- polar world, they will emerge in this conflict a shattered military power. and so again i don't over the final lines will be drawn once conflict comes to a close. keeping a sovereign and depend ukraine alive and ensuring vladimir putin suffers a loss. >> thank you, mr. charmer yelled back at. >> the chart recognizes gentleman from mr. florida, mr. gates for five minutes because you are our watchdog. ukraine has a problem, right? doctor is along the issue of issues with corruption in ukrainee protected the sun 4000 deputy head of zelenskyy's office could not find any sports cars came from he had to resign. deputy defenseman is resigned of a contract corruption.

the defense ministry put out a statement it was a worthy deed the wife of a former ukrainian politician was found with $22 million in cashbo crossing e border into hungary last year. it seems a lot of the zeal for enforcement of the anticorruption efforts seem to align with the republican-controlled house of representatives in our country. maybe that's a coincidence. was it back to the sponsoring. the arms control act of 1996 in use monitoring for certain defense articles that are sold or leased, right? >> correct records is no feature of anything we are past that exempts that we have given to ukraine from those requirements, right? >> not exempt different provisions as to how that plays out. >> controlling a policy here's the upshot. you testify here today you cannot testify truthfully under oath the dod has complied with

the policy and law for any use monitoring in this conflict, isn't that right? because i want to be careful here and i respond to you, congressman to make sure that i am clear. we are conducting a series of evaluations that look at the controls dod has in place to ensure they are taking the steps that are required. >> i get all of that. here's the operative question. we have not complied with in use monitoring with everything we have sent to ukraine, to date have we? >> 2020 report which is the last public report on this made a number of recommendations. >> i know, you are dodging the question. you cannot testify we have complied with the end is of monitoring requirements at all times during this conflict, can you? >> so we have an ongoing evaluation pic looks i get that it is ongoing. i am looking backwards for you cannot testify everythinges is complied with monitoring can you? >> some of that gets into the

classified reports issued previously. ask everyone watching this can see if you could testify to that you would your sighting a classified report i do not know why that report is classified think the american people deserve to know this 9 laws been followed or not you cannot testify that is n being followed so they can draw reasonable conclusions from a that. do we have dod personnel in ukraine right now? >> who do we have a couple dozen at the embassy projects at the embassy and the other personnel? about cia are they training folks? >> not going to talk about that and h unclassified setting. happy to talk about them for that in the classified briefing. >> is the battalion getting access u.s. weapons? >> not that i am aware of. but if you have information i be happy to hear. >> sexier global times investigative report that talks about training from the atlantic council digital forensic digital

lab the betimes getting step is to record 2018 progress of that objection to order? >> any reason to disagree that assessment? lexis the global times in china? catching no. that is what you read. it might be without be a reason? lexis general matter i do not take racing's propaganda by. >> is the allegation true or false? if they don't have evidence one way or another but as a general matter i don't take beijing's propaganda. >> certified with that assessment. april 2022, president biden is discussed in supplemental funding we arevi providing ukrae hehe says it's also going to hep schools and hospitalsls (going call to allow pensions of social support to be paid to the accrediting people they have something in their pocket. help me understand our u.s. taxpayers, paying for pensions in ukraine is a good idea for our country. >> i would do for each other parts of our government the department of defense is not of

a role in pensions and ukraine. close your senior biden ministration official. the president so it's really important we keep fighting the pensions and ukraine. i would observe the u.s. census bureau sayss in 2022 the u.s. pension shortfall is $1.4 trillion. while we have a corrupt ukrainian government. while we have our watchdog here who cannot say that we followed the law and in use monitoring, or the president of the united saints and we need to fund pensions in ukraine meanwhile the pensions of our fellow americans are in greater jeopardy. mr. chairman i see my time is expired by seeking him's consent to enter a number of articles in the record. >> objections order. >> are well. >> a general assignment six by the chair recognizes gentleman from california for five minutes. mr. chair.u one of the experts i was talking to said russia has six times the

artillery as ukraine, is that true? >> not anymore. ii think the reality is we do nt know precisely how much artillery russia has left. we i do know they have expendedn extraordinary amounts of it and they are running low which is why they're trying tohy the liks of north korea and others in desperate search of more artillery. >> over to put the ratio at now? >> it is hard to say. we could talk more about this precisely in the classified setting. a lot of it also depends on the assumptions you make about the viability of ammunition that russia has had in storage for 40 or 50 years going back to soviet days with a little bit of an art rather than a science spread do believe the russians continue to have artillery they are suffering tremendous shortages atus the front of artillery whih is why they're trying to countries like north korea. >> , who deeply admires theko president's policy on antony

blinken's role in your role and has voted for the packages my question is what is your confidence level at this point that ukraine will be able to hold all the territory currently holds in a war of attrition? >> as a tenant general sims has testified the front line right now is a grinding slog so for example the russians have meant and incremental gains and reset months but at the cost of thousands and thousands of casualties in human wave attacks from the prisoners and others. you may see a small portion of territory change hands in the weeks and months. the russians can sweep across ukraine and make territorial gains any time in the next year or so.

we are making sure ukrainene has its capabilities to stop it from this at thehe same time give thm capabilities on the offensive themselves to conduct more territory progress i assume your assumption is contingent on the house continue to support ukraine with aid it. or are you saying already what we have given? close personal house, senate american bible minister and are generous. woodsman about $41.7 billion in security systems over the last year. we have about $12 billion remaining from money all provided at the end ofd last yr for the remainder of the fiscal year it is true ukraine continues to depend on assistance from the united states and our allies and partners. that will be true for some period of time. if the world walked away from ukraine than the balance would tip in russia's favor. >> have a more round of age would you expect? i guilty seven has supported that and continues to support them. have a time does congress to provide aid?

