against russia. this is about two and half hours. [background noises]

committee come to order. before we started what to notice to every member you will find a newer desk drawer in addition to a seating chart of the members of the committee, a chart of all of the staff. it's been one of the things it's always a driven me nuts over the past 20 years not knowing who all these people who work for us. in keeping up with them as they change. that will be in your desk drawer. without objection a chair may declare the hearing and recess at any point, so ordered. a few housekeeping measures before we begin. first we will during the public portion of this year at 12:30 p.m. today and immediately move upstairs for a classified portion. second, i want to welcome back to the committee after his brief hiatus, glad you remembered where we were.

and finally after consultation with the minority ask unanimous consent mr. clyde of georgia member of the committee to be led with the period without objection so ordered lester we observe the one-year anniversary of pollutants illegal and brutal invasion of ukraine. the american people have responded with extraordinary support from ukrainians. millions of 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. to date the administration has distributed over $75 billion of that money including 46 billion in security assistance. these are unprecedented numbers. and it requires an unprecedented

level of oversight by this committee and by congress. but we are up to the task but last year's chairman started monthly classified briefings with the administration officials that have continued into the new majority. many of us have traveled to ukraine in surrounding countries to witness firsthand the train and equip mission we may classified information on the situation in ukraine available to all members. our staff is constantly been being briefed over the latest developments by the department. but today's the first time the committee of the houses holding an open public hearing on the matter. i've asked inspector general the undersecretary to appear today because it is imperative that the american people understand where our security system is going, be, how it is being used cut. and see what protections are in place to ensure it is not fall into the wrong hands. but oversight is about more than accounting. it is about ensuring the administration ascending

strategic goals in implementing a policy to achieve them. that is why we are all here with very real concerns. since the beginning the president has been overly worried in my view, that giving ukraine what needs to win would be too investigatory. this hesitation is only prolonged the war driven up the cost in terms of dollars in lives. this conflict must end. the president must be willing to do what it takes to end it with victory. continued reluctance and indecision only empowers putin. since the wrong message in the wrong signals to presidency and the chinese come his party. and with that i go to my friend and collect the ranking member. >> think it mr. chairman i welcome our witnesses and thank you for the work you've done. you have all appeared before us and classified settings to update us on a very regular basis i knew greatly appreciate the cooperative relationship between the executive branch the

legislative branch on this matter. more than anything we appreciate your leadership in supporting ukraine so effectively over the course of the past year. i think it's hard to imagine the massive undertaking that has been done in the last year since russia made his decision to invade. weeks and months before the invasion when we came to realize from our intelligence community that this was going to happen. first of all we are about the only country in the world that thought it was going to happen even the ukrainians themselves right up literally until the day of the invasion thought we were exaggerated the intelligence that this was not actually going to happen. so from pretty much a dead stop to buy the administration pull together a massive coalition to do something that almost all the countries involved in that coalition had never contemplated doing. certainly had hoped they would never have to do. we have done that with a remarkable, remarkable outcome. the way that coalition was pulled together and the forces

that have been given and the weapons that have been given to ukraine to enable them to be as successful as they have been combined of course with their unbelievable courage and tenacity is really a remarkable accomplishment. i think we need to understand in that perspective. obviously would like ukraine to win tomorrow, russia to be completely pushed out. we also be realistic about the challenge we face and how we've gone about meeting that challenge. really how effective we have been doing that for the purpose of this hearing specifically is on oversight. i think we have had a lot of oversight on this effort from the very beginning. that's part of the reason the effort has been so successful. there are constant efforts to use been stories coming from russia propaganda about corruption and weapon systems on where they are not supposed to be. but people have looked at this another chairman has done this in great detail had found there

is no instance of that happening. we have seen the effectiveness of. the best evidence of the clearly unequivocal is the fact ukrainians have been as successful on the battlefield as they have been pretty weapons, equipment and support we were sending them was being sent elsewhere or stolen or misused they would have lost a long time ago. one of the other things we forget here is even us here in the u.s. we sought comment were supporting ukraine but us along with anyone else thought the ukrainians did not stand a chance without the russians would be in kyiv a week or two or a month. the fact they've been as successful as they have been is the best evidence we have the systems in support we are sending them is being as well used as it possibly can. i do want to touch upon the point the chairman made about how the administration is not been quick enough. one of the things we've heard not just from critics of the work you do not to support it

but even from people who do support it is there cannot be a blank check that has been the criticism you take if you want to make it sound like you're still with ukraine but you want to be responsible. and i think that is where appropriate. but no blank check means no blank check for it you don't just send everything people ask for in a blink of an eye without even thinking about it. we think about it and we get the ukrainians what they really need. and i'm going to hit upon one of those. i think this is a really good example the problem is the f-16 which everyone has become obsessed over in recent weeks. we have considered that request we've had many conversations with the witnesses before us the deity as well. the honest truth is the cost of training at the f-16 up and ready to operate in ukraine, even if we basically said there's nothing more important, not weapon system spent all that's our time and all the resources doing it, best case scenario we could maybe get some

operational f-16 into ukraine within a year, maybe eight months if we really pushed it. this is getting lucky. you don't have to just train the pilots you train the mechanics company of heaven airfield that can accommodate the f-16 and you have to have the spare parts to make it work. we looked at that and determined that is not a wise use of resources necessary to win the fight. that is what no blank check means. you don't just send it without thinking about it. we thought about it and reach a very intelligent conclusion. this is not the right system and by the way a fourth generation fighter in this particular fight is going to struggle to survive. their iceland circumstances where the ukrainians have been able to use the mig 29's that they have, very isolated for the fourth generation fighter in the face of a tonic air defense. but we are given ukrainians is an air defense systems they desperately need to survive right now and the artillery in the heimer's and weapon systems

they do need. so, the administration is doing exactly what needs to do. getting equipment is quickly and responsibly as possible to make this work. i also what to make everyone aware of the fact russia is fighting it massive information campaign. yes there on the battlefield forward to hearing more details about that today. they are also trying to break the coalition. the russian military has performed incredibly poorly. the ukrainians incredibly heroically in the war's not going we put the wanted it too. but he's not giving giving up and he knows his only hope is to break the coalition that is trying to support ukraine. they're trying to do that in a variety of different ways. you can see all the different arguments how tomato started this because of expansion and other nonsense argument circulating out there for the other president has any break in the coalition they see they are posting and they are prodding. they want to undermine the biden administration. with constructive criticism for what's goi on make sure it's

constructed how we maintain our unity. it's very, very the same thing positive about the biden administration. what part of holding the coalition together is to acknowledge the incredible jobs to maintain its unity not jump at every shiny object at the biden administration. like the f-16. right now we are getting every single weapon system that we can to ukraine. there is not a decision being made about ethical pack we maintain the support we spent a lot of money there's not a limitless amount of money or a limitless amount of equipment. those decisions are being made. being made wisely. it's perfectly appropriate we have aggressive oversight as we have had since the beginning. that's part of the reason we have been as successful to date as we have been.

with that i yield back i look forward to hearing from our witnesses. >> i think the ranking member. i will now introduce our witnesses for the honorable colleague secretary of under defense doctor carl has been the primary official overseeing the dod response to ukraine. the honorable doctor robert the inspector general of the department of defense. together with the ig's of the state department usaid has office securing audits and investigation the assistants were providing to ukraine lieutenant general doug assumes as the director of operations for joint staff. he assists chairman joint chiefs in developing and providing operational guidance on ukraine and other military operations. i welcome the witnesses, thank you for your time think of your preparations it takes a lot of effort it is appreciated and helpful. doctor carl we will start with you. >> thank you. chairman rogers, ranking member smith, members of the committee it's a real honor too.

before he alongside my good friend lieutenant general d.a. sims over there in our department inspector general. i want to begin by expressing the unwavering support of the department of defense for ukraine sovereignty and security of the face of russia's uppermost in brutal invasion. i know that support is shared by and is enabled by congress and the american people. i want to thank you for your crucial and continued help to get ukraine the military and other types of assistance that needs to remain in the fight. thank you too, for holding support hearing at this pivotal time for the security of ukraine, of europe, and of the world. as we mark one year since fresh was further invasion of ukraine it's clear russia has failed to achieve any of its objectives. it's militaries paying tremendous costs. ukraine remains united and determined to expel russia's invading forces from its territory. nato unity is stronger now than it has been in decades. we are seeing intense fighting

in eastern ukraine as russia seeks points to exploit ukraine defense tenaciously. what happens in the coming months may prove decisive or focus on providing ukraine the capabilities it needs right now to defend its people and its territory and change the dynamics of the front lines. i like to take a few minutes latter party capabilities. once we are providing to craig now in the coming days, weeks, months. first we focus on a layered integrated approach to air defense account to russia's attack on population centers and civilian infrastructure. the patriot capability from the united states has wells that provided by germany in the netherlands will give ukraine advanced long-range capability. these are complement by medium and short range capability provided by the united states as well as our allies and partners. second, we continued to work a thousand partners to deliver a steady flow of artillery rounds and other ammunition that ukraine can sustain its fight. third, to enhance ukraine's ability to maneuver, the night

states will provide abrams main battle tanks the best tanks in the world. uk is also committed challenger tanks and other european states will help other tanks the main battle tanks or compline by other vital armor capabilities from the night states including bradley, stryker fighting vehicles and other fighting vehicles from our european partners. finally we have expanded u.s. training to enable the ukrainians to better integrate fires and maneuver. our assistance ukraine as possible thanks to the tremendous bipartisan support of congress. as you know we have now provided $31.7 billion in support since russia launches further invasion of ukraine a year ago. our allies and partners have now provided over $19 million in addition to what we have. the department of defense appreciates the most recent additional supplemental appropriations act which provided presidential drawdown authority funding for the military services to replace items sent to ukraine and funding for the ukraine

assistance initiative. as we focus on getting ukraine what it means we've always prioritize accountability and ukraine has too. we've adapted our accountability practices for the combat environment to address the risk of a diversion using. >> it is not go our standard practices. when you go russia launches brutal invasion to destroy ukraine as a free and sovereign nation, threatening european security, transatlantic unity the security of the world. today, an independent, sovereign, democratic ukraine and doers. incredible people in the armed forces of ukraine remain unbounded unbroken. nato and the wider community of democracies around the world are stronger than ever. the stakes for national security remain significant. we are determined to support ukraine's fight against tyranny and oppression and in doing so defend the american interests and values that are so clearly at stake. thank you again for the opportunity to testify and i