>> it is difficult w but we do t know the trajectory of the conflict. it could end six months from now could in two years or three now for them to president has said the united states will continue to support ukraine for as long as it takes to have a good conversation today about why that's in the vital national interests of the united states. i would hope congress would continue to be supportive. but we should only come and ask for what ukraine really needs. and as a conversation what we can account for demonstrates the american people to benefiting our interest. >> what you think is the endgame? how do we get there? >> ukraine his detail its principles for just a piece which is one of 40 countries in the general assembly address piece would involve russia withdrawingra from the territory theyey have illegally occupied from ukraine.

but ultimately the ukrainians are going to be the ones that determine what peace settlement is acceptable or not. our position has been to at point they enter into those conversations they do so from a position of strength. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> think the gentleman the chair recognizes the gentleman from florida for five minutes progress and keep mr. chairman. to be successfully deter russia from invading ukraine? do>> deterrence work? we had a whole series of diplomatic economic sanctions. the most powerful sanctions has ever seen not to mention ongoing security assistance at the time, did that work wasn't successful customer clearly because theyy invaded ukraine nguyen was not deterred. >> it's safe to sayt' deterrence failed? one possible is not detectable as a related going into ukraine. he has been deterred.

>> you would postulate about whatt we pay ukraine deterrence would have failed? i think our intelligence committee split on this view. their assessment was almost no amount of weapons prior to the conflict could have deterred. >> i asked about going intos ukraine. >> i assess i was in ukraine the month before. and at the time the ends of the receiving and we received was stingers, to escalatory antiship missiles too provocative. long-range artillery certainly off the books and improbable. other things will take too long to train on. what we have seen stingers to provocatively provide them, harpoons too provocative that we provide them. high mars we can't do that them i give it. patriots we aptly cannot them and given them. heck no, it takes too long now here we are a year later providing them.

i think as we are patting ourselves on the back providing an ally the arms they need to defend themselves we've decided it's within our interest after entire cities and regions have been devastated probably is not a good strategy, would you agree with that? quickly to provide hundreds of months of dollars in assistance leading up to the war. >> if we really rewind the clock starting in 2014 we provide only nonlethal eight until 2017 was that a mistake? >> is a national security adviser. >> he favored providing legal assistance like javelins? andtr the obama administration decided was that a mistake? >> and think in retrospect we should have provided them at missiles. that was the position of then vice president biden protects the trump provided? >> let's move to burden sharing. think this is an absolute issue

here for my constituents and something we need to address as a policy matter. the united states provided 30 billion in security assistance. the next nearest is germany at three and half one tenth of what we provided. uk lesson 3 billion. france less than a billion and has provided three times just by the percentage of gdp what france has provided. all in total roughly the same europeans have provided less than half of what we have we have not even gone into the rest that makes up the full 100 billion. is that fair is that affected burden sharing? >> ives they work with our allies and partners throughout with the secretary of defense is held nine and these contact groups they meet monthly. i'm going to answer your question but if you take the top 20 contributors of security

assistance ukraine as a percentage of gdp the united states ranks tenth. there are number of european countries above the bar. countries like poland, finland, norway, denmark, the czech republic are above us is gdp similar countries you mentioned are below us. right on the front lines clearly in their interest germany in particular what have we done to get germany, france, italy and these large economies clearly in the heart of nato and the heart of europe. directly if we buy into the matter this is our interest because of putin slices through ukraine he will keep going. what have we done effectively to get them to step up to the plate at least dollar for dollar? >> the defense department has certainly worked alongside the state department on diplomacy in this regard for the very beginning for that's what secretary of defense holds these monthly meetings they started in

germany and germans as of now provided $3.5 billion. >> i read out these statistics. i would just postulate going forward over the long term, just as we had in the gulf war we have an effective diplomatic effort to pay for a global issue for. >> in general as time expired. >> think we need to do a lot more. >> i think the chair in the ranking member for having this hearing on an ongoing basis on the important issue of oversight.ro secretary yellen is in ukraine right now. we dose have sanctions no county has ever seen before. in terms of your area or for anyone here some of these sanctions, how helpful will they

be told libby and the overall effort? >> all start from the oversight perspective. we have the working w group is part of the treasury. probably more of a question for them to turn over to doctor carl. >> >>of us to the sanctions have put a dent in the russian economy. will continue to magnify that. from a dod perspective the bigger constraint on the russians is more likely to be the export controls which are making it very difficult for russia to recapitalize the military that has been shattered in ukraine. >> a close quick question does germany have different laws than we do in terms of their defense?

all the allies and partners we work with have different constraints, different laws. one of the reasons we did not provide assistance back in the obamama administration germany e supposed to doing it. they provide any lethal assistance was a huge change for them. i know that is frustrating for a lot of folks who f want our alls and partners we share that desire. our allies and partners all have their own domestic political constraints for their t own domestic regulations. a lot of them had to change their own laws and practices to provide historic support we have seen. >> question. when we read something someone being dismissed from the position in ukraine. so the sovereign issue each country has. they make their own decisions. i want to do this so we can enjoy a classified setting just

a qio generally if those decisions are made and they do deal with something that would be a concern in her oversight and everything is that communicated to the u.s. and their allies i was a sometimes we are where the moves before they happen sometimes we are aware we read about them just like you do. tops of her emphasis with ukrainian leaders. existenial fight i think is quite remarkable, frankly. >> just an observation but i was a prosecutor before i was a member of congress. when there is a line of questioning that occurs in your job is one of monitoring and an

ongoing investigation but whether something is there or not but you arere in the process of doing its you are asked the question publicly with the outcome of that might be before it b ever occurs that must put u in a very difficult position to ask a question it might give the perception were not answering the question when indeed youou e not t able to answer the questin for doing a job properly. do you want to comment on the difficulty of that line of questioning when exposed to the public setting like it is here? >> appreciate very much the observation. that is exactly right obviously. our job in the ig community is independent oversight. my old boss and i used to say we hit it right down the fairway. my office does that in oversight. we are looking at these issues are trying to determine what happens are going to report out as transparently as we can. but to get ahead of an ongoing audit or an evaluation or talk about i cannot even begin to

speculate about investigations puts us in very difficult situation. if i can on corruption when i was over in kyiv that was the things we emphasize both myself and my counterparts and we met with everyone up to t the prime minister and down the ministry of defense and others. making sure that was being addressed in being transparent about it. they all said they understood that. as a career prosecutor we are in the trust but verify business. they certainly indicated they understand that issue. and finally i would just add one of life's coincidencesy previously worked as a legal advisor for the department of justice paid work and anticorruption issues. i hope that perspectivei helpsy office as we lookg at what's going on here, you'll back. >> mechanize from indiana mr. banks. >> thank you, mr. chairman. you help write the dangerous obama era the jcpoa.

lester present but is caught on video saying the deal was dead yet there's renewed sanctions l.wavered the key to the deal. why is the biden administration on reentering the new iran deal? click sync if your question just as a technical matter i was not involved in the negotiation of the eye ron deal per. >> you helped write it. i worked on the administration when the deal was negotiated. the president and secretary blinken and others the ministration of made it clear we are not about to enter the jcpoa anytime soon. >> why did they attempt to reenter it? >> because iran's nuclear progress has been remarkable in 2018 it would have taken iran about 12 months to produce one

now take about 12 days. there's still the view that you cannd resolve this issue diplomatically and put constraints back on the nuclear program it's better than the other options. right now the jcpoa's on ice ngbecause there was an arrangemt on the table last summer that iranian's were not willing to take. and of course iran's behavior has changed since then not the least of which there is support for russiapo and ukraine i don't think we are on the precipice of reentering the jcpoa per. >> your declaring defeat for the new iran dear? >> i think our review i'm just stating what about the present secretary of state has already said it is not on the horizon in the near term. theal administration's position remains diplomatic deal to put constraints around c iran's program remains the best

alternative to prevent iran from getting a nuclear weapon. policy is iran will not get a nuclear weapon and the diplomatic outcome to deal with that problem. click does it concern you putin and china are on the side of negotiate the same deal you helped craft or the obama administration? >> there are no active negotiations are china and russia being at the table are not big at the table. >> why we tapped russians help negotiate on rush's behalf in the renewed negotiations are in the biden administration? >> is not clear to me what you are referencing. i think during the obama administration the russians were able to crop the common view of not when it around to getting a nuclear weapon. we are not in the same placeno right now because the russians of how badly they're doing in ukraine are becoming increasingly dependent on ironic.

and therefore are a lot less likely to put pressure of any kind on iran other capabilities. in 2021 we expected you anticipated? we have very good intelligence vladimir putin was putting the pieces in place secured a large-scale invasion. to assure the information white ofan the vitamins ration lift sanctions if we anticipated it? >> the timelines are different. several months before. hopefully to state united during

germany but also gives a leverage point. had thatth not gone forward the ability of germany to then essentially walk awayth from the deal would not have been effective punishment or leverage. these were not linked in time per. >> in hindsight should we regret the decision to lift the sanctions? >> i work at the defense department. i would refer those to the treasury department. i doop not have an opinion on tt conversation, no i don't speak. >> i yield back too. >> a chair reckoned as a gentle lady from pennsylvania for five minutes. >> thank you mr. chair. i've been a staunch advocate for providing support to ukraine since president putin's unjustified invasion just about a year ago. given my past and the air force it probably is not a shock to anyone i'm particularly advocating for the transfer of american aircraft. cactus targeting that april of last year. most recently a letter of

mcculloch snow for country caucus. we asked present biden to transfer specifically f-16 aircraft to the ukrainian military as president zelenskyy requested. i understand on friday present biden said in an interview ukraine quote does not need f-16s now. and on sunny ennis advisor jake sullivan emphasize that quote f f-16s are question for later time. last year i also probably co- led a both a former colleague to authorize funding to provide training for ukrainian fighter pilots but recognizing training may need to happen before they're ready to fly our jets in the event of ultimately do emtransfer them. we submitted this language for inclusion and last year's nda the final lot included that language authorizing the united states to provide training for ukrainian soldiers both on manned and unmanned aerial capabilities including tactical service systems fixed and rotary aircraft such as the airlift and surveillance aircraft.

so my questions for you, your written testimony you noted you have expended led training on combined arms and joint maneuver operations. could you speak to whether or not this included aircraft such as authorized by the fiscal year 23 nda? that is my first question for my second question also for you we may finally have to say this for a classified briefing but could you please elaborate on what information the present is relying on her waspe relying on when he said ukraine does not need f-16s now despite pleas from ukraine's own president? >> thank you for that. note we have not started training on f-16s. our assessment as a delivery timeline even on the most expeditious timeline in the training timelines are essentially the same. they areon about 18 months. you do not actually save

yourself time too start in the training earlier in our assessment. since we have not made the decision to have a halogen partners does not ask him to start trying them on a system they may never get paid they might get british tornadoes or maras aircraft there for you not to train them on f-16s. in our judgment is nott the appropriate time to start uetraining. national security advisor have said we do not see f-16 as a top party right now for the president did have this conversation with president zelenskyy last week. it is a priority for the ukraine's but is not one of their top three priorities. their top our air defenses and keeping the interceptors alive against russian cruise missiles and iranian drones. armor is mechanized systems. a couple data points on f-16s with your second and third