look forward to your questions. >> thank you. director and general and summarize his statement. >> ranking member smith, ladies and gentlemen, good morning. i appreciate today's opportunity to update you on the u.s. military efforts to help the ukrainian people and their continued fight against the russian invasion. today marks the 369th day since russian forces invaded and began their illegal unprovoked invasion of ukraine. as we meet today the current situation between ukraine and russia is generally static. with both sides employing heavy amounts artillery resulting up minimal changes of territory in significant numbers of casualties. her following session i'm prepared to discuss particulars of ukraine disposition but generally and as you have seen reported open source is the active portion of the battlefield today as i have briefed before over the past two months, the russian army with assistance of private military

contracts have fought savagely to defeat creating defenses. employing extreme amounts of artillery and waves of thousands of partially trained to localize soldiers and personnel contracted from prison. the russians have made incremental gains at significant cost. ultimately, as i described before the fighting is replicated the conditions of the first world war. the key to changing this paradigm is creating a ukrainian armed forces capable of breaking the state of fighting. in this regard, since i last updated this committee, the concentration of u.s. efforts has been focus on combining equipment and munitions with people and training. the intent and efforts of the u.s. military are designed to generate combat credible forces capable of combining fire and movement to achieve maneuver. increase the overall capabilities of the 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 increasing ukrainian combined arms organization. all told, since january, u.s. military trained another 1000 ukrainians bringing the total by the united states -- trained by the united states is just over 4000. as i speak ukrainians or trading in multiple locations in europe, work with u.s. service members and military transfer allies and partners. key to our ability to conduct collaborative training has been the recent increased and maneuver related equipment. the u.s. provisional bradley fighting vehicles, strikers and howitzers combined a similar fighting vehicles and tanks on contributions from our partners, is notably increasing the capability of the ukrainian armed forces. in addition the u.s. continues to supply critical munitions and individual equipment from howitzers, ammunition to medical cold-weather gear.

finally, critically important ukraine's ability to continue to defeat russian efforts to destroy civilian infrastructure, u.s. armed forces olson complete the training and equipping of ukraine's first patriot battery. as you know, our air defense experts are provided key training in oklahoma. we are confident the accreting to employ patriots with the same expertise they are demonstrating every day with their current air defense capabilities. thank you for what this committee at this congress have done and continue to do to provide oversight and resources in support of ukraine as they continued to fight against the illegal and unprovoked large-scale invasion. while the cranes for the real versions of this war, your support and that of the american people has had profound impacts on ukraine's future. i look forward to your questions and discussion today, thank you. >> thank you general. >> treatment rogers, ranking mixture smith and distinguish numbers of the committee. thank you for inviting me too

appear today to discuss the department of defense office of the inspector general's comprehensive independent oversight of u.s. security assistance to ukraine. as well as our active participation in a whole of government approach to ensuring robust oversight of the full range of american assistance. during the year from the 2022 russian invasion the dod completed for ukraine related oversight projects with a fifth report released just yesterday. currently have some 20 ongoing audits and evaluations that are focused on among other things ensuring tax dollars are used properly is appropriate accountability for weapons and other material and stocks are probably replenished so they are available should they be needed elsewhere. additionally dod defense criminal investigative service is actively engaged in conducting fraud prevention and investigative activities that play critical role in ensuring the integrity of u.s. assistance

ukraine. the dod oig currently has more than 90 professionals engage in oversight security assistance ukraine. in 2022 issued to management advisories that identified several areas of concern that could directly impact dod's ability to transparently trance on trent report for ukraine. earlier this year we initiated an audit about examining dod's execution of funds appropriated to assist ukraine. we have long been focused on any use monitoring on his feet um and enhanced monitoring or ee you empty of these tracking of how partners employ military assistance in sensitive equipment after those assets are transferred to them. as early as 2020 we issued a report of a dod was conducting e um military assistance ukraine. in october of 2022 we publish a classified report and identified challenges dod personnel responsible for eu m when

they're limited or no u.s. personal presence of. the actions a dod taking to address those issues in ukraine. as a situation on the ground has continued to evolve a recently initiated our third evaluation on e um in ukraine and we will continue to focus on this important area. yesterday we publicly release her most recent report related to the ukraine effort, making recommendations to assist the army of its maintenance, inventory and other processing for pre-positioned equipment in the region. in addition to the topics above are ongoing and planned projects cover the waterfront of american security assistance ukraine. addressing critical issues like the replenishment of u.s. stocks, intelligence sharing, security control for the transport of weapons and equipment, their maintenance and sustainment, noncompetitive contracts, and the training of ukrainian armed forces. and as noted at the outset the cis agents are drawing on their experience around the world to conduct outreach and investigations to help prevent and address fraud or other criminal conduct.

we are not conducting this oversight alone. we are partnering closely with the department of state oig u.s. agency for international development oig others across the oversight community in a coordinated approach to assure competence of oversight of all u.s. assistance ukraine. along with the oversight partners the dod, oig established leads ukraine oversight interagency working group which brings together 20 oversight entities and a whole of government approach. just last month my office the state in coordination with the working group published a joint strategic oversight plan which publicly describes complainant ongoing work. as detailed in the plan we are employing the proven model that has been used for years to ensure competence of oversight up overseas, contingency operations and we will work together in this effort for as long as the conflict and the need for oversight continue. at the end of january, i travel

with the leaders of the state of the usaid oig to germany, poland, and into ukraine in order to obtain the latest on the ground perspective. to build on our coordinated approach and to deliver on ambiguous message to america and in kyiv high level ukrainian officials about the expectations for accountability for u.s. assistance. the trip may clear the situation is fluid and calls for continuous agile oversight. the dod oig working hand in glove with her oversight partners will continue to make independent oversight of assistance ukraine a matter of the highest priority. we will continue to keep congress and the public informed about our work. thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today and i look forward to your questions. >> thank you. before moving to questions out to remind everybody that maps you have in front of you while they are unclassified we have not been given permission by the department to distribute beyond the committee at sq to leave those here would you leave.

and i recognize myself for five minutes. if russia were to be successful in taking control of ukraine what would that potential china taking taiwan? looks well, mr. chairman we have seen what the world looks like when authoritative powers on the march in or unchecked by the free world and carve out spheres of influence by gobbling up their neighbors. that world was the 1930s. it culminated in the worst human tragedy in history the second world war. >> enhance that could happen per. >> of russia is successful in ukraine or seen successful in ukraine it will embolden other aggressors elsewhere to similar things is my point. >> sure i yield time to mr. clyde from georgia progressive think chairman rogers for his invitation to be your today and for yielding me his time to discuss this important matter of oversight of

the u.s. military support to ukraine for as we all know the united states is authorized over $100 billion in aid which our government holds a responsibility to the american people that it be used for its true, just come intended purpose. let's responsibility of congress to ensure every single penny of american taxpayer money is being effectively used, as intended to assist ukrainian people their fight against russian aggression. just two weeks ago at the pleasure during the chairman to visit several of our nato allies in europe to receive an update on the war effort in ukraine and the ongoing oversight work directly related to u.s. military aid. the accountability of the weapons shipped in is absolutely paramount. especially the most sensitive weapons to ensure their being used for the intended purpose. and not diverted for nefarious purpose. as a supply officer above multiple peacetime deployments and multiple combat deployments in my 28 years of navy service

i'm fully aware of the challenges of maintaining visibility and control of critical military components when the supply lines are long and the theater is connecticut. so, i would like to start with the use of department of defense inspector general. in all your inspections and oversight in country and out, have you found any instances of sensitive weapons like stinger missiles, being lost or diverted to those not authorized to have them? >> thank you very much for the question. i'm obviously not at liberty to talk about in the investigations. we have not substantiated any subs instances so no, sir. >> you can confidently say to your knowledge every sensitive weapon is currently under control of those who should have them? >> thank you very much for the question. that is why we are engaged and we are laser focused on this issue and engage in robust oversight to make sure that is the case.

were doing evaluations a look at the weapons from the time they began at the port, while they are transferred throughout they get to the shipment points and go into the country and then a mention in my statement we are conducting our third evaluation the enhanced monitoring to ensure the department of defense is monitoring a robust way. additionally as i mentioned dci f they have vast experience all over the world and doing investigations and rising out of conflict situations. and so again we are very much alert to any instances where that son of conduct would occur. >> okay, moving on i understand your office is working on audit of dod award and administration of non- competitively awarded contracts in support of ukraine. has there been any waste, fraud, abuse reported to your office in these investigations? >> i appreciate the question.

the audit is ongoing. the purpose of the audits the dod has the control in place to make sure that does not happen. >> according to testimony their posters both in ukrainian and english language. without compromise at denny's have whistleblowers comported information using that particular of reporting to your knowledge? >> thank you for referencing the hotline but something we work closely on usaid. to report what they think may be wrong. we have gotten sorts of types of allegations over that. and we are continuing to look at them. >> mr. chairman for the record i

like to submit an article from u.s. aid today. billions in ukraine is that many landing and corrupt pockets question is update as of yesterday. >> without objection so ordered. >> i recognize the ranking member per. >> thank you very much sir. i want to follow-up a little bit of what chairman rogers is asking about in terms of the policy behind this is the undersecretary's and make the appropriate person to ask that question two. it's caustic and warmest amount of money tens of billions of dollars. acutely aware of the fact we do not want to get into a direct conflict with russia but we do not want native to get into a direct conflict with russia. it's a legitimate question for

the american taxpayer, why are we spending money it seems like a long way away what's all this got to do with me? i think the policy is sound and want to give you the opportunity to say this is why this matters to his national security. >> thank you. think the entire international system is grounded of integrity it's at the heart of the un. that may sound wonky except the entire rules but ultimately minimizes international conflicts and wars that we see. if countries like russia are allowed to go to swallow up their neighbors the strong do with they will suffer do what they must we will live in a very dangerous world. i'll just give you one example. if you are sitting in tehran or in beijing and you are contemplating aggression against

the neighbor and all of those circumstances that is conceivable. you are going to ask yourself would be the reaction of the international community? it has the united states not exercise its leadership to rally not only democracies in europe and north america, but countries around the world to give ukraine aid. the lesson the dictators would take is aggression will be punished. that would make the world a much more dangerous place for americans. >> very well stated. one argument to make is a lot of people are concerned about this point to our policy and iraq. certainly there's a ton of mistakes made there. i think a lot of people forget is on your point of sovereignty, would kick that whole thing out was saddam hussein trying to take over kuwait setting his eyes on saudi arabia. how we handle that is highly debatable in terms of the long

term both will be dated 91, what we did in 2003. but the principle of sovereignty and exactly what you just stated not a lot conflict russia or china think they can simply grab territory by force is core to our own security the security of the world long term. as we speak we are very aware of the taiwan situation with china. china and i have not end up the number of country but it's more than a half dozen have sovereign territory now that to 1 degree or another china claim. just like russia says ukraine should not exist they should be part of russia, china has the same argument in the land that is currently controlled by vietnam, by the philippines, by japan, by india, all across the world. it kicks off a very, very dangerous situation if president putin is successful in ukraine. i think we need to remember that. even while we are where the cost

and we are aware of the necessity of making sure we check where this money is going. which was outlined and we are doing. but the policy itself is really crucial to peace and stability in the world and ultimately to our own national security of the united states. none of that makes it easy. we all want peace in ukraine as quickly as possible. but right now it has been stated clearly the path to peace in ukraine is simple. putin can stop his war and take his troops out of sovereign ukraine. and that stops the war in the blink of an eye. but until that happens we have to support ukraine to force put into that choice i appreciate you articulating that and i yield back. >> think that ranking member and i recognize a gentleman from south carolina mr. wilson. >> thank you mike rogers ranking member adam smith for this very important bipartisan hearing. on the issues of ukraine and immediately the effects it has

on the chinese communist party. i want to thank the witnesses for being here today. i believe the world was in a global competition between democracies with rule of law opposed by authoritarians with rule of gun. today's conflict or criminal pollutants mass murder in ukraine. this i believe ukraine must be victorious to deter the chinese chemist party from attacking the 24 million people of taiwan. ukraine must be victorious to stop iran from its efforts to vaporize israel as it develops intercontinental ballistic missiles to devastate american families. with that is, there billions in u.s. weaponry and financial aid flowing to create more coming to stop were criminal putin. we are all concerned about accountability and the american people need to know. it's a recognize and that is

provide reports to be provided to congress on oversight and accountability. and with that in one of the broader coordinations with the state department ig, usaid and other relevant, what is the structure to protect the american taxpayer? >> thank you very much for the question. we are actively engaged in an ongoing basis the u.s. aig and all of our partners in the working group and ensuring comprehensive oversight over all aspects of assistance to ukraine. obviously my office, the primary responsibility with regard to security assistance. we have, as we speak proximally 20 ongoing audits and evaluations that cover every aspect of that security assistance including the broad range i mention in my statement.

>> also work with our partners to make sure they are not in the gaps with regard to the different types of assistance that are being provided. we are reporting out transparently. the joint strategic oversight plan that i mentioned. we are going to continue operative report coming at the beginning of april that will be providing update on our work. we are going to continue to update other works of this congress and the american public are fully informed regarding her oversight efforts. it is not us to ensure it is appropriate oversight across the board to ensure taxpayer dollars spent appropriately in the equipment is being used as intended. >> thank you so much for what you do pray let's get publicized doctrine really concerned about foreign military sales. delivery to taiwan. our allies making the best of the ability to provide. and for example were providing

31 abrams tanks. somehow the media presented we would not have any tanks in the future. they leave out we have 8000 tanks we have potentially 22000 actually abrams tanks. the 31 was presented as debilitating the united states. we can do better. what is being done is particularly working with mike rogers and others to have an expedited foreign military sales. it is absurd with pre-positioning of equipment that may take a year to get equipment to ukraine. thank you congressman. we predominately used two sets of authorities at dod to get you created weapons, pda presidential drawdown allows us to draw from stocks usaid allows us to put things on contract. only droppings on stocks things generally arrived in the days are handful weeks. we put things on contract, it

depends free sometimes it's a week sometimes it's a handful of months. sometimes it's longer than that. so it really depends which authority we are using. we have searched a tremendous amount of security assistance and to ukraine but more than $31.7 billion a year but i don't know there's any historical precedent for that for the vast majorities come out of her stocks and has come very rapidly. i will just say i share your frustration with the broader foreign military sales process. we are getting after that problem through a tiger team at the department of defense that is identified i think about 80 processing improvements can streamline these things. it is still too slow. there is nothing as we draw things out from our stocks that makes the problem worse. it's an apples and oranges issue. it's more aligned with the usa i authority in terms of putting things on contracts. >> we to follow the example of czech republic and last week

poland buying equipment immediately thank you. >> and recognize for five minutes for. >> thank you, mr. chairman. again i want to begin by recognizing your efforts to hold recurring updates and briefings by this committee. in my opinion it is been that healthy process the foundation for the bipartisan votes that have passed supplemental funding really over the last year. and again the witnesses have been part of this process thank you for your contribution. when i think my friend mr. wilson just indicated is included in the supplemental funding bills were actually specific explicit language by congress directed toward the offices of inspector general to be engaged at the maximum level. and again if you could just confirm that for the record. again you have been around for a long time, thank goodness.

it has both congressional support your efforts are taking place. >> yes, sir, thank you very much for the question. we very much appreciate that support are committed to the best possible transparency in her oversight efforts. and again only talk about a blank check i think clearly and congress had her eyes wide open when large amounts of funding were authorized and appropriated. we wanted oversight every step of the way. in dealing with again ukraine's efforts to deal the waste, fraud, abuse there is an international organization that keeps score on countries efforts in terms of corruption, fraud, and transparency international. in the last year at the same time this unprecedented infusion of money has been flowing and

not just from the u.s. but from the eu, ukraine's position on transparency international ranking actually improved. some of the few countries in the world that went up six places. i wonder with that backdrop if you could talk about your perspective with seriousness with which the ukrainian government has approached the whole question of making sure this goes to the right place? >> thank you. i worked the ukraine issue now for about nine years. and in our engagements over that entire period corruption was the number one issue we raise with ukrainian officials. i think there have been improvements over time of the defense sector which obviously is most germane for dod. i can say in our engagement seen ukrainian officials i was in kyiv and he talks to this counterpart every other week of accountability, transparency and combating corruption is not just

what are talking points say. we have to put our effort into it we have provided the ukraine's width way to track the assistance we provide to include scanners and software. we have done went safe remote visits to sites. we do not see any evidence of diversion in our reporting to think the ukrainians are using properly what they have been given. but we will continue to foot stomp the accountability and transparency for all the reasons you mentioned. >> looking again at present zelenskyy's own efforts. i would say he courageously took steps to remove some very close to his office and political supporters of his own which shows tremendous commitments to not just talking about trying to address this problem but actually taking action to remove people which again demonstrates

true 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 would like to enter newspaper article i would ask the peace and this morning's "washington post" zelenskyy takes on ukraine's top and may be admitted to the record for. >> so ordered. >> again that walks to the whole question of how they improve their score with transparency international in the midst of dealing with an existential threat to their country with that i yield back. quick the chair now recognizes the gentleman from colorado mr. lambert for five minutes for. >> thank you, mr. chairman thank you for having this hearing. thank you all for being here today. general i would like to ask you the first question i have. last week vladimir putin

announced the suspension of russia's participation in the new start treaty rate this followed an earlier declaration by the state department russian was violating the new start treaty. so, it appeared roshan has taken a 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 for new start? for instance of a start uploading its nuclear delivery systems above the caps? click sir, thank you for the question. some fine tuning on that for the follow-up session if that's okay and certainly pass any policy implications. i would simply say we continue to maintain the strong cliffs nuclear force of the world but we continue to monitor the nuclear situation around the world to include russia. if i was an american i would not be worried about the nuclear situation. >> a very good if you could follow up on that.

what is of the diplomatic or other things administration doing a response to russia's latest stance on new start? >> think it's her it's really important question. i think is a practical matter the suspension does not make a lot of difference for the reasons you mentioned as they were arty out of compliance with the inspections using covid and other things as excuses. it's also interesting post and decided to suspend as opposed to leave the treaty that's actually an indication it's not effective leverage over so won't be effective leverage over the biden administration. yes people leave arm controls it matters for the safety of the american people in the world. frankly russia's in no position for not constrained a nuclear arms race for they do not have the money and give the strain on sanctions and export controls. i think this is a way for them to generate some headlines. but i think is a practical matter it does not change his

situation. rush is a dangerous power of nuclear weapons rapid vigilance against that danger. >> thank you. i do think it was a mistake for president biden to re- up new start when he first took office without any discussions whatsoever with the russians. i think we could have perhaps gotten some concessions are further understanding. think that was a mistake. however i will complement the president and the ranking member will be glad to hear this. it was right for him to go to ukraine recently i think that sense the right signal. we all hope and pray to god that there is no use of nuclear weapons by russia in ukraine tactical or anything else. and we do not want to give away what our response should be should that happen in a while but hand on the specific circumstances. but it's, what would be some of the consequences to russia should that unthinkable thing happen?

>> thank you for that parent happy to talk about this in greater detail in the classified setting. what i will say here's the following. we have made it very clear to russian leadership at the highest levels to intelligence channels, my boss secretary option is counter. our national security to its counterpart in the crime under it in the use of nuclear weapons in ukraine on any scale would be considered a world changing events. it would bring about severe consequences far in excess to anything the russians have experienced to date. a lot of the restraints we been operating under would no longer obtained in a world where russia broke that threshold for the good news is they're not likely to do so. >> what they would lose is far more than there have to gain. and lastly general sims, russia made some exaggerated claims that use hypersonic weapons and

they ukraine for justice exaggerate a lot of things about their capabilities. can you shed any further light on that particular question? >> they have deployed conventional munitions. i would not going to detail the session on particulars. they are doing so at great expense. they're finding now there weapons of all types are in dire straits in many cases. very prepared for many of their weapons and are shooting down their weapons and very high rate. >> very good thank you for being here and i yield back too. >> thank you the chairman recognizes jell-o from california for five minutes. rex thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for reaching out trying to get the supplies of the need to go. particularly on the journey you took two weeks ago to greece,

romania, and poland. my question goes to you first, thank you for your detailed explanation of the various projects you have that you and your colleagues have underway but i would like you to very briefly summarize the reports you have it provided over the last year or year end a half. there seems to be two different pieces to that. one of which you've already talked to and that his suggested improvements and the auditing and transfer of weapons and the like. if you like to go into that a little bit more. secondly if you'd summarize the needs of those reports of following up on the question earlier what you actually found. >> yes, sir, thank you very much for the question but as you say the reports we've issued two dates over the past year since the 2022 invasion really have followed largely due to categories. a couple of them have looked at

issues that we identified relating to the way in which the money that was appropriated is being tracked in the way in which is being entered into the systems. the concerns there there are additional improvements of those result in a lack of transparency of those funds break the department has been making progress in those areas. we have continued to look at that. and as i mentioned we recently initiated the actual execution of the funds appropriated. that is sort of an ongoing priority, how's the money being spent question that we didn't fight issues with the systems and the procedures in place. made recommendations to help address. >> making progress to achieve the goals you have stated. >> yes, sir. the first management advisory did not have specific recommendations are raised a number of concerns for the second did have one

recommendation. that relate to putting in place procedures that were more robust in ensuring things are tracked properly. they have made progress in that area per the recommendation remains open and will continue to look at that that the ongoing audit. >> shall continue to look for perfection as you showed for. >> absolutely sir. >> the second is finding the on the recommendations for the procedures, the findings. if you find any indication there was a diversion of equipment of any kind? >> again, the second set of projects we released her looking at controls over this monitoring, once the weaponry goes into ukraine there needs to be appropriate accountability and tracking. the dod has responsibilities to do that.