questions, we have looked at this very carefully. what it would take to get ukraine f-16s. if we were to view new production three -- six years to get them f-16 or block f-16 that could potentially deliver on a faster a time i they 18 -- 24 months. maybe shave a few months off of that. then the question would be how many? the ukrainians have asked us for as many as 1284th generation aircraft.es a mix of air. over the long-term ukraine were probablyon 50 -- 80 f-16s to replace their existing air force. if you do that with new f-16s of block 70 -- 72 is out cost or $11 billion. if you did it with older block 30 or 32 aircraft let's imagine

you only get half, 36 of those who still cost to just $3 billion. just as a reminder that would consume a huge portion of the remaining security systems we have for this fiscal year. these are the trade us are making real time but would it make sense to spend $3 billion on a capability that will arrive a year endom a half and on the $3 billion is needed for patriot interceptors or more bradley fighting vehicles. or more 155 millimeters ammunition among gamblers, et cetera et cetera. that's the trade-offs are making at the moment. >> i'm nearly out of time appreciate that predicates my only concern was started talk about this 10 months ago, 10 months is gone by. just do not know when the clock should start click thank you all for being here very important topic, very timely. couple more questions.

published report in october stating department of defense in accordance with dod policy. u.s. presence in ukraine. responsible when there's u.s. president tran present are limited presence there. every many best practices. >> work to be issued in 2022 is a classified report i'm happy to talk more in detail about that during the laterer session. i believe it's accurate to say that what the report did as it acknowledge the challenges that are faced in the circumstances such as they were in ukraine and the steps that were being taken at the time to try to address those. as i say, half happy to talk

more. the reason we initiated the current evaluation and i did not want to get ahead of what we are finding is that as the situation changes in conditions on the ground of all we want to go back and we are goingat back and looking at what is going on now. what steps have been taken to try to address those challenges, where they are and how they move forward. and frankly, congressman, given the importance of the issue that something were going to be looking out as long as this goes on. so that is where we are perplexed i think we agree we have to do that weha owe it to l involved. i know there classified portions is probably unclassified things you couldmp discuss. does the department have any concerns of the self reporting coming out of ukraine? specifically we all know ukraine has a documented history of corruption in government waste in the past. a lot of that is being alleviated. what gives you confidence ukrainians are being entirely forthcoming and transparent with

us with what we seen so far? >> some of that so do the audits assess independent where things are. as mentioned and went to kyiv we met with the minister of defense of the prime minister the totals they understood the importance of addressing corruption. when were out there a number of corruption cases had been and that announce they strongly pointed out those did not binvolve u.s. assistance generally but having said that they were corruptionhe cases and the point they were making is there trying to address them. as a say about it long history of going to ukraine and working out there in behalf of the nine states government for more than 15en years. i hear what they are saying. and we are in the trust but verify business by the way we do that on this issue is doing the evaluations that look at what

it's actually going on. because again sometimes there is a misunderstanding. we do not go out and count the missiles but we do not do the monitoring it's up to the dod to meet the requirements of the law and the policies are implemented monitoring. we do oversight to make recommendations help the dod improve that. that's the process we are engaged and now we are going to continue to be engaged. >> are challenges we are acknowledging we do not have personnel there. we want to ensure simple search of and upper they are supposed to be. when do you think we need u.s. inspectors on the ground to do that? trust but verify where the details of that i guess? >> from my office or dod? >> u.s. inspectors. >> i can talk to that. lfirst of all were not just taking the ukrainiansin words fr

the provide information on transfer logs that data gets transmitted directly back to us. which we have also have access to that data and they have done six different site visits out from kyivit the third day trips it's a dangerous place we do not have outposts across the country. they see no signs of diversion or the ukrainians are not following procedure. we have thousands of soldiers all over the country there are inherent restrictions. we arere trying to maximize the use of technologies to get the best sight picture as possible than the ig will do oversight to make sure were doing or drop the

right way. >> , simons expired that recognizer gentle lady from new jersey michelle's for five minutes. >> thank you. recently met with many of our nators allies and members of the ukrainian parliament into things really became clear. one is that u.s. leadership has been effective. we have overseen a lot of support for ukraine and our allies and appreciate that as well as her intelligence sharing. >> i don't think your microphone is on. you might want to borrow? >> that you go. >> thank you. i was saying two things have really become clear u.s. leadership has been instrumental in this fight that has been noted byhe our allies across the world and appreciated. but sadly what is also become clear is the broad scale use of

war crimes by the russians, kidnapping of children. over 6000 verified cases. that is simply what we are able to verify. i would say that's a very low, rape of mothers in front of their children. young children, rape of daughters and mothers as i'm hearing for my ukrainian community as they come into the district, targeting of civilian infrastructure. and so it becomesso clear and wn you hear from the ukrainian parliamentarians you here they believe this is an attempt by the russians to demoralize them. to make them want to quit this fight when in fact it is had the opposite effect.di an understanding of why this fight is so important. and so that is why we, on this committee, take our jobs so very seriously. for making sure that we can support ukraine. and the only way we can continue to do that effectively is with

the support of the american people. until our understanding of the oversight, our understanding of how ukrainians are overcoming their history of corruption is so important so we can convey y it. i really appreciate your explanation of all of the measures we have in place. but i don't think what is coming through is what i heard when i was on the ground in kyiv from the embassy. they are seeing the weapons come and get to the front. they are getting pictures of those weapons on the front lines. they are seeing them in use. they feel very confident the weapons we provide them at the border of poland are in fact make it to the front. we are certainly seeing their effective use time and time again. can you talk a little bit more about why we believe that the weaponry we have sent to ukraine is in fact to make it to the front and how we have not seen

those weapons for example, for sale on international markets. maybe that's a question for doctor cox. your tree in the aftermath of it but how do we feel right now about providing all of the assistance we have provided to ukraine and w are confident it's actually getting where we wanted to go? >> part of it is what were seeing in part of it is what we are not seeing.ee we are not seeing is any evidence of significant diversion. i think our assessment is, if some of these systems have been diverted it's by russians have captured things on the battlefield which always happens. there isbu no evidence the ukrainians are diverting it to the black market or something else. that's not surprising given the intensity of the fight on the fact they are clearly using what we are providing them and let her allied partners are providing them to maximum effect for they are asking us for more because they are using everything we have provided

them. as a general matter, when the security system flows in all that inventory is taking note of it. it is scanned et cetera comments given to the ukrainians for they are responsible for giving us the information or where it ends up on thefo logs of that ioinformation. sharing with us a digital confirmation of where things go for they also have scanners that information comes back to us and they have the nato standard software that helps keep inventory at which we also have access to that information. and we do site visits. look, this is an active war zone. they're always going to be things you don't know are happening or you do not see. but we are not seeing any evidence of systemic diversion of the equipment the united provided. >> thank you. and in my final few seconds, is there more we could be doing as a committee to support ensuring

the weapons are being used appropriately? >> well, iri would just say hearings like this are great. i think oversight and transparency are really important. the things doctor talks about, that is the information we are getting as we have our teams out there doing evaluations. lookingpe every aspect of the security of this equipment. beginning until get to the front lines in ukraine to make sure that everything that can be done is being done to ensure it's being used properly and as intended. think hearings like this are great and we appreciate the committee support as we do our oversight will keep you informed as we go forward. >> thank you, with that i yield back but thank you, mr. chairman >> i think the gentle lady the chair recognizes that gentle for orfive minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i would like to thank mr. rogers for giving me the opportunity to go on a code dell and see the

inventory of weapons that we are sending. and just t how they're getting from point a to point b and how we are tracking them. i can assure you that raised my level of confidence. one look is worth 1000 reports. but i want to shift gears for just a moment. because although i think we are doing some things very well, i think we need a little bit of a reset with the american people or i should say my constituents in my district. they have been raising concerns with me about our involvement in this war. they are worried we are getting dragged into a never ending war with no clear and precise outcomes that has been in their opinion perception is 90% of reality, that has a clear end in sight. they believe we are spending money and resources on a fights overseas rather than getting our

own fiscal house in order. if you could and anyone can answer, in simple terms just play out to the american people the reasons why it is so important for ukraine to defeat russia in this war. particularly from the eyes of the americans. what is the implications for the united states after russia actually does defeat ukraine? >> the implications are both in europe and around the world. the united states did get dragged into two world wars in europe. because aggressors were not stopped. aggressors initiated their conflict the free world did not hang together but they were not deterred they were not stopped and the insights was eventually dragged into this conflicts. we do not want to see that happening again because it was a

deterrent i don't put words in your mouth but it's more of a deterrent we do not end up in a world war. >> to demonstrate to other would-be aggressors that if they engage in the type of aggression that russia has they would face similar consequences. it would matter very much if you are sitting in beijing wondering about crossing the taiwan strait but youf will ask yourself if i do that with a world react like it did when we went after and absorbed hong kong was that they looked the other way or the way the world reacted in ukraine if it's the latter that aggression. >> could you expand on that a little bit more, what would a russian victory or defeat mean for china? >> well, first about russia is china's closest ally. they have of course assigned strategic partnership without limits shortly before the war. we have seen growing indications that china might be considered -- by providing russia with some assistance some

lethal assistance was to be very troublesome. china has a stake in the outcome here. but also i think china they speak a lot about the importance of sovereignty and territorial integrity. but frankly china would benefit greatly from a world allowed big powers to gavel up their small neighbors. >> would you care to comments, what with the loss of ukraine mean for nato? >> are so ukraine is not going to lose for there will be no loss of ukraine. think vladimir putin hoped t tht would happen for it has not happened, it's not going to happen. maintainontinues to most of its territory for their fighting tenaciously the russians do not have the capacity in my view to take over ukraine. but obviously if they were to do so would position russian forces and all of the develops inside the ukraine right on nato's doorstep as it relates to poland

and the baltic states. which is one of the reasons why you seem poland on the baltic states so engage in ukraine. >> could you talk a little about the economic impact and what that would mean or that would have on the united states? coxwell you've already seen russia's aggression. especially what they have done to limit the ability of going to get to global markets to the black sea. it's already had an impact on global security at large. obviously the energy instability that is generated by the war has also had an economic consequences. i think the war is already having significant consequences becauset of russia's aggression and had it been unchecked i think this consequences would have been worse. >> a wind and further along in thinking with that i yield back mr. chairman. >> chair recognizes light from texas for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman like to express my gratitude to you in the ranking member for these

ongoing conversations and this opportunity for us to provide oversight and for the american people to feel comfort, i hope and i believe with the information is being delivered per like to thank our witnesses as well. i would be remiss if i did not remark on the incredible change that i have seen happen t over e last three years since i attended the munich security conference in versus the munich security conference last week or two weeks ago, when ever it was. when i was there in 2019 there was significant question about the west and whether the west we continue to support nato. in just the fears about how untethered things seems. but last year or the week before whatever it was i'm sorry time escapes me, but this year's munich security conference seen

incredible unity in the strength demonstrated by our allies and our friends. especially with regard to ukraine and our defense of democracy. i am very proud of the role the united states has played in rebuilding nato and ensuring the west has come together in a way to defend her friends and allies to stop the russian aggression. i would like to in that vein theree has been such a lot of conversation obviously about the f-16 why the nine states and some of our friends are not stepping up quickly as some would like. my colleague, representative houlihan's would like to ask a question i like to follow that up i'm curious as well.