i'm very pleased you are setting up a robust investigation in ukraine itself as you are reestablishing within the embassy the various auditing groups necessary. is that the case? >> what we have done, sir, we employed a significant number of people into the region to do oversight over the supply and training mission, most of which occurs before any weaponry crosses into ukraine. then using some of that same techniques frankly we used not just my office, but across the ig community, during the covid

pandemic. we are doing additional monitoring related to the eum and eeum we are getting information from the personnel at the embassy regarding what is currently being done. if we need to go further and go in, we will but at this point, we have it covered. >> the bottom line is that the programs are working, different aversions are not tapping into the equipment is getting where it means is that it? >> we are doing oversight to make sure they have the controls to make sure that happens. >> didn't quite get to what i'm talking about. >> we've not found problems of great significance, is that correct? >> a lot of these audits and investigations are pending but to the areas i mentioned we have limited findings the department has been addressing them and we will continue to look at the issues. >> the gentlemen's time expired. the gentleman from virginia for five minutes. >> i would like to thank the witnesses for being here today. we look at the gains that ukraine has made with assistance from around the world and what's happening to russian forces.

about 40% of the war tanks gone and today 97% of the russian army is in ukraine and even with that they are struggling. the issue is for us the munitions that we are providing to ukraine. last year's indy aa, we provided both funding and contracting tools to accelerate replenishing our munition stockpiles essentially weapons magazines. i want to talk about of those where i think there is a strategic mismatch. we give those contracting tools yet, how we evaluate where the needs are to me is a contradiction of that. the needs are supposed to be evaluated on the threats in europe. what is that threat scenario? and as we see, the dod has up to two years to determine that threat scenario. so, if we are looking at why the scenario two years down the road and whatever is happening at that time in europe and we are

today accelerating the replenishing of our munition stockpile, to me there's a mismatch to given what the needs and threats are we are spending up today to build weapons stockpiles that may be mismatched with what we see two years from now doesn't seem to me to be a good policy. so, doctor kahl, can you tell us based on the structure requirements on the munitions and ground forces in europe, how do we make sure we are making the right determinations about what to build today so we don't have a mismatch and we are talking about the weapons magazines being depleted today but 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 mismatch? >> that is a very important question. we've made significant investments because of the money that congress has generally given and the authority to spend it over longer periods of time to recapitalize our munitions.

creating longer-term demand is of the industries are responsive. i think what ukraine conflict showed his frankly the defense industrial base was not at the level that we needed it to be to demonstrate munitions so right now, our priorities are making sure we are increasing productions for the things we anticipate ukraine will need. so the ammunition for the nato standard also the guided multiple launch system that launch off of the high march systems. those will matter a year from now, two years from now, three years from now because even if the conflict in ukraine calms down and no one can predict if that will happen, ukraine is going to need a military to defend its clawback entity to to detour. i think we are relatively confident we are making the investments not only for the russia contingencies but also

contingencies vis-à-vis china, north korea, iran et cetera but beyond that we can go into some of the specific details if you would like in terms of how we are making targeted investments. >> let me speak to the next question the allocations we are making today to ukraine are based on the pre- ukraine conflict scenario so if we are holding back those munitions based on that scenario than are we inadvertently holding back the things based on the integrated scenario, so that i think is the question and then also how are the determinations made about what we are doing to replenish our stockpiles and what we are sending to ukraine, how is that interacting with our needs in the indo pay calm? >> it is a very important point. as we have a total munitions requirement that is essentially a metric against which we need munitions for a whole range of contingencies, so they are not

paid to any one contingency it's a pool of munitions from a range of different scenarios. we've adjusted about to account for the fact that russia is bogged down in ukraine with forces that have been attributed and changed for the russia contingency. at the same time we have requirements for operational plans and other parts of the world, north korea, iran, china et cetera so secretary austin has been laser focused on making sure as we draw down from our own stocks we are getting ukraine what it needs without taking undue risks to those other plans and i think so far we have accomplished that but we also need to recapitalize to build that hedge in case something bad happens elsewhere in the world. >> thank you i yield back. >> the gentleman from new jersey for five minutes. >> thank you mr. chair man, and i certainly appreciate that the ongoing insight and the most recent visit to the region the

amazing thing that the united states better than anybody hands down is the logistics, the ability to move men, equipment, resources is short of remarkable. i want to touch base three years ago there were some disturbing reports on the industrial base issues with explosives and accelerants. we focused on that. had we not sped up the recapitalization i think we would be in a worse place but we still have quite a ways to go. my question goes to doctor kahl and the general. putin leaves no chance when he speaks to the world but to imply the nuclear option over and over and it finds an audience in the united states. people are worried about what

might happen. we've seen time and time again the discussion about the red lions and what they are and if we go back a year with the red line was then may or may not be the red line of tomorrow and that is what we need to ask about the changing redlines. the calculations that we've made in high mars is one of the discussions early on we wanted. what calculations are going into effect that something we are providing is not going to change the redlines. how do we determine what the redlines are and how do they change since the beginning? >> it something we watch very closely. putin's rhetoric from the

outside nuclear matters has been irresponsible and dangerous. we've attempted not to take the bait while making it clear to them if they were to cross certain lines of using nuclear weapons on any scale what a world changing event that would be. as a general matter, i do not think that we are holding back security assistance from ukraine at the moment, largely for escalatory reasons. most of the decisions on security systems are driven first and foremost by the assessment of what ukraine needs right now given the amount they've given the department to work with how do we use that money for what they need right now. then the other is what can be provided that doesn't have huge impacts on our own readiness and ability to respond to our own national security crisis and other parts of the world. so really, those are the two things we are measuring against. at the moment we feel relatively comfortable in where we are in the escalatory dynamic, vis-à-vis russia. but it's something we consult with our intelligence community

colleagues constantly to make sure we are sitting the risks about right with himself deterring ourselves. >> thank you. a general, when we started a year ago, there's been much discussion from the committee and congress about what we are able to send to them. how much of an impact has that been and how has it changed since a year ago? >> what we've sent over the last year has made a 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. they were javelins, stinger missiles, things they needed to defeat the russian army if they came across the border around the country. they were provided in good order. they were used extremely well by the ukrainians. as the conditions changed, so too did the request in terms of

what they thought was necessary and as we talk with our counterparts what we thought would be most advantageous and available to them all the while as mentioned balancing against the current readiness to meet any requirements around the world. those have certainly morphed over time. as you have seen now the provision of fighting vehicles, tanks our partners make the same assertion. they've all been done with of these things in mind. and i feel very confident that as we go forward we will continue to do so and make decisions in a very thoughtful and understanding manner. >> exactly my point we are not holding back because of the red lines and nuclear threats these are determinations made by what's best for ukrainians. with that, i yield back. >> the gentle man from tennessee. >> appreciate the panel being here on the oversight.

mr. storage can you tell us how much has been given to the ukrainian war effort since we began last year? >> it depends a little bit how you count it but i believe it is over 113 billion approximately. >> how much of that is the standard military equipment? >> i'm afraid i don't have that number. >> roughly 60-40, 20-80? >> the security and economic ecc assistance there's humanitarian assistance the numbers are in the jsoc but i think it's a little over 60% of military assistance. >> i ask this because whether the constituencies back home are for or against they don't have the benefit of the hearings that we have so we want to know that we can tell the taxpayers money

has been spent wisely and this is coming on the heels of the report released this week titled the afghan security forces collapsed in which the special inspector general reports it eroded the capabilities of the national defense and security forces as well as the legitimacy of the afghan government so we need to make sure we don't make the same mistakes in ukraine. a month ago john kirby claimed from the administration that he hasn't seen any signs so far it's fallen prey to any kind of corruption would you agree with that statement? >> so, on the issue of corruption, one of the reasons we do these reviews is to ensure the integrity of the systems in place and that the controls are there so to prevent it from corruption and as i mentioned they are there to investigate any allegations that might arise. with regard to the afghanistan report i would say i'm aware that's been issued and folks are

looking at that but it's a very different situation. very different mission. there aren't as many numbers on the ground. it's not building the military from the ground up. it's primarily a train and supply mission, something our office is equipped to oversee. >> inspector general went on to say in his report of the united states played into the hands of political leaders and contribute by spending money faster than i can be accounted for. i think when we say we spend roughly 100 billion we ought to break that down and have a clear message from dod and we've had hearings we've suggested that. i understand what the strategy is and what the beneficiaries but we want to make sure the people back home get this. last year in unnamed officials said there was about 100 kamikazes that they couldn't tell where they were, who was using them or if they knew exactly where they'd come from or where they would be used so

those type of statements were helpful. you mentioned earlier that we have a proven model and maybe you can elaborate that this model that you are referencing has worked somewhere else and we are accounting for the equipment that we are sending. >> absolutely. we have a proven model using the lead ig model that's been used in overseas contingency operations showing how we can work together as an oversight community to provide comprehensive oversight. so we are currently engaged for instance on the oversight of the operation and the mission the over the horizon mission that's followed on in afghanistan and we have a number of projects in dod and we are coordinating with partners and we report with quarterly reports in our work on that area. obviously we've done a lot of other work as well.

but the point of it is we have not just the three of us but 20 different oversight entities including gao and all the military audit agencies to ensure that there are not any gaps that we are covering the front and all types of security, economics, humanitarian, others. >> is there a specific example like the last report within a specific time say 30 days or the condition they give 100% accuracy on inventory or is there anything in place that would make more clarity because it seems we all say this is accounted for but there's a lot off disparity when we ask for specific examples of how we know that the equipment is accounted for. >> so, we are doing a robust series of oversight projects to ensure the accountability from the very beginning until it gets

into ukraine and once it is in ukraine we are doing continued work in that critical area. >> the gentleman's time is expired. the gentleman from california for five minutes. >> thank you mr. chair and to the witnesses for your testimony today. we've recently marked the one-year anniversary of russia's illegal invasion in ukraine. during that year the united states and many other nations have stepped up to provide a united states approximately $30 billion in security assistance. that's been instrumental in allowing ukraine to keep fighting. it's important we conduct thorough oversight of taxpayer dollars going to this cause, and i think that we have been doing just that. we want the board to end quickly and on ukraine's terms. you stated in your testimony that the goal is to put ukraine in the strongest possible position for future

negotiations. within the near-term focus area, how is the department working with industry to maximize production in support of ukraine and the defense stocks that have been leveraged to date? >> thank you for that. so, dod is working with industry to increase production of certain capabilities to continue meeting the needs of ukrainian forces while ensuring the united states is ready to defend itself and our allies and partners and that a balancing act and the dod has identified over $2 billion of industrial-based investments to increase and/or accelerate production of things like javelin stinger, these guided multiple launch rocket systems with artillery shells and patriot missiles. we are also trying to make the best use of the multiyear authorities that congress has given to us to make sure that we are getting after the munition challenges more broadly. >> thank you.

doctor kahl, we hope for a quick end to this and we must plan for the long-term. do the five focus areas evolve over time and what efforts can we start planning for deployment to ensure that ukraine has but whatit needs to continue to defd against russia? that doesn't seem like it is going to go away. >> is the president has said we are in it for as long as it takes. putin's theory is success, he can outlast everybody, the united states, nato and the rest of the world. we are going to prove that is the latest of a string of miscalculations by putin. i think as the lieutenant general noted what we prioritized has adjusted across the course of the wars or in the initial period there were

loitering munitions, drones, legacy, artillery and air defense systems. as the conflict shifted, we focused on the standard systems and also providing them high mars. this winter we focused on more air defense system flow think patriot but also armored and mechanized to help them change the dynamic going into the spring and summer so we continue that as we move forward as ukraine needs change and i do think it is incumbent upon all of us to think about what ukraine needs over the medium-term to make sure they can defend whatever territory they claw back from the russians and detour the russians from going at it again when and if there is a hold to the fighting or a peace settlement or even if there isn't so the department is focused on a constantly aerating on that analysis. >> are we succeeding to that end? >> i think we are. if we are honest with ourselves about where we thought things would be a year from now when

this invasion launched it was a pretty dire assessment and i don't know how the war is going to end i think we already know one conclusion for sure, russia is lost. russia has lost. they intended to take over all of ukraine. it didn't happen. of the intended to divide nato, they are stronger. the intended for russia to emerge a great power and over the world. they will emerge a shattered military power. and so, again i don't know exactly where the final lines will be drawn when this comes to be close but i know the policy has been successful in keeping a sovereign democratic independent ukraine alive and ensuring that vladimir putin suffers loss. >> mr. chairman, i yield back. >> the gentleman from florida for five minutes. >> you are our watchdog. ukraine has a problem, right? >> there's a long history of issues with corruption in

ukraine. >> arrested for stealing $400,000, deputy head of the office can't explain where the sports cars came from so he had to resign. the deputy defense minister resigned over the contracting corruption, but the defense ministry put out a statement that his resignation and at the former ukrainian politician was found $22 million crossing the border into hungary last year and it seems as though a lot of the zeal for enforcement of the anticorruption efforts seems to align with the republicans control. maybe that's a coincidence. but let's get to this and use sponsoring you testified to. it requires and use sponsoring for certain defense articles that are sold at least, right? and there's no future of anything we've passed the exams we've given to ukraine to the arms control act. >> not exempt. there are different provisions to how that plays.

>> you cannot testify truthfully under oath the dod has complied with the policy and law regarding the end-use isn't that right? >> i want to be careful when i respond, congressman, that i'm clear. we are conducting a series of evaluations that look at the controls dod has in place to ensure that they are taking the steps. >> and i get that, but here is the operative question. we haven't complied with and use monitoring with everything we've sent to ukraine to date, have we? >> the 2020 report that is the last public report on this made a number of recommendations. >> you are sort of dodging the question. you cannot testify that we have complied with the end-use monitoring requirements at all times during this conflict, can

you? >> we have in ongoing evaluation -- >> i get that it's ongoing. i'm looking backwards. you cannot testify everything is complied, can you? >> so, some of that gets into the classified report. >> i believe everyone watching this could agree if you testified to that you would. you are citing a classified report. i think the american people deserve to know that this 96 law is being followed or not. you can't testify that it is into so i think they can draw a reasonable conclusion to that. do we have dod personnel in ukraine? >> we have a couple dozen at the embassy. >> happy to talk about that.

>> the investigative report talks about training from the atlantic council research lab citing as far back as 2018. >> without objection so ordered. >> is this the global times from china? >> as a general matter i don't take -- >> tell me if the allegation is true or false. >> i don't have any evidence one way or another. i don't take the propaganda at face value. >> there enough i would agree with that assessment. april, 2022, president biden is describing the supplemental funding that we are providing ukraine. he says it's also going to help schools and hospitals open and allow pensions and social support to be paid to the ukrainian people so they have something in their pocket.

how are u.s. taxpayers paying for pensions in ukraine has a good idea for our country? >> i would to do for you to other parts of the government. the department of defense doesn't have a role in pensions and ukraine. >> i would observe that the u.s. census bureau says that in 2022, the u.s. pension shortfall is $1.4 trillion. so, while we have a corrupt ukrainian government, while we have our watchdog here who can say that we follow the law under the end-use monetary we have the president saying we need to fund pensions and ukraine meanwhile the pensions of our fellow americans are in greater jeopardy. i see that my time is expired but i seek unanimous consent to enter a number of articles into the record. >> without objection, so ordered. >> very well. the time is expired. the gentle man from california for five minutes.

>> thank you, mr. chair. one of the experts told me that russia has six times the artillery has ukraine; is that true? >> not anymore. >> i think the reality is that we don't know precisely how much artillery russia has left but we do know they've expended an extraordinary amount of it and that they are running low which is why they are turning to the likes of north korea and others in a desperate search of more artillery. >> where would you put the now? >> and the classified a setting a lot of it also depends on the assumptions made about the viability of the ammunition that russia has had for 40 or 50 years going back to the soviet today's with a little bit of an science. they continue to have artillery but they are suffering

tremendous shortages at the front which is why they are turning to countries like north korea. >> as somebody that admires the president's policy and your role and voted for all of these packages, my question is what is your confidence level at this point that ukraine will be able to hold all of the territory and currently holds in a war of attrition? >> i think as lieutenant general sims testified the front line is kind of a grinding slog and you're likely to see incremental gains on both sides. so, for example the russians have made some incremental gains but at the cost of thousands and thousands in these human wave attacks from the prisoners and others you may see they change hands in the coming weeks and

months come in the next year or so we make sure they have the capability to stop them from doing that. while at the same time giving that capability to go on the offensive to claw back more territory. >> and i assume it is contingent on the house continuing to support ukraine. but you're saying already with what we have given. >> first of all, the house and senate, the american people have been extraordinarily generous. we have spent about $31.7 billion in a security assistance over the last year and have about 12 billion remaining from the money that you will have provided at the end of last year for the remainder of the fiscal year. it is true that ukraine continues to depend on assistance from our allies and partners into that will be true for a period of time so yes if the world walked away from ukraine, then the balance would tip in their favor but there's

no reason to believe. >> how many rounds do you expect and i say this as someone that has continued to support them in terms of the american public how many more times do you think congress needs to provide aid? >> it's a difficult because we don't know the trajectory of the conflict. it could end six months from now or two years from now or three years from now. i think the president has said that the united states will continue to support ukraine for as long as it takes and i think we had a good conversation why that is in the vital national interest of the united states, so i would hope congress can continue to be supportive but we should only come and ask for what ukraine really needs and as the conversation has said what we can account for and demonstrate to the american people that it's benefiting our interest. >> what do you think is the end game? we talk about just peace. what does that work like to you, and how do we get there? >> will of course, ukraine has detailed its principles for the just peace. we had more than 140 in the

general assembly ratify their approach. i think just peace would involve russia withdrawing from the territory that they have illegally occupied from ukraine. but ultimately they are going to be the ones that determine what peace settlement is acceptable or not. our position has been to make sure that without whatever point they enter into those conversations they do so from a position of strength. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> mr. kahl did we successfully deter russia from invading ukraine? did the deterrence work? >> we had a whole series of diplomatic economic sanctions, the most powerful sanctions the world has ever seen not to mention our ongoing security assistance at the time. did that work?

clearly because they invaded ukraine, putin wasn't to detour let's say deterrence failed in this case. >> one possibility is that it wasn't detectable as it was going into ukraine. it was after the united states or nato. >> you postulate no matter what we provided ukraine deterrence would have failed? >> i think the intelligence committee is split on this view. the assessment was that almost no amount of weapons prior to the conflict could have detoured. i ask this in the sense that i was in ukraine a month before, and at the time the answer that the ukrainians were receiving that we received was that stingers were escalatory, antiship missiles, too provocative. to provocative. long-range artillery, certainly off the books and in probable. other things take too long to train on and what we've seen is stingers to provocative we provide them, harpoons,

provocative, high ours, we give patriots absolutely not. tanks, it takes too long. now here we are providing them. i think as we are patting ourselves on the back providing an ally the arms the need to defend themselves if we decide it's in our interest after entire cities and regions have been devastated probably isn't a good strategy would you agree? we provided hundreds of millions of dollars in assistance in the months leading up to the war we provided only nonlethal aid until 2017, was that a mistake? >> i was the national security advisor and he favored providing legal assistance like javelins. >> and the obama administration, was that a mistake? >> i think in retrospect we should have provided javelin missiles. that's been the position of then

the trump administration. >> it was complicated -- >> let's move to burden sharing because i think this is absolutely an issue i hear from my constituents into something we need to address as a policy matter. the united states provided 30 billion in security assistance. the next nearest is germany at 3.5, a tenth of what we provided. uk less than 3 billion, france less than a million in the 100 million and poor estonia has provided just by a percentage of gdp what france has provided. so even though the economies are roughly the same, europeans have provided less than half of what we have and we haven't even gotten into the rest of it makes up the 100 billion. is that fair? is that effective burden sharing? >> we've been working with our allies and partners into the

sec. defense has held at nine these defense. >> to answer the question if you take the top 20 contributors of security assistance to ukraine as a percentage of gdp the united states ranks tenth and there's a number of european countries to mention estonia and latvia is up there, the czech republic, sweden, all above as a percentage of gdp and then some of the countries you mentioned are below. so talking about right on the front lines clearly in their interest germany in particular what have we done to give germany and france and italy and these large economies clearly in the heart of nato in europe and directly if we buy into the matter that this is our interest because of putin slicing 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?