as that's our time ran out, when should the clock start on those f-16s? you laid out for us very clearly and effectively the considerations involved. also the financial implications as well. the continued support and to put our money where our mouth is. when she had that start ticking for the f-16s and is not something can discuss in the setting? >> look, i think it is a more modernized ukrainian air force will be important in that medium and long term for ukraine to continue to in detert russia in the future there is a medium to long-termm requirement. the challenge of course is even if it's a short-term requirement we could not it to them immediately anyway. and is the neither do the ukrainians. ukrainians priorities are air

defense systems. the integrated air defense systems artillery and fire armored and mechanized. because every jelly spent on a one is a dell you can't spend on another there are real trade-offs. i obviously ukraine is going to continue having conversations with us but as he said president zelenskyy discusses with president biden in kyiv last week. zelenskyy's had similar our uk andwith french allies. uk has announced an interest in starting to do some training. we will see where that leads for their other countries in nato, the netherlands, denmark, norway that it talked about potentially f-16s they may be offloading as they upgrade to f35's. so i didn't this conversation will continue for as a sit in the pentagon and say what does ukraine need right now to stay in the fight and turn the tide

against the russians in the first half of this year which is going to be decisive for the conflict, it is just hard for me too tell any member of congress of the american people the best use of that dollar spent right now is on f-16s. >> thank you so much. i only have a few seconds left. i am wondering in terms of the replenishment of u.s.st stocks,s that apartment looking to utilize critical technologies such as manufacturing to fill some of the gaps? sorry i think the short i answer is yes but i think it's probably better for us to arrange a briefing by our acquisitions to really t go through the multi layered approach they are taking to this because they are the real experts on that pic looks great thank you, mr. chairman i yield back too. >> the chair recognizes from texas with us our aidid packages to ukraine like tax i've been a staunch supporter of the

upgrade. we have had to retrofit because the risk that made it top-heavy. the esc rollover kids we've lost too many men and women to rollovers. the beginning of the fiscal year a problem 40000 home these are either new or like new or in our fleet had not received insight rollover technology. my question for the witnesses is, we are sending humvees to ukraine, where they coming from? more for the point i resend those have been fully upgraded with anti- rollover technology? are we sending them slighted to get the upgrade or are w they coming from deep militarized stockpile? you might ask general sims i don't really answer to that question. we may have to come back to you.

>> that's right will come back to you, will bring that answer back to i'm not quite sure. huxley of red river army that does a lot of this work. we've got 40000 units that need this upgrade. it saves about $12 billion rather than buy brand-new ends with them to retrofit what we have heard want to be good stewards of taxpayer dollars. beeninitiations we've working on with her colleagues and friends in california is ukraine human rights policy at oxford this conversation will take concrete steps to hold russia accountable for their atrocities they are committing in ukraine. what evidence of war crimes have you seen in ukraine? including any committed by the wagoner group. what can be done to hold russia accountable for their actions and what can be done during reconstruction?

what thinker collects of the state department would be better at cataloguing all the horrors. but we've all seen it. there's been a systematic targeting of civilians in ukraine clearly and callous disregard for welfare. this winter there targeting critical infrastructure intending rather than to give up. we've seen atrocities killing civilians, killing detained forces for intercourse we have seen deportation of ukrainian children back to russia. ask dr. kagan how many are we talking roughly? >> thousands. have the ini don't front of me. they have catalogued all of that.

>> general, as far as the wagoner group goes to know more specifics on that could you shed light? >> or i don't. and the state department could answer that better. as you and the rest the country of seen we are certainly concerned with what was he reported in the news. i do not mean to segue there is a comment earlier about russian atrocities what separates our military, what separates up work hard. >> is their signature to the convention? i just thought about that i don't know.

combining even on states that don't sign up to them. >> general is your professional pain in the wagoner group is something to be more concerned about because they are not russian military regulars? >> think that wagoner group is given plenty of reason to be concerned. the fact they are recruiting members from prisons, certainly gives an indication as to what character. >> he said not doing that anymore. >> yes, sir. >> should we believe them? >> i am not sure i should trust the words coming from the russian side right now. >> are you saying authoritarian regimes help all members of congress thank you i yield back for the gentleman time expires. ferguson next question i want to remind everybody with a hard

stop at 12:30 p.m. because the classified portion of this hearing. the gentleman from maine is recognized for five minutes for. >> thank you mr. chair. i'll just to start by looking back to may of last year end point out bipartisan group of members of congress including members of this committee has sent to the administration letters. that is gone on since april of last year all the way right up to rightva now calling for the supply of advanced military capabilities to ukraine quite consistently. so 10 months ago a number of us call for antiship missiles, abrams tanks as well as training and transfer of f-16s. about five months ago once again bipartisan group of members of this committee called for long-term defense commitment to ukraine to include surface-to-air missiles, antiship missiles, howitzers, and again training on and transfer of advanced aircraft such as the f-16 put in my opinion these letters represent

to do in the battlefield in ukraine. we have seen sometimes there are policy questions and debates different than the policy opinions of a different nature. and of course i respect the opinion brought forward by doctor carl about authorizations, appropriations and how to get the greatest roi on the money that you have in hand right now to meet the top priorities of the ukrainian military. certainly given enough money

they would prefer to have their top five or top six or top 10 needs or capabilities met in the conversation about authorizations and appropriations is a question for congress as opposed to questions of policy or logistical concerns and challenges. over the weekend the present national security team said now is the not the right phase of the war that sounds like aou policy decision. i've also point out the assessment of military commanders advising the is the need to focus on p tanks, armored personnel characters come in for treat fighting vehicles and such but i don't think anyone agree with that. was the greatest need they have over just about a week ago the

allied of europe briefed members of congress of in-house reportedly and said to enhance the deep fight capabilities of the ukrainian military but setting aside all the of the concerns of the ukrainian jew agree with his assessment this would help ukraine to win the war ultimately? i have no doubt weapons would help ukraine on the battlefield, no doubt is most have with the generals work in europe. on this side of the atlantic the conversation continues around by policy decisions.

of the things in front of the f the 60s as an a example would not help them today. but things like air defense, artillery, fighting vehicle tanks is what we need to be sure we are providing too. >> you do agree with the commander possession of f and attack comes and other long-range capabilities would help them when the war? >> no, sir advanced conditional weapons would help anybody when the war. as their objections to get them long-range part this time? >> the f-16 issue is less about a long-range capability. i think there's a general recognition that will make sense for them over time. it's more about the trade-offs. >> just a few more seconds but with that i would point out why not expand this conversation and the limits of the dollars you have in your possession outcome to congress with a plan that's near term, medium term and long

term given they win the war now or it drags on for several more years the russian threat will still remain. >> happy to brief and that if you come to the classified session will provide more details we have done some analysis on the future ukrainian for some but that might lookor like the. >> thank you time is expired. >> thank you, mr. chairman and ranking member smith for hosting this very important hearing. to thank the gentleman who are here today as well as to take a very important questions there were here to address a critical matter of national security and foreign policy in regards to ukraine. they need for oversight of assets, weapons, munitions and other aid being provided to ukraine for the invasion of ukraine by russia's highlight of the critical aid and support we are providing to that region the conflict has resulted in heavy losses for both sides. we've seen ukrainian forces demonstrated their resilience and ability to conduct offensive operations i believe over the

last year to everyone's surprise. there is no price for resiliency and their belief in their fight for freedom. they have been on the world stage have encouraged and inspired many folks around the world. however their capacity to defend their sovereignty is receiving timely assistance in particular seen troubling part of delays and bureaucratic hurdles, policy decisions of slowed the delivery of aid to i witnessed it firsthand eyewitnesses state departmentde slow rolling into somehe cases virtually at the beginning of the invasion of russia into ukraine. it is my belief in the meetings i have had publicly and privately and in the skiff ukraine does not have a lot of time. ndwe want to make sure our investment in their fight, that they are going to win. it's more important than ever seeing what rush is d trying too they know to take with poland's

borders and other countries. ukraine cannot lose this fight in my estimation for the situation demands urgent action ensuring that lethal aid in support we provide expeditiously. congress and dod need to take the steps to remove any hurdles or address them to ensure the necessary resources are available to fight for ukraine to fight for sovereignty and security failure to do so would not only endanger ukraine local security and is my estimation there's not much time left in this endeavorue but my first question is for undersecretary. i'm concerned about the time it took for the u.s. to fully leverage some of our existing processes. light convening the innovation group for ukraine, to disperse military age ukraine. thinking ahead china, taiwan, we all know china is watching. there any specific improvements you would make to the

department's's that it's writing report not simply reacting, lessons learned, how long it take to stand up, what if he learned of the last year this process? thank you for that we share your sense of urgency. there is always going to be red tape that we have blasted through a lot of it. if you would've told us a year ago we could have executed on $31.7 billion in security assistance to anybody i would us that's bureaucratically impossible. it's precisely. most of it comes to pda the president's authority typically because we pre-position things get our ducks in a row a lot of that equipment such flowing in within days of the president signing the pda and lieutenant general sims can talk to you s.more about that. in terms of the processes we haveve two.

the group got all of the services to rack and stack ukrainian prairies and throughout the prairies for packages.i that's it teeing up the secretary ultimately theda recommendations then gorge the white house but we have the sig process but. d >> how long did it take to stand up? >> that have to get back to on the exact dates. i think it was stood up within a couple of months. >> is not fast enough in your opinion? >> lives stood up a lot of processes that are new >> you think taiwan has a couple of months? >> we are to have one for taiwan. >> it's ready to go? >> it meets monthly chaired by the deputy secretary of defense. >> excellent. >> the cross department working group, because of ukraine have you all learned what red tape

was removed? >> traditionally presidential drawdown authority has been used to provide things in the amount of hundreds of billions of dollars and tens of billions of dollars. there is a lot of learning curve. essentially what we figured out was to make sure all the stakeholders were involved. he had iterated process culminates in a four-star meeting that i care about every 10 days. that pushes recommendations up to the chairman and secretary then push the recommendations over to the white house. >> the gentleman's time has expired. chris gerald sims good afternoon. could you help me paint a picket for myba folks back, what life would look like for ukrainians were read to step aside, were we to withdraw our support.

crumble upon our withdrawal of support? and then for the russians to gain a decisive advantage on the battlefield, what that would mean. i ask you because based on your remarks, he said the fighting has replicated the conditions we saw during the first world war. that was a recent conversation about plentiful examples of war crimes that have been committed. and i think it is important for me explaining my support to folks back home, to give them a sense of what it would look like if our effort no longer existed. could you help me do that please? >> i will leave the geopolitical conversation to what was mentioned earlier. i would tell you a couple of things. first would be, as an american this is what we do pray this is what we do this is what we have fundamentally done for decades.