i think the defense department has worked alongside of the white house and the state department on diplomacy from the very beginning that is why the secretary defense holds these monthly hearings they started. the germans as of now have provided $3.85 billion. i read the statistics. i would just postulate going forward over the long-term just as we had in the gulf war where we had an effective diplomatic effort to pay for this global issue i think we need to do a lot more. >> this hearing on an ongoing basis with oversight's and all in all ofgovernment approach the here. secretary yellin is in ukraine now and we have sanctions that no country has ever seen before.

in terms of your area, some of those new sanctions, how helpful will they be in terms of the people that spread those existing sanctions and get around them and how helpful will they be in the overall effort? >> i will start from the oversight perspective we have this working group, part of the working group it's probably more a question from them with the security assistance. in terms of the policy decision that isn't a sort of what we do so i will turn over to doctor kahl. >> the sanctions have put a dent in the economy and will continue to magnify that. i think from this perspective the bigger constraint is more likely to be the expert controls

does germany have different laws than we do in terms of defense? all of our allies and partnerships have different constraints, different laws. germany was not, one of the reasons we didn't provide assistance back in the obama administration is because germany was opposed to doing it so the fact they provided any assistance was a change for them. i know that's frustrating for a lot of folks that want our allies and partners to do the most they can we share that desire but yes our allies and partners all have their own domestic political constraints and domestic regulations and a lot of them have had to change their laws and practices or provided at the historic support for ukraine that we have seen. >> when we read something in the newspaper regarding someone being dismissed from the position in ukraine, this is a

sovereign issue that each country has. they make their own decisions. but just a question and i want to do this so we can avoid classified setting. a question in general if the decisions were made and they do deal with something that would be a concern and our oversight and everything, is that communicated to the u.s. and their allies informally? >> sometimes we are aware of the moves before they happen and when we read about them. i think the point from the matter if u.s. policy is that of the importance of getting after a corruption in ukraine or anywhere else is at the top of the points of emphasis with ukrainian leaders. i do think they are taking the issues seriously and it's a problem they will continue to work on in this existential fight i think it is quite

remarkable. >> i was a prosecutor before i was a member of congress and when there is a line of questioning that occurs and your job is one of monitoring and an ongoing investigation whether something is there or not but you're in the process of doing it and you're asked a question publicly about what the outcome of that might be before it ever occurs that most put you in a better position to answer questions and it might give the perception that you're not answering the question when indeed you are not able to answer the question if you are e doing your job properly. >> i appreciate very much the observation. our job in the community is to do independent oversight and some say we had it right down the fairway. i can't do that in the gulf but my boss does that and oversight so we are looking at these

issues to determine what happens and we try to report as transparently as we can to get ahead of an ongoing audit or evaluation or talk about the investigations. it puts us in a difficult position and i appreciate the sensitivity. i would add when i was in kiev, that is one of the things we emphasized, both myself and counter parts from the others and we met with everybody up to the prime minister and down the ministry of defense and others. the importance of ensuring that corruption was being addressed and they all said they understood that and as a career prosecutor we are in the trust of the verified business but certainly they indicated that they understand the issue. one of the coincidences i actually previously worked as a resident legal advisor for the department of justice on anticorruption issues. i hope that perspective helps my office as we look at what's

going on here. the chair recognizes the gentleman from indiana, mr. banks. >> doctor kahl, you helped write the dangerous obama era the deal the jcpoa negotiated. last november president biden was caught on video saying the deal was dead, yet just of this month the administration has renewed sanctions waivers that are key to the deal. why in your opinion is the biden administration so hell-bent on the new iran deal? >> thank you for your question. as a technical matter i wasn't involved in the negotiations of the deal. >> but you were involved in it. >> i worked in the administration when the deal was negotiated. the president and the secretary and others in the administration have made clear we are not about to reenter any time soon. >> why did they attempt to reenter it? >> the nuclear progress since we

left the jcpoa has been remarkable. back in 2018 when the previous administration decided to leave it would have taken iran about 12 months to produce one bombs were the fissile material and now we would take about 12 days. we could resolve this diplomatically and put constraints back on the problem it's better than the other options but right now the jcpoa is on ice because there was an arrangement on the table last summer that the iranians were not willing to take and of course the behavior has changed since then not the least of which the support for russia and ukraine which is the subject of the conversation here today. >> i don't think we are on the precipice. >> so you are declaring to defeat the new iran deal? >> i think our view, stating with the president and secretary of state have already said the

position remains a diplomatic deal to put constraints on the problem. the president also made clear that his policy and iran wouldn't get a nuclear weapon, period and as a diplomatic outcome it isn't possible that we have other options to deal with that problem. >> does it concern you that putin and china are on the site of negotiation. >> on the renewed negotiations and the biden administration. >> it isn't clear what you're referencing but during the obama administration they compartmentalized different

areas and not wanting a nuclear weapon i think we are not in the same place right now because the russians because of how badly they are doing and ukraine are becoming increasingly independent on iran and therefore i think are a lot less likely to put pressure of any kind on iran to receive any kind of diplomatic agreement because they are trying to get to ship them more drones, missiles and other capabilities. >> did you expect the invasion of ukraine? >> in 2021, while in 2021 -- >> you anticipated? >> in the beginning, i think it is a public record we had a very good intelligence that vladimir putin was putting the pieces in place to be able to carry out a large-scale invasion. we began to downgrade and share that information with of the world in the fall of 2021. >> shed a light on this for us why did they lived sanctions as we anticipated? >> i think the timelines were

different you should correct me if the record is different i believe the conversations were several months before and largely that was in order to stay united with germany but also to give us a lagt. what's interesting is habit that's not going forward with the ability of germany to then essentially walk away from the deal wouldn't have been effective punishment or leverage over the russians, but these were not linked in time. in hindsight should we regret the decisions? >> i work at the defense department. i wasn't involved in any of those deliberations, so i really would differ those to the treasury department. i don't have an opinion on that conversation, no i don't. >> i yield back. >> the chair recognizes the 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 about a year ago.

given my past and the air force it's probably not a shock to anyone i'm particularly advocating for the transfer of american aircraft in fact i started doing that in april of last year and most recently in a letter with my colleagues from the country caucus we asked president biden to transfer specifically f-16 aircraft to the ukrainian military is president zelenskyy requested. i understand on friday president biden said in an interview that ukraine, quote, doesn't need the f-16s now and on sunday the advisor jake sullivan emphasized that, quote, f-16s are a question for a later time. last year i also proudly co-led a bell with the former colleague britt kinsinger for funding to provide training to ukrainian fighter pilots recognizing of course the training may need to happen before they are ready to fly in the event we do transfer them. we submitted the language for inclusion at last year's nba a and the final law included that authorizing the united states to provide training for soldiers both unmanned manned such as

attacks, strike, airlift and surveillance aircraft. so, my two or three questions for you you noted that you've expanded us-led training of ukrainian your forces. can you explain whether this included aircraft such as authorized by the fiscal year. my second question as quoted by president biden we may have to save this for the classified briefing but could you please elaborate what information the president is relying on or perhaps was relying on when he said that f-16s are not needed now despite pleas from ukraine's own president? >> thank you for that. so, no, we haven't started training on f-16s.

our assessment is that a delivery timeline for f-16s even on the most expeditious timeline and training timelines are essentially the same. that is they are about 18 months so you don't actually save yourself time by starting the training early in the assessment and since we haven't made the decision to provide f-16s and neither have our allies were partners it doesn't make sense to train them on a system they may never get. we could get british tornadoes or any barrage aircraft. in our judgment it's not the appropriate time to start. it is true the president and national security advisor have said that we don't see f-16s as a top priority right now. conversation in kiev last week. it's a priority but it's not one of the top three priorities. the top priorities are air defense systems that is keeping the interceptors with cruise

missiles and iranian drone artillery and fires which we've talked about and armor mechanized systems. a couple data points that i think actually speak to your second and third questions we've looked at this very carefully about what it would take to get ukraine f-16s if we were to do new productions it would take three to six years to get them f-16s. we could look at older block f-16s that would deliver on a faster timeline let's call it 18 to 24 months. maybe you could even shave a few months off of that. they've asked for as many as 1,284th generation aircraft into f-16s. the air force estimates that over the long term, ukraine would probably need 50 to 82 replace their existing air

force. if you did that with new say block 72's, that would cost ten or $11 billion. if you did it with older block, 30 or 32 aircraft, let's imagine you only had half, 36 of those. it would still cost two to $3 billion. and as a reminder that would consume a huge portion of the remaining security assistance that we have for this fiscal year so those are the trade-offs we are making. would it make sense to spend $3 billion on a capability that will arrive a year and a half from now when the $3 billion is needed for the patriot interceptors were more bradley fighting vehicles or more 155 millimeters ammunition or more so that is the trade-off we are making at the moment. >> i'm out of time i appreciate that. my concern is when we start talking about this ten months ago, ten months has gone by so i don't know when the clock should start --

>> i yield back. >> thank you all for being here. very important topic. very timely. a couple more questions about the monitoring. the office published a report saying the department of defense was unable to provide of the use monitoring policies because the prisons in ukraine. the report identified the challenges of the dod personnel responsible for conducting and use monitoring and enhanced and use monitoring face when there is no u.s. personnel present or at least limited. have we learned any lessons were discovered any best practices to improve that and use monitoring in ukraine despite the lack of people on the ground? >> to be clear, it was a classified report. i would be happy to talk more in detail about that in the later session. i believe it is accurate to say that what the report dated is that it acknowledged 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. happy to talk more. the reason we initiated the current evaluation and the reason i didn't want to get ahead of what we were finding is the situation changes on the ground evolved we want to go back and we are going back and looking at what's going on now what steps have been taken to try to address the challenges and where they are and how things move forward and frankly, congressman, given the importance of the issue, i think that is something we are going to be looking at as long as this goes on. so that's where we are. >> i agree we have to do that. we owe it to all involved and i know that there are a classified portions and probably unclassified things you can discuss, but the importance does the department has comments about the importance coming out of ukraine, specifically we all

know ukraine has a documented history of corruption and government waste in the past. i know a lot of them have been alleviated, but what gives you confidence that the ukrainians are being entirely forthcoming and transparent when it comes to what we've seen so far? >> at some level that's where we do the audits and reviews, so we want to go and look at the evidence and then be able to assess where things are. as i mentioned i went to kiev and we met with of the pre- minister and the ministry of defense. they told us they understood the importance of addressing corruption when we were out there coincidentally a number of corruption cases have been announced. they strongly pointed out those did not involve u.s. security assistance both u.s. assistance generally and at the point they were making as they were trying to address them so as i say i've got a long history going out to ukraine and working out there on behalf of the government for 15 years. in the corruption area i hear

what they are saying and the way we do that on this issue is by doing these evaluations that look at what's actually going on, because it can sometimes a misunderstanding. we don't go out and count the missiles. we don't do the monitoring. it's up to the dod to beat the requirements of the law and the policies that implement it regarding monitoring and oversight to make sure that's happening in accordance with the law and appropriately and we make recommendations to help them improve that so that is the process we are engaged in now and we will continue to be engaged in. if there is inherent challenges as we are acknowledging them when we don't have the personnel so we want to ensure of course that sensitive weapons and up where they are supposed to be and do you think that we need u.s. inspectors on the ground to do that or what are the details of that i guess?