when people are wrong, we stand up for them. and in this case the invasion of russia, everyone is said it's illegal. everyone says it's wrong and that is what we do. in this case became together the allies in europe and away we d haven't done, really have not done in the past 50 or 60 years. aa year ago today will talk with the 24th was the invasion. jericho today to play with my division's headquarters to central europe. i spent a lot of time in europe brigade commander, and so i have worked a number of times with our allies. i had never worked with our allies were the desire, the intent to work together it was as firm as it was in the time i was deployed. that has not changed. i've been back multiple times. we're talking early about the contributions of our partners. there is more than dollars i would argue that as part of this. we have partners that have skin

in the game. they may not be dedicated the same percentage of gdp, but in some cases dedicating individuals who are making critical, really important contributions to what were doing in terms of security assistance, intelligence, work in terms of advising and training with our partners. that is what we do. we are americans. somebody says this is how the world should be and it's not, we say no. doctor talked about the rules -based order, why is this important? because after the second world war came together with the majority of the world and said this last five -- 10 years is not how we wish to live in the world. we established a geopolitics it exists today. we need to tell people, we need to do something when people go in the wrong direction. why is important to americans?

we believe in this group in this oversight process. no politics, i'm an army guy no politics american politics study thicket attire watching the oversight here, watching what occurred in d.c. all the way to the young men d and women in poland whose transitioning that equipment forward to ukrainian complaints to use it that is oh exists for that is why it matters sir. that last piece i would like you to expand on you help us visualize what looks like all the way to that material being fielded for give us a sense of what that looks like and how quickly is moving. >> as was talking with representative earlier we are learning all sorts of lessons. where we were a year ago today and where we are now is eight light-years a difference. we have smart capable menenow ad women working to make the processes more effective and efficient.

what we had done in terms of a moving out-of-state literally moving mountains. if we stack up all the things we have provided we have literally moved amount is not just from the united states but from working with partners around the world. wewe have moved that incrementay across oceans, in the air with hundreds and hundreds of aircraft and ships. move that she europe it moved further by men and women we all are so proud to have there. all the way to a point where ukrainian men or women takes it and brings it forward to use it. and i know a number of you have seen that connoisseur it's pretty impressive for.. >> it's my time is overspent extraordinary logistical accomplishment on top of other accomplishments but. >> a chair that recognizes final before going to classified brief that the gentleman from wisconsin. >> thank you. to what degree the operational plans within dod lay on the

assumptionna would be only forcd to defeat an adversarypt in one theater deter an adversary in anothery theater? quick sewer, not to jump into the policy side but that a sourcing we're doing, yes, sir. >> given the growing no limit security partnership between beijing and moscow in the year since russia's invasion of ukraine, can we reasonably argue planning for confrontation with only one adversary is increasingly dangerous presumption? >> , i would argue the fact the chinese and the russians are having conversations about ways they can improve their connectionsmp is dangerous to al of us as americans. i think the current work we are doing takes into account where we are around the world. >> if xi jinping makes the foolish decision of arming

russia with weapons what is on the table in terms of w our response. >> that will definitely that one. >> you can make news here. >> first of all i don't think china's leadership once their intentions and plans to be made public. one thing to make clear to them if we have information where'd they are doing this will make it public. this actually matters because as you know china is on a bit of a an offensive to get back into the good graces of europe. that is not going to work i don't think it. but certainly not lethal assistance to russia prevails a single with this counterpart at the security conference and through other channels they would bee significant cost. i am happy in the classified session to talk about what some of that might look like. it would be similar tools we have used to impose on others that have violated u.s.

sanctions. we are actively trying to deter the ccp from providing lethal assistance to russia. and of course at a broader level we are actively trying to deter ccp from invading taiwan by force. >> yes, sir. >> is a perfect example and i know you have talked i came back from taiwan and i was struck by allon the security leaders talkd about this increasing strategic convergence between russia and china. i'm curious if you see it in the same ways my contention junior partner in a de facto alliance against the west. we initially understand the and how you see these connected. >> that is insightful and on the money. i think basically rush on time has not wanted to be china's junior partner. that held a live the dream and

at washington you could drive a wedge between these two actors for the war on ukraine has ended that for the foreseeable future. rush is going to have to turn to china for economic assistance chocolate reconstitute the military after the war. the same calculus is driving the russians have greater convergence with iran in north korea as well. i do think because the russian military they have no choice but to move closer to some of the other actors. like you said recently i believe though you do not see an invasion of taiwan this imminent within the next two years. >> i think that's right. i see no indication xi jinping thing to smelters ready for the pla think they are ready. i think he's put a date on the dartboard for them to be ready but that does not mean they mean have made to do that. that's 2027 thing in the interim. i do not see indications they

aren't likely to make a leap to invade the island of taiwan. >> just so i understand your assessment is based on the absence ofnd evidence? do not see an indication they are getting ready to invade? >> this to be really interesting thread of conversation for us to talk about the classified it's not just about that. >> interesting. two years ago did you view a russian invasion imminent? as imminent? i did not. we did have indications and warrants first in april than in the fall it was a possibility. my assessment is on information and intelligence they have at the moment. if it changed in my assessment will be updated. >> you disagree with the recent assessment is a danger zone? >> i do. >> thank you. >> gentlemen's time has expired.

in the classified portions which have not been recognized in the public portion. we stand and resource giant recess for five minutes as we move for the classified portion of this hearing. [background noises] [background noises

[inaudible conversations]