>> from my office or dod? >> u.s. inspectors. >> i can talk to that a little bit. so, first of all, we are not just taking the ukrainians words for it. they provide us information on their inventory, transfer logs. we've provided them handheld scanners, the data gets transmitted back to us so we can keep custody. we've shared the nato standard inventory and logistics software which we also have access to that data and then of course we do have a prisons at the embassy we have an office of defense cooperation and they've done six different sites visits. these are trips, it's a dangerous place and we don't have outposts across the country and they have seen no sign of diversion. this is an active combat zone not like where we have thousands of soldiers all over the country so there are inherent

restrictions but we are trying to maximize the use of technology and the people we do have on the ground to get the best site pictured as possible and of course they will do oversight to make sure we are doing our job the right way. >> the gentle lady from new jersey. >> i recently met with many of our allies and members of the ukrainian parliament. two things became clear. one the u.s. leadership has been effective. we've seen a lot of the support as well as our intelligence sharing. >> i don't think your microphone is on. >> you might want to borrow one. >> i was saying two things that

have become clear u.s. leadership has been instrumental and that has been noted by our allies across the world and appreciated. but sadly what has also become clear is the broad scale use of war crimes by the russians, kidnapping of children over 6,000 verified cases and they are simply what we are able to verify i would say that is a very low rate -- rape of mothers and daughters and as i'm hearing in the community as they come into the district, targeting of civilian infrastructure so it becomes clear they believe this is an attempt by the russians who demoralize them to make them want to quit this fight when in fact it has had of the opposite effect and understanding of why the fight is so important. that is why we on this committee take our job 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. and so our understanding of the oversight and our understanding of how ukrainians are overcoming their history of corruption is so important so we can convey it. i 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 from embassy that they are seeing the weapons that get to the front they are getting pictures of those weapons on the frontline. they feel very confident that the weapons that we provide to them at the border of poland are in fact making it to the front.

can you talk a little bit about why we believe the weaponry that we've sent to ukraine is in fact making it to the front and how we have not seen those weapons for sale on international markets and maybe that is a question for doctor kahl. how do we feel right now about providing all the assistance we've provided to ukraine and our confidence that it's actually getting where we want it to go what we are not seeing is evidence of significant diversion. if some of the systems have been diverted it's by russians who've captured things on the battlefield that always happens but there's no evidence the ukrainians are diverting it to the black market.

they are asking us for more because they are using everything that we have been providing them. at the jungle matter the inventory comes into the various places in europe with security assistance and all that inventory. they are responsible for giving us the information on where it ends up and a log to that information sharing with us digital confirmation of where things go. they also have scanners that information comes back to us and they have this nato standard software that helps keep inventory which we also have access to and we do these site visits so this is a war zone and there will always be things happening that you don't see but we are not seeing any evidence of systemic diversion of the

equipment that the united states has provided. >> is there more we can be doing as a committee to support ensuring that the weapons are being used appropriately? >> hearings like this are great. oversight and transparency is important. the things that doctor kahl talks about, that is the information we are getting as we have our teams out there doing evaluations looking at every aspect of the equipment from the beginning until the front lines in ukraine to make sure that everything that can be done is being done to ensure that it's being used properly and as intended, so i think hearings like this are great and we appreciate the committee's support as we do oversight and we will keep the oversight as we go forward. >> the chair recognizes the gentle lady from michigan for

five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and i would like to thank mr. rogers for giving me the opportunity to go and actually see the inventory of weapons that we are sending and just how they are getting from point a to point b and how we are tracking them. i can assure you that raised my level of confidence. they say one look is worth a thousand reports but i want to shift gears for 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've been raising concerns with me about our involvement in this war. they are worried that we are getting dragged into a never-ending war with no clear and precise outcome that has been in their opinion 90%

reality that has a clear and insight. on a flight overseas rather than our own fiscal house in order. in simple terms, layout to the american people the reasons why it's so important for ukraine to defeat russia in this war particularly from the eyes of the americans. so, what is the implications for the united states if russia actually does defeat ukraine? >> the united states did get dragged into two world wars in europe because aggressors were not stopped.

they initiated the conflict, the world didn't hang together, they were not stopped so the united states eventually was dragged into those conflicts. we don't want to see that happening. >> i don't mean to put words in your mouth, but it's more of a deterrent so we don't end up into a world war. >> i think it is to demonstrate to other would-be aggressors that if they engage in the type of aggression that russia has, they would face a similar consequences and i think that it wouldn't matter if you are sitting in beijing worrying about crossing the taiwan strait you would ask yourself if i do that will the world react like they did when we went after and observed hong kong which is just to look the other way or the way the world reacted one of the closest allies of course they

signed a strategic partnership without limits shortly before the war. we have seen growing indications china might be considering providing russia with some assistance. china has a stake in the outcome but also i think china, they speak a lot about the importance of the territorial integrity but frankly shy and i would've benefited greatly from a world that allowed big power to gobble up their small neighbors. >> would you care to comment what would the loss of ukraine mean for nato? >> first of all ukraine isn't going to lose. there will be no loss of ukraine. he hoped that would happen. it hasn't happened. it isn't going to happen. ukraine continues to maintain most of its territory. they do not have the capacity to take over ukraine but obviously if they were to do so, it would

position russian forces and all of the developments inside of ukraine right on ukraine's, right on nato's doorstep as it relates to poland and the baltic states which is one of the reasons why they are so engaged in ukraine you've seen the aggression is there and what they've done to limit to get to global markets through the black sea. it's already had an impact on global security risk large. the energy and stability that is generated by the war has also had an economic consequence so i think it's already having significant consequences and had it been unchecked i think the consequences would have been

worse. >> and we would have been further along. the chair recognizes the gentle lady from texas for five minutes. >> thank you mr. chair man. i would like to express my gratitude 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 that is being delivered i would like to thank the witnesses as well. i would be remiss if i didn't remark on the incredible change that i've seen happen over the last three years since since i attended the munich security conference in 2019 versus the munich security conference last week or two weeks ago whatever it was. when i was there in 2019, there was a significant question about the west and whether the west would continue to support nato and just the fear about how

untethered things seemed but last week or the week before, the security conference saw incredible unity and the strength demonstrated by our allies and our friends especially with regards to ukraine into ribbons of democracy. rebuilding nato and ensuring that the west has come together in a way to defend our friends and allies and help stop the russian aggression. i would like to, doctor kahl, because there has been a lot of conversation obviously about the f-16s and about why the united states and some of our friends are not stepping up as quickly as some would like, my colleague

was about to ask a question and i would like to follow that up because i'm curious as well when showed up the clock start you laid out for us very quickly and effectively the financial implications as well and that is on congress to make sure we provide the continued support and put our money where our mouth is, but when showed the clock started ticking and is that something you can discuss in this setting? >> it's a more modernized ukrainian air force will be important in the median and long-term to begin to defend the territory and to deter russia in the future, so i think there is a medium to long-term

requirement. the challenge of course even if there was a short-term requirement we couldn't get it to them immediately and we don't either do the ukrainians. the priorities are air defense systems in artillery and fires, armor, mechanized and because every dollar you spend on one is a dollar you can spend one another, there are trade-offs. obviously ukraine is going to continue having conversations with us but as discussed with president biden last week, zelenskyy has had similar conversations with uk and french allies with an interest. there are other countries in nato and norway i think that have talked about f-16s that they may be offloading as they

upgrade to f35's, so i do think this conversation will continue. as i sit at the pentagon 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's just hard for me to tell any member of congress or the american people the best use of the dollar spent right now is on f-16s. >> thank you so much, doctor kahl. i have a few seconds left but i'm wondering in terms of the replenishment of the u.s. stocks is the department looking to utilize technologies such as manufacturing to fill the gaps? >> i think the short answer is yes but it's probably better for us to arrange a briefing by the acquisition to go through the kind of multilayered approach that they are taking because they are the experts on this. >> thank you and i will yield

back. our packages to ukraine have included tactical vehicles like humvees. i've been a staunch supporter of the upgrade. when we had to retrofit because of the risk of course it made it top-heavy but we have the esc rollover kits that prevent that and we've lost too many men and women to rollovers and a lot of been injured as well so approximately 40,000 humvees that are new or like new or haven't received the anti-rollover technology. and my question for the witnesses, once we are sending humvees to ukraine, where are they coming from and are we sending those that have already been fully upgraded with the rollover technology or those that are slighted to get this upgrade where they did

militarized vehicle stockpile? we may have to take it to come back to you. >> we will bring that answer back to you. i'm not quite sure. >> we have a demo that does a lot of this work and we've got 40,000 units that need this upgrade and i would like to get that because it saves about $12 billion to retrofit. one of the initiatives we have been working on with our colleague or friend from california is the human rights policy act and the legislation would take concrete steps for the atrocities committing what evidence have you seen in ukraine including any committed by the wagoner group and as the war wages into the second group

what can be done to hold russia accountable for their actions and what can be done during the reconstruction? >> i think our colleagues would be better at cataloguing the horrors that we have all seen it. there's been a systematic targeting of civilians in ukraine. clearly a callous disregard for civilian welfare but the targeting of critical infrastructure intending to starve and freeze tens of millions of people for no military purpose other than to try to compel the ukrainians to give up but also the loss of armed conflict. >> we have seen the russian troops engage in terrible atrocities killing civilians and killing detained forces and of course we've also seen the deportation of ukrainian children back to russia.

how many are we talking roughly? >> thousands but beyond that i don't have the numbers in front of me. i would encourage you to get a brief from the state department. they've catalogued all of that. >> do you know any more specifics on that? >> i think the state department could answer that better but as you and the rest of the country have seen we are concerned with what we see reported in the news. i don't mean to segue but there was a comment earlier about the russian atrocities and russian acts. i think what separates our military, western military is the confrontation with the dignity the armed conflict that doctor kahl mentioned and i know that we work hard to talk to ukraine about the same things.

>> that is a great question. >> they are and even if they weren't it's customary with international law and of the states that sign up for them. >> in your professional opinion that the wagoner group is something to be more concerned about because they are not russian military regulars? >> they are given plenty of reason to be concerned. the fact the recruiting members from prison certainly gives an indication of what kind of character. >> they say they are not doing that anymore. should we believe them? >> i'm not sure we should trust the words coming from the russian side right now. >> you say the authoritarian regime shouldn't be taken at their word regardless of whether it is say beijing or moscow?

>> we have a system in which we would trust. >> i hope all members of congress. >> the time is expired. before we go to the next question i would remind everybody that we have a hard stop to go to the classified portion of the hearing. i want to start back with the bipartisan group of members including members of this committee sent the administration letters done since april of last year calling for the supply of advanced military capabilities for ukraine quite consistently so ten months ago a number of us called for antiship missiles, abrams tanks as well as training on f-16s. about five months ago, once again bipartisan group of members of the committee called for the long-term defense commitment to ukraine to include

air missiles, antiship missiles, and again, training on the transfer of the aircraft. in my opinion the letters represent differing opinions, policy opinions about the speed at which the united states should seek to deliver the advanced fighting capabilities to the battlefield in ukraine. i appreciate the conversation that's been going on. i think what we have seen is that there are sometimes policy questions and debates and differing opinions and logistical challenges, maintenance and the training and capabilities of the ukrainian fighters themselves different than policy opinions of the differing nature and of course the opinion brought forward about authorizations, appropriations and how we get

the greatest on the money that you have and right now for the top priorities of the ukrainian military. but certainly given enough money they would prefer to have the top five or top six or top ten needs or capabilities met and the conversation about the appropriation is really i think a question for congress as opposed to questions of policy or logistical concerns and challenges. of course over the weekend the president's national security team said now is not the right phase of the war for providing the aircraft. that sounds like a policy decision. and also pointed out the assessment of the military commanders advising the president that we need to focus on tanks, personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles. i don't think anyone disagrees with that and you've articulated that this is about how much money do we have now, what is

the greatest need that they have, but ukraine has articulated a desire to advance the long-range capabilities in the form of attack on f-16s so just about over week ago the supreme allied commander of europe, u.s. european command briefed members of congress, senate and house reportedly and said that he believed we should send the drones to enhance the deep flight capabilities of the ukrainian military. setting aside all the concerns about logistics or maintenance and readiness of the ukrainian military would you agree with his assessment that this would help ukraine to win the war ultimately? >> i have no doubt the weapons would help ukraine on the battlefield, no doubt. i've been extraordinarily

impressed. on this side of the atlantic as the conversation continues to be around certainly policy decisions but our conversation with ukrainians as recently as yesterday with the general and the chair man we hold fast to the view that what they need right now are the things in front of them. the f-16 as an example would not help them today but things like air defense, artillery is what we need to make sure we are providing. >> but you don't agree that the position of the f-16 and other long-range capabilities would help them to win the war? >> i think the advanced conventional weapons would help anybody when the war. >> is there a policy objective at this time? >> the f-16s are slightly different with policy objectives. the issue is less about a long-range capability and i think there is a general recognition that would make sense over time.

a few more seconds but i would point out why not expand the conversation beyond the near term with of the dollars you have in your possession now and come to congress with a plan that includes medium and long-term given they win the war now or get drags on for several more years the threat would still remain so we've got to expand the conversation. >> if you come to the classified session we also provide more details because we have done some and analysis on kind of the future ukrainian force and what that might look like. >> i recognize the gentle lady from south carolina for five minutes. >> thank you mr. chair man and ranking member smith for hosting this important hearing and i want to thank the gentleman here today as well as to take all of our very important questions we are here to address a matter of national security, foreign policy with regards to ukraine with munitions and other aid. it's highlighting the critical need for the rapid aid that

resulted in a heavy loss for both sides but we've seen the ukrainian forces demonstrating the resilience and conduct the operations i believe over the last year to everyone's surprise and for the resiliency and belief in the freedom and fight for freedom. then on the world stage and i think you've encouraged and inspired many folks around the world. however the capacity to defend the sovereignty depends on receiving timely and effective assistance particularly we've seen a troubling pattern of delays into bureaucratic hurdles, policy decisions with a delivery i witnessed the state department slow rolling in some cases particularly at the beginning of the invasion of russia to ukraine and it's my belief in the meetings i've had both public and private that ukraine doesn't have a lot of

time and we want to make sure that our investment and their fight that they are going to win. it's more important than ever to see what they are trying to do they want to take away poland's borders and others. ukraine can't lose this fight. the situation in ukraine remains urgent action and to ensure that it be provided expeditiously congress and the dod need to take the step to remove any hurdles or address them to ensure the resources are available to fight for ukraine and sovereignty and failure to do so would not only endanger ukraine but also undermine the stability, security as my estimation they are under the gun and it just doesn't have very much time left in this endeavor. my first question is for undersecretary kahl i'm concerned about the time it took to fully leverage some of the existing processes like

convening ukraine to disperse military aid and the thinking ahead, china, taiwan, we know china is watching. are there any specific improvements you would make to the decision-making process to make sure they are proactively ready rather than reacting to the support and some of the lessons learned how long does it take to stand up, some of which you learned over the last year in this process. >> thank you for that and i would say we share your sense of urgency and there's always going to be red tape but we have blasted through a lot of it and if you told us a year ago that we could have executed on 31.7 billion in security assistance to anybody i would have said that was bureaucratically impossible and it is because we try to blast through as much red tape as possible. much comes through pda and typically because we pre- position things to get our ducks in a row a lot of that equipment

starts flowing in within days. in terms of the internal processes we have something called the department working group that is essentially the group of stakeholders from the services into joint staff to rack and stack the priorities to figure out the priorities of the various packages, so that's about kind of ultimately the recommendations that go over to the white house. how long did it take to stand up? >> i would have to get back to you on the exact date. i think it stood up within a couple of months. >> is that fast enough in your opinion? >> i think we stood up a lot of processes that were new. >> do they have a --

>> on the working group across the department working group is that working better than it has because the future of ukraine have you all learned over the last year how to improve some of the red tape and what was removed to make it work better in this case? >> the presidential drawdown authority has been used to provide things in the amount of hundreds of billions of dollars at the upper and not tens of billions of dollars. so there was a lot of learning curve. essentially what we figured out was to make sure all the stakeholders were involved with an iterative process in the four-star meeting that i chaired about every ten days and then that pushes recommendations to the chair man and of the secretary that pushes those recommendations over. >> the chair from north carolina. >> good afternoon. wondering if you could help me

paint a picture for my folks back home about what life would look like were we need to step aside or to withdraw our support or the coalition that we would crumble upon the withdrawal of our support and then with the russians to gain a decisive advantage on the battlefield what that would mean and i ask because based on your remarks, you said the fighting replicated the conditions we saw during the first world war. there was a recent conversation about plentiful examples of war crimes and it's important to understand the support to folks back home to give them a sense of what it would look like if our efforts no longer existed. could you help me do that, please? ..

>> . >> and that's what we do. in this case we came together with the allies in europe in a way we really haven't done in the past 50 or 60 years. one year ago take a dish on the 24th i deployed with my division headquarters to central europe. and i spent a lot of time in europe and i worked a number of times with our allies but i have never worked with our allies where the desire and the intent to work together was as firm as it was in the

time i was deployed. that has not changed i have been back multiple times. we were talking earlier of the contributions of our partners. there is more than dollars i would argue are part of this. partners have skin in the game. they may not be dedicated the same percentage of gdp but those individuals who are making critical important contributions to what we are doing in terms of security assistance and intelligence and advising and training with partners. that's what we do. we are americans and when that's how the world should be and it is not we say no. because after the second world war we came together with the majority of the world and said and this is not how we wish to

live in the world and we establish the geopolitics and we need to tell people when they go in the wrong direction why is this important to americans cracks because we believe with the oversight process no politics american politics feel the study at the academy watching what has occurred in dc those that are transitioning to those who plan to use it. >> to me make that decision all the way give us a sense of what that process looks like. >> where we were one year ago

today and now is a light year difference smart and capable young and men and women and literally moving mountains if you stack up everything we have provided bf move mountains from places that we are working with partners around the world. we have made that incrementally with hundreds and hundreds of aircraft with that to europe then moved further by the partners and men and women that we are also proud to have their to a point where ukrainian man or woman makes it happen. >> a know a number of you have saw that. >> with that extraordinary logistical accomplishment on top of others.

>> finally before going to the classified briefing. >> to what degree do the operational plans of dod rely upon the assumption we are only forced to defeat that adversary and another theater? >> not to jump into the policies side but. >> so given the growing no limits security partnership in the years since my mom —- so the 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 connections that the current

work we are doing takes into account where we are around the world but to make the foolish decision of harming russia with weapons, what is on the table? >> we can make news here. >> but it will not work i don't think period but certainly not if they are providing that secretary blinken with his counterpart at the security conference and

through other channels that there would be significant cost i'm happy in the classified session to talk about what that might look like with similar tools to impose on others that have violated us actions we are actively trying to deter the ccp to provide legal assistance to russia. >> at a broader level we are actually trying to deter the ccp. >> this is a perfect example. >> . >> i was struck by the national security leaders talk about this increasing divergence between russia and china do you see that in the same way that increasingly with a de facto alliance. and that is something real but

and then basically russia for a long time has not wanted to be china's junior partner and that held a lot of the dream the word ukraine has ended that proposition in the foreseeable future because russia has to turn to reconstitute the military and the same calculus drives them the russians to have greater convergence with iran and north korea as well. so i do think how the russian military has been they have no choice but to move closer to the other actors. >> but you don't see that invasion in taiwan the next two years? >> i have received no indications that president xi

things his military is ready for the pla thinks they are ready. that doesn't mean they have made the decision to do it. and that they are likely to make a leap to invade the island of taiwan. >> seer assessment is based on the absence of evidence that you don't see an indication? >> this would be good to talk about any classified just about that. >> two years ago did you view a russian invasion imminent? >> i did not we have indications and warnings in april and in the fall it was a possibility. my assessment is based on the information and intelligence i have at the moment if that

changed then my assessment would be updated. >> and what is the danger zone. >> we will start questioning in the classified portion so now we are in recess for five minutes and then we moved to the classified portion of the hearing. [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations]