Open Hearing: Russian Intervention in European Elections

[Senate Hearing 115-105] [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office] S. Hrg. 115-105 RUSSIAN INTERVENTION IN EUROPEAN ELECTIONS ======================================================================= HEARING BEFORE THE SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE OF THE UNITED STATES SENATE ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION __________ WEDNESDAY, JUNE 28, 2017 __________ Printed for the use of the Select Committee on Intelligence [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov __________ U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE 26-127 PDF WASHINGTON : 2017 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office, http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center, U.S. Government Publishing Office. Phone 202-512-1800, or 866-512-1800 (toll-free). E-mail, gpo@custhelp.com. SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE [Established by S. Res. 400, 94th Cong., 2d Sess.] RICHARD BURR, North Carolina, Chairman MARK R. WARNER, Virginia, Vice Chairman JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California MARCO RUBIO, Florida RON WYDEN, Oregon SUSAN COLLINS, Maine MARTIN HEINRICH, New Mexico ROY BLUNT, Missouri ANGUS KING, Maine JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma JOE MANCHIN III, West Virginia TOM COTTON, Arkansas KAMALA HARRIS, California JOHN CORNYN, Texas MITCH McCONNELL, Kentucky, Ex Officio CHARLES SCHUMER, New York, Ex Officio JOHN McCAIN, Arizona, Ex Officio JACK REED, Rhode Island, Ex Officio ---------- Chris Joyner, Staff Director Michael Casey, Minority Staff Director Kelsey Stroud Bailey, Chief Clerk CONTENTS ---------- JUNE 28, 2017 OPENING STATEMENTS Burr, Hon. Richard, Chairman, a U.S. Senator from North Carolina. 1 Warner, Hon. Mark R., Vice Chairman, a U.S. Senator from Virginia 2 WITNESSES Burns, Ambassador Nicholas, Professor of Diplomacy, Harvard Kennedy School of Government................................... 4 Prepared statement........................................... 7 Garcevic, Ambassador Vesko, Professor of Diplomacy, Pardee School of Global Studies, Boston University........................... 13 Prepared statement........................................... 15 Sarts, Janis, Director, Nato Strategic Communication Center of Excellence..................................................... 27 Prepared statement........................................... 29 Stelzenmueller, Constanze, Ph.D., Bosch Senior Fellow, Brookings Institution.................................................... 35 Prepared statement........................................... 37 RUSSIAN INTERVENTION IN EUROPEAN ELECTIONS ---------- WEDNESDAY, JUNE 28, 2017 U.S. Senate, Select Committee on Intelligence, Washington, DC. The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:07 a.m. in Room SH-216, Hart Senate Office Building, Hon. Richard Burr (Chairman of the Committee) presiding. Committee Members Present: Senators Burr (presiding), Warner, Risch, Rubio, Collins, Blunt, Lankford, Cotton, Cornyn, McCain, Feinstein, Wyden, Heinrich, King, Manchin, Harris, and Reed. OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD BURR, CHAIRMAN, A U.S. SENATOR FROM NORTH CAROLINA Chairman Burr. I'd like to call the hearing to order. Today, the Committee convenes its seventh open hearing of 2017 to examine Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. elections, and the twelfth open hearing this year. To date, our open hearings have largely focused on the domestic impact of Russia's activities. Today's witnesses, however, will highlight for the Committee and for the American people Russia's interference in the European elections. We hope to gain additional understanding of Russian efforts to undermine democratic institutions worldwide as the Committee continues its inquiry. The Intelligence Committee assessed in January that Moscow will apply lessons learned from its campaign aimed at the United States presidential election to further influence efforts worldwide. It further assessed that Russia has sought to influence elections across Europe. Director of National Intelligence Coats echoed those words as recently as May when he testified before the Senate that Russia is seeking to influence elections in Europe, including France, Germany and the United Kingdom. The intelligence community assesses that the Russian messaging strategy blends covert intelligence operations such as cyber activity with overt efforts by Russian government agencies, state-funded media, third-party intermediaries, and paid social media users, or trolls. Russia is employing a whole-of-government approach to undermining democratic institutions globally. Facing down Russia's malicious activity is no longer just a bipartisan issue. To successfully protect our institutions and the integrity of our electoral systems, we must work as a global community to share our experience. Collective awareness of Moscow's intentions spanning borders and continents will help us to enhance our security measures and thwart these disinformation campaigns. Just as Germany is learning from the recent events in France and Montenegro, we will lean on our allies to inform our approach of the 2018 elections. We must advance more quickly than our adversaries and only together will we do so. I'd like to welcome our distinguished witnesses today: Ambassador Nick Burns, the Roy and Barbara Goodman Family Professor of the Practice of Diplomacy and International Relations at Harvard Kennedy School of Government. Nick, that's a mighty long title there that you've got. We're delighted to have you. Janis Sarts, Director of NATO's Strategic Communications Center of Excellence. Hopefully, I'm getting these names right. I'm trying my best. Ambassador Vesko Garcevic, Professor of the Practice of Diplomacy and International Relations at Boston University Frederick Pardee School of Global Studies. And Constanze Stelzenmueller, the inaugural Robert Bosch Senior Fellow in the Brookings Institute Center on United States and Europe. Thank you all four for being here to help us better understand Russia's activities and the underlying intentions that Russia might have. With that, I will turn to the Vice Chairman. OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MARK R. WARNER, A U.S. SENATOR FROM VIRGINIA Vice Chairman Warner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And let me commend you on your--on your brilliant introduction of our witnesses. And welcome, witnesses. Today's hearing continues the Committee's efforts to address the issues surrounding Russia's active interference in our democratic process and in the 2016 elections here in America, as well as Russia's similar and in some cases ongoing efforts to undermine democratic institutions amongst many of our closest allies. At this point, I believe we have a pretty good understanding of the Russian playbook. Russia's goal is to sow chaos and confusion, to fuel internal disagreements, and to undermine democracies whenever possible, really to basically cast doubt on the democratic process wherever it exists. There's nothing unusual about Russia's scheming to influence the American elections. We all know their efforts date back to the Cold War. But Russia's blatant interference in the United States' 2016 presidential elections was unprecedented in both scale and scope. And we've seen it replicated across Europe. In fact, Russia's active measures are only growing bolder and more brazen in the digital age. Russia has interfered or attempted to interfere in elections from France to the Netherlands, from the Balkans to the Baltics. We've seen Mr. Putin's government use of quote-unquote, `àctive measures,'' including support for far-right and far-left parties opposed to historically successful European institutions and post-World War II Western alliances. For example, Russia has provided support and financial assistance to the far-right party of Marine Le Pen in France in a very blatant and obvious way. Russia has launched cyber attacks against political parties and government institutions in several Western countries. They've also released stolen information in an effort to steer elections in a particular direction, as we saw in the French elections with their release of information about then-candidate Macron. Germany's parliament has been cyber-attacked with members' e-mails hacked and stolen. Most observers expect this stolen information to be utilized before this fall's national elections in Germany. As in the United States, Russia aggressively uses trolls and bots to spread fake news and disinformation, with the goal of weakening European institutions and driving a wedge between the United States and Europe. These active measures have been supported by state-controlled Russian media, including RT and Sputnik. So far, these Russian efforts have not been as successful in Europe as perhaps they were here in the United States. For instance, in France the Macron campaign and the French government were prepared to push back on cyber leaks as they released that information in the 48-hour blackout period. And we've seen companies such as Facebook actually take down a series of fake accounts to help blunt those efforts. In the Netherlands, earlier this spring officials actually hand-counted paper ballots to ensure that there would be no electronic interference in the vote count. Across Europe, government and media have pushed back against fake news stories and have established such institutions such as the E.U.'s Strategic Communications Division and the NATO Strategic Communications Center of Excellence to educate the public in identifying and correcting Russian propaganda. Frankly, we have learned a thing or two from our allies in Europe about proactively protecting ourselves against these threats posed by Russia. Months ago, I would have assumed this hearing would have been a good opportunity for the United States to actually import some lessons learned to our European friends. Unfortunately, to date we've not yet as a government in the whole taken to heart many of those lessons. Unfortunately, as we've heard in testimony before our Committee, our President and his Administration have frankly demonstrated little interest in determining how the Russians did what they did or how we might better protect ourselves going forward. Instead, we've seen the President repeatedly deny that Russia was responsible for U.S. election interference, even in the face of unanimous agreement among our Nation's intelligence agencies. He's consistently questioned the integrity of our intelligence professionals and he's been all over the map in discussing the United States' commitment to the trans-Atlantic alliances such as NATO. As several of my colleagues on the Committee have previously noted, in 2016 the Russians targeted Democrats. Who is to say which party will be in the crosshairs next time? The one thing we know is that Vladimir Putin is not a Democrat nor a Republican. His interests are to advance Russia's interests and undermine the United States. In 2016, I believe that Russia got its money's worth in sowing doubt, distrust, and dissension in the heart of the American political process. And my fear is, with that rate of return, that Russia will continue to return to those tactics. I don't believe anyone believes that Russia will stop and I believe, as a State that has statewide elections in 2017, we have to be alert now. That's why last week when we had DHS before this Committee, we asked them to share, even if they have to share confidentially, the names of the 21 states that were attacked by the Russians in 2016. I have written and spoken with Secretary Kelly on this matter. As the oversight Committee, I believe we are entitled to that information and we need to work through a process so that State election officials have the security clearances to at least be read in. And my fear is, as we heard last week, when the top election official from Indiana and the top election official from Wisconsin--both of those states could not acknowledge whether they were part of those 21 states. And what was also remarkable was we heard from the State of Illinois, which has testified openly that they were attacked on a regular basis, yet they had not been informed until last week that those attacks originated from Russia. That's why the testimony we hear today is so important to learn lessons from what's happening in Europe and around the world and how on a going-forward basis Western alliances, our Western allies, can stop this very critical 21st century threat. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to the testimony of our witnesses. Chairman Burr. I thank the Vice Chairman. At this time, I'd make members aware that we will recognize members by seniority for five minutes. And I'd also like to make a note to members that when we return from next week's Fourth of July recess, we will immediately consider the nomination of David Glawe, Under Secretary of Intelligence and Analysis at the Department of Homeland Security. If members have additional questions for Mr. Glawe, they need to be in quickly, so that they can be acted on while we're out. I intend--the Vice Chairman and I intend to move that nomination as quickly as we possibly can when we get back. Again, I thank our witnesses for being here today. I will recognize from my left to my right, and we'll start with you, Ambassador Burns. Welcome. STATEMENT OF AMBASSADOR NICHOLAS BURNS, PROFESSOR OF DIPLOMACY, HARVARD KENNEDY SCHOOL OF GOVERNMENT Ambassador Burns. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Vice Chairman, members of the Committee: Thank you very much for this opportunity to testify. I appreciate very much the bipartisan commitment that your Committee has shown to investigate Russia's interference in the European elections and in our own elections. There is no doubt about Russia's systematic campaign to undermine our 2016 presidential election, the Montenegrin, Dutch, French and German elections this year, and Russia seeking to diminish the confidence that the citizens of all these countries have in their democracies. In this sense, Russia's actions pose an existential threat to the democratic nations of the West and it requires a swift and serious response by Europeans as well as Americans. You asked for our recommendations, Mr. Chairman, so I have just three. First, the United States and Europe need to work much more closely together to identify Russia's cyber and disinformation attacks as they are being launched; and then we need to work together actually to do something about it, to respond in tandem to discredit Russia's actions. You saw the campaign of Emmanuel Macron do that very effectively. You have not seen that in other countries. We on both sides of the Atlantic should also make it clear to the Russian government that we have our own capabilities that can be injurious to Moscow and that we will use them if Moscow doesn't cease and desist. With this in mind and with the benefit of hindsight, President Obama in my own view should have been more transparent and specific with the American people during the campaign about the nature of the Russian threat. He should have reacted earlier and much more vigorously. Now, to be fair to him, this was an extraordinarily difficult choice. It was a new and unexpected threat. President Obama would have likely been accused in the heat of the campaign for intervening in the contest between Secretary Clinton and Donald Trump. And he did make the right call in the end by imposing sanctions on Moscow. But we in America and Europe have to learn from this experience and try to avoid that in the future. Second, the U.S. and Europe should adopt stronger sanctions against Russia for its actions to weaken our elections. We learned an important lesson in the Iran nuclear negotiations in the Obama and George W. Bush Administrations: The sanctions were much more effective when the United States and the E.U. aligned them together, specifically the financial sanctions. I hope the House of Representatives will back and not dilute in this sense the very strong Senate sanctions bill against Moscow that you passed by a 97-to-2 margin two weeks ago. In my view, it would be a grave mistake of President Trump to veto such a bill. And with our long national two-century debate about the separation of powers in mind, I do think that Congress--it's time for the Congress, and not the President, to lead the American response to Russia's cyber attack on the United States. The President has shown that he's unwilling to act against Russia and that is why the Congressional review provision in your Senate bill makes eminent sense, so that the Administration cannot ease or lift the sanctions on Russia until Putin's attacks on our democratic elections has ceased and until he's met the provisions of the two Minsk agreements on Ukraine and Crimea. Third, Congress and the President must make resistance to Russian interference in the European elections, as well as ours, an urgent national priority. I served in the government for a long time. I served both parties as a Foreign Service officer. And I find it dismaying and objectionable that President Trump continues to deny the undeniable fact that Russia launched a major cyber attack against the United States, regardless of what party he launched it against. He's done the same thing in Europe, very systematically. And yet, in response to that President Trump has refused to launch an investigation of his own. He's not made this an issue in our relationship with the Russians. He's taken no steps, at least that I'm aware of, with the Congress and State and local governments to strengthen our voting systems from future Russian hacking of our midterm elections in 2018 and of the next presidential election in 2020. There is no indication he's asked his senior Cabinet officials to develop a plan to protect the United States and to deter the Russians. And his failure to act--and I'm a former U.S. Ambassador to NATO, I was President George W. Bush's Ambassador--we have a political responsibility in NATO to protect each other, not just from armed conventional attacks, but from cyber attacks as well. That's a clear failure. I've worked for both parties. It's inconceivable to me that any of President Trump's predecessors would deny the gravity of such an open attack on our democratic system. I don't believe any previous American President would argue that your own hearings in the Senate are a waste of time or, in the words of President Trump, a witch hunt. They're not; you're doing your duty that the people elected you to do. It is his duty--President Trump's--to be skeptical of Russia. It's his duty to investigate and defend our country against a cyber offensive, because Russia's our most dangerous adversary in the world today; and if he continues to refuse to act, it's a dereliction of the basic duty to defend the country. And Russia's going to do this again. You heard Director Comey at this Committee say that he felt that Russia would be back maybe against the Republican or Democratic Party. Our elections will be at risk when that happens and the sanctity of our elections will be compromised in the minds of our citizens. Let me just close by saying that Russia is really testing the leadership and resolve of the West. Americans and Europeans are far stronger in our democratic traditions and our values than the Russians. And with this in mind, we need to be more effective in countering them. And we can do that by building bipartisan unity in the Congress. And I do want to commend you, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Vice Chairman. You've set a bipartisan tone, which is deeply appreciated. We can do that by encouraging the President to act. We can do that by being very closely aligned with the Europeans to take common action. And I think if we can achieve those three things, we can defeat President Putin and the Russian intelligence services. Thank you. [The prepared statement of Ambassador Burns follows:] [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Chairman Burr. Thank you, Ambassador, and thank you for your service for a long time to this country. Ambassador Garcevic. STATEMENT OF AMBASSADOR VESKO GARCEVIC, PROFESSOR OF DIPLOMACY, PARDEE SCHOOL OF GLOBAL STUDIES, BOSTON UNIVERSITY Ambassador Garcevic. Thank you, Mr. Chairman Burr, Mr. Vice Chairman Warner, distinguished members of the Committee. Thank you very much for giving me the opportunity to speak on Russia's interference in Montenegro's home affairs. On October 16, 2016, Montenegro held its parliamentary elections. The plotters, disguised in police uniforms, were preparing to storm the Montenegrin Parliament and provoke a turmoil by shooting at citizens waiting for the election results. In the final stage, the plotters intended to detain or assassinate the Prime Minister. Acting on a tip from an informant, Montenegrin police were able to arrest most of the plot suspects. In the indictment filed recently, 14 people were charged, including two opposition politicians and two Russian agents, Vladimir Popov and Eduard Shirokov, members of the Russian Military Intelligence Service who are identified as the ringleaders of the operation. How do we know that? For example, Shirokov, alias Sismakov, was posted as the assistant military attache at the Russian embassy in Warsaw until Poland declared him persona non grata for espionage. The whereabouts of Shirokov and Popov are unknown, while Russian authorities never replied or provided information about the suspects. The coup plot is the culmination of more than 18 months long-synchronized actions against Montenegro, which include an aggressive media campaign, coupled with open support to pro- Russian political parties in Montenegro. While Russia has been consistent in making threatening gestures over Montenegro's NATO bid, they never--they have never specified what their intentions are. But for example, when Montenegro joined NATO recently, at the beginning of June, Moscow commented that in response to Montenegro's anti-Russian hysteria and hostile policy, Russia reserves the right to take reciprocal measures. There are more than 100 Moscow-backed organizations and media outlets at this moment in the region. In an anti- Montenegro media campaign, the NATO invitation is described as a move to challenge Moscow. The Montenegrin government is labeled as treacherous and corrupted, a pawn in the hands of the U.S. and NATO; and Russia, stronger than ever, is the only state standing in their way. The Orthodox Church too is utilized to promote the values of Orthodox Christianity and present them as fundamentally different, that fundamentally contradicts the Western world. The Russian government fully backs democratic fronts and an anti-NATO political coalition dominated by Serbian Nationalist Party, known for their pro-Russian affiliation. The primary goal of the front and its supporters in Russia was to get the Montenegrin opposition united around its political platform and prevent the formation of a new pro-NATO government in Montenegro. Moscow has made no progress in Montenegro and it has seemingly lost a possibility of having a strategically significant outlet on the Adriatic coast. But Moscow will continue exploiting loopholes that exist in most of the Balkan states: democratic incapacity, corruption, ethnic tensions, countries' economic and military needs, and growing feelings of marginalization of those countries on their part to the E.U. and NATO. The rule of law, independent institutions, and efficient law enforcement agencies are the precondition for stability and effective protection from Russia's influence. The best way to restrain Russian interference is a proactive approach from the U.S. and the E.U. side and energetic support for democratic reforms in the Balkan states. The door of NATO and the E.U. must remain open for states wishing to join those organizations. And further American retreat may have a lasting adverse implication for Balkan and European security. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I'm looking forward for your questions. [The prepared statement of Ambassador Garcevic follows:] [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Chairman Burr. Thank you, Mr. Ambassador. Mr. Sarts. STATEMENT OF JANIS SARTS, DIRECTOR, NATO STRATEGIC COMMUNICATION CENTER OF EXCELLENCE Mr. Sarts. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Vice Chairman. From the time our Center has been established two and a half years ago, we've been closely watching Russian information operations and influence operations across Europe. We've produced 18 different studies on the methodology, ways how Russia tries to affect the outcomes of our democratic processes and our choices. In the election process typically there are three venues they try to pursue. First, to support the candidate of their choice. To do that, they use the money and they give the support of all the media, traditional media networks that they are controlling, to the candidate, to the proportion as nowhere near of a normal democratic process, with lies, with fakes, etcetera. Secondly, they try to get the sensitive information on the other candidates to undermine their credibilities. Typically, they try to achieve it through hacking into the systems, but that is not the only way. They use very large segments of disinformation. Fake news is one of the instruments of choice. They're disseminating that through the same information networks they operate within, but they also use fake news site at the networks. They use trolls, both human as well as robotic, to amplify the message. All of that was seen in the recent French election. Let me just go through quickly what was the French response and what I think we should take note of. First, there was media cooperation. Media were teaming together, and very different sorts of media teaming together to work to verify what is a factual reality. They were supported by the online activist groups like CrossCheck and also big Internet companies like a Facebook and Google joint effort to make sure that the facts also in the digital space take the preeminence over the falsehoods. Secondly, they were assuming and knowing they were going to be hacked. There were many hack attempts. And of course, all of us who have been in the cyber-security business know you can design only as strong response as possible. There is always a human factor. So what the French idea has been, they trapped the hackers. They fed them the irrelevant information in large amounts, making the dumped information irrelevant as well. And thirdly, that was how both media, public, and the authorities treated the hack. First, the authorities, based on the French law, said it is illegal to use these hacks for further circulation. Secondly, most of the media refrained for going for these hacks, understanding the way they are trying to be manipulated into the election process. Based on that, I'll share some recommendations. First, societal awareness. That is a critical thing to be achieved. The nation that is aware it's under attack is far more resilient than the one that is oblivious of that. Secondly, as demonstrated by the French case, working with the media is essential, both for their role, but also for their understanding how they might be manipulated in the process. Thirdly, we still treat it, the information environment, as a game of golf. It is not any more. It's rugby. In rugby, you need to have a very good situational awareness. We have to build tools to know what are the echo chambers, what are the information bubbles, who is trying to penetrate them, what are the robotic networks trying to push, what are the third parties or the outside governments, what kind of data they're looking into your social, societal systems. That is one of the key elements that we have to possess to be able to respond effectively to that game of rugby. Next, cyber defense. It is a must. Every single element of the election process has to be able to do a good cyber defense, both with two elements, the technical piece and the human piece. These have to be there. And lastly, we cannot succeed if we don't work together with the technology companies. That's the area where most of the activity takes place and where it is most successful. And I think we can make them one of the good partners in making sure that the facts and truths are much more preeminent in that environment than any falsehood. Lastly, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Vice Chairman, the reason the Russian activity succeeds is because we have not paid attention. They're using their old tricks and borrowed know-how from our technologies and our marketing know-how. Therefore, I see no reason why they should keep winning. To me, it's about focusing on the problem, bringing different actors across a society together, and then collectively I do believe we have all the potential to win this for us. Thank you. [The prepared statement of Mr. Sarts follows:] [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Chairman Burr. Thank you, Mr. Sarts. Dr. Stelzenmueller. STATEMENT OF DR. CONSTANZE STELZENMUELLER, BOSCH SENIOR FELLOW, BROOKINGS INSTITUTION Dr. Stelzenmueller. Thank you and good morning. Chairman Burr, Vice Chairman Warner, distinguished members of this Committee: It's an honor for me to be invited here today to testify before you on the critical issue before this panel, Russian interference on the European elections and specifically on the federal election on September 24 in my country, Germany. Russian interference in the European political space is strategic and is aimed at destabilizing the European project. Germany is the fulcrum with which to achieve this goal. Weaken Germany and you diminish the E.U. and the European project. And conversely, because Germany has orchestrated the European consensus on sanctions against Russia, it has become the main obstacle for Russia in pursuing its interest in Europe and Ukraine. Russian interference in Germany, as we know, has occurred for a long time. It is not limited to these elections, nor will it stop thereafter. As for the election itself, there is a general consensus in my country that there will be meddling; the only question is when and in what form that will take. Technical manipulation of the elections, however, is unlikely. We use paper ballots and we have hardened the computer infrastructure that we use to aggregate the data. The real target of Russian interference in Germany is voters' heads. They're trying to hack our political consciousness. For this, they use a broad spectrum of tools, from propaganda, to disinformation, to hacking and denial-of-service attacks to, of course, more classical means, such as individual or institutional agents of influence. Attribution and intent, of course, remain elusive. This is one of the most difficult problems, not least because not even the Russian authorities ordering interference are monolithic or cohesive. And execution is often outsourced or delegated, including to what President Putin has called ``patriotic hackers.'' The impact of Kremlin interference, if we're honest here, is also hit and miss, often miss. In many ways, its meddling in European elections over the past year has produced the exact opposite of what was intended. It has produced stable, democratic, and non-populist governments that are pro-European Union and indeed pro-NATO and pro-American. The populists have lost out almost everywhere and NATO and the E.U., I'm happy to say, are experiencing a renaissance of purpose. And in the German race, what looked a neck-to-neck race for a while at the beginning of the year is now looking quite different. Chancellor Merkel is holding a steady 14-point lead. But that does not mean--and I urge you to consider this-- that Russia cannot still do significant damage. As for countermeasures, Germany has certainly taken a while to take note of the threat, but it has been making up, racing to make up for lost time over the past two years by hardening its defenses and creating more resilience. That's not to say there's still not much more to be done, particularly on the civil society front. And German politicians certainly need to do better at articulating their narrative against Kremlin disinformation. And, of course, it helps that Germany is not the first country to face this threat. In fact, we come at the end of a long string of elections, and we can learn from our friends and allies, particularly from the French case just explained by Janis Sarts. That said, we have no reason whatsoever as Germans or as Europeans to be complacent. In fact, the successes of Russian interference, such as they are, are a measure of our failures and we need to examine those. Now, what form could Russian interference in the September 24 elections take? Obviously, if there were a major terrorist attack, if there were a return of the refugee crisis, that could be exploited by propaganda. It's conceivable that there would be further severe DDoS attacks, or further hacks or, in fact, a leak of the 2015 hack substance. Sixteen gigabytes were taken away; we haven't seen them yet. But it is just as likely that a visible Russian attempt to use such events would backfire, as it has before. So they need to tread carefully there. And interference could just as well take the form of ongoing careful probing and testing of our vulnerabilities, combined with a continuous slow drip of toxic disinformation, as is happening now, all the time. So Germany will have to remain vigilant, but also flexible and relaxed. We mustn't overdramatize the scope, intent, or coherence of the threat. That would be to walk in to the main psychological threat of this propaganda, which is to think the threat is bigger than it actually is. We are a strong and vibrant democracy and we can fight this in the marketplace, too. However, it is beyond any doubt that Germany and all of Europe are experiencing a phase of historical volatility and drift. And in such a time, friends and allies matter more than ever. And here, our relationship with America, is key. We understand that Europe needs to do more for its own defense and take on more of the burden of transatlantic security relationship off the United States. And we have, as many here know, and as Nick knows, we have already taken many steps towards this goal. But the alliance as such, our political, economic, military, and intelligence partnership, is crucial for the preservation of the European project. And an America that feels ambiguous about the value of this alliance could be perceived by the Kremlin as the ultimate encouragement. I therefore respectfully have only one recommendation for you, or rather it is a request: Stand by us. Thank you very much and I look forward to your questions. [The prepared statement of Dr. Stelzenmueller follows:] [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Chairman Burr. Thank you, Doctor, and thank you, all of our witnesses. A reminder that we will recognize members by seniority for up to five minutes. The Chair recognizes himself. Two questions to all of you. They are yes and no, yes or no. Do you have any doubt that Russian interference is driven by Putin himself? Start with you, Ambassador Burns. Ambassador Burns. No doubt about it. Chairman Burr. Ambassador. Ambassador Garcevic. The same answer. No doubt. Mr. Sarts. No doubt. Dr. Stelzenmueller. None. Chairman Burr. Any doubt that Russian interference is or has happened in the U.S. and European elections? Ambassador Burns. It has happened systematically. Ambassador Garcevic. It happened, it happens, and it is going to happen. Mr. Sarts. It has happened. Dr. Stelzenmueller. A little difficult to vary on this, but yes. Chairman Burr. Ambassador Garcevic, what would have happened in Montenegro had Russia succeeded in the parliamentary elections? Ambassador Garcevic. You can imagine, I would say, first what could have happened is that The democratic front would withdraw sanctions which were imposed by my country on Russia, because my country was among the few in the region to impose sanctions immediately after they were imposed by the E.U. in order to show, to demonstrate, full alliance with the E.U. Common Foreign and Security Policy. That could be the first immediate step to be taken. The second, in terms of far-reaching goals, they would turn the direction of the country from Western-leaning to Eastern- leaning, which means that I can imagine that in years from now Montenegro would become a satellite of Russia in the Balkans. Chairman Burr. Mr. Sarts, was there any evidence of Russian involvement in the U.K. most recent elections? Mr. Sarts. Of course, both RT and Sputnik made their effort to have an effect on the election. But I would not say--I would not say that there has been a significant pattern of Russian involvement in the U.K. election that we have seen. I would also argue that it is always--we have a pattern that Russia requires time to construct elaborate operations to attack the election systems. So where there's very little preparatory time for enhancing the networks, activating the networks, and planning for these things, they are not really efficient. Chairman Burr. I took from your testimony that media outlets are directed in many cases by Russian government as to how they cover elections, what they say or don't say about candidates. So just the fact that maybe RT and Sputnik had a narrative that was different in Britain than maybe the mainstream press, that would be a sign of Russia trying to influence the outcome, would it not? Mr. Sarts. I have no direct evidence to say that the particular narratives as we see in these outlets during the election period in the U.K. would have been directly directed from Kremlin, although there is a regular monthly meeting between all the key editors of media in Russia with the Kremlin officials, where reportedly they coordinate the messaging. Chairman Burr. So it's not a news outlet as we would define in the United States, independent? Mr. Sarts. No. Chairman Burr. If I understood your testimony, again, I think there was a suggestion that America's social media platforms knew that they were part of a coordinated attack, especially as it related to France. Did I hear you correctly? Mr. Sarts. The media platforms have the data to see where the information originates, and I know they've been also assisting the French media to make sure that within these platforms the information that these consortiums find as factually correct have the preeminence. Chairman Burr. Media outlets have the ability to understand whether a bot has been used to make it look like there's tremendous public support for an issue versus real public support. Is that an accurate statement? Mr. Sarts. Well, yes, it is. Actually it is more than just the media themselves. There is increased number of research-- and also we are about to publish a regular report on robotic networks and social media--that these robotic systems are pushing the specific narratives. What we've seen is the same robotic networks working on the Dutch elections, pushing the RT-Sputnik-Russian narrative, or for that matter also in a French election pushing the Le Pen narrative, or country, also pushing all the fake stories about Emmanuel Macron. Chairman Burr. Last question. Nick Burns, what should the U.S. response be? And should that response to election integrity and intrusion by the Russians be coordinated with our European partners? Ambassador Burns. I think it should. I think there are three things we can do, Mr. Chairman. And I hope the Administration is beginning to do some of this. First is our intelligence agencies have to be linked up to understand the threat as it's happening. Second, if laws are being broken in both Europe and the United States, our judicial authorities ought to be working together to prosecute people and put them behind bars. And third--and this will probably happen through Secretary Tillerson and others and our ambassadors overseas--in the response--and you saw this brilliant response by the Macron campaign to push back--we can be lashed up with the Europeans in a response to an attack, whether it's in Europe or the United States. We're in the same NATO alliance, all the countries represented here today are. It's a political alliance as well as a military alliance. We ought to be working together. And finally, I think that the Senate is on the right track with your sanctions bill. It's a tough bill. I know it's caused some controversy in some countries in Europe. But frankly, American companies--European companies shouldn't have advantages to sell into the Russian market that American companies do not have. And I think your bill makes that point. Chairman Burr. Thank you, Ambassador. Vice Chairman. Vice Chairman Warner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me again thank all the witnesses for their testimony, and thank you again for your unanimous agreement on the nature of the Russian threat and the attacks that were created here in the United States. I want to go back. In our March public hearing, one of our witnesses, Clint Watts, testified that then-candidate Trump, quote, `ùsed Russian active measures at times against his opponents,'' end of quote. He cited then-candidate Trump's coordination or use in calling out WikiLeaks. We saw candidate Trump continue to use terms like the elections being ``rigged,'' the same type of terms that were used by the Kremlin in their propaganda efforts. Do you agree with what Mr. Watts drew as a conclusion, that, at least inadvertently, candidate Trump was actually advancing the goals of the Russian propaganda efforts? I'd like to hear any of your comments on that, starting with you, Ambassador Burns. Ambassador Burns. Senator, just two quick points. First, I don't have any independent knowledge about the Trump campaign working with---- Vice Chairman Warner. I'm not asking that. I'm just asking whether his comments about elections being rigged, calling on WikiLeaks--it appeared, and Mr. Watts drew the conclusion, that, at least inadvertently, it seemed that then-candidate Trump was actually aligned with some of what Russia's propaganda efforts were trying to sow the same kind of chaos and questioning of our democratic processes. Ambassador Burns. Right. I thought it was just important to say I don't have information. But when candidate Trump did encourage the Russian government to find more of Secretary Clinton's e-mails, I thought that was an irresponsible statement. Vice Chairman Warner. Anybody else want to comment? [No response.] You're taking a safe diplomatic effort, all of you. I appreciate that. I imagine I will get the same response, because I again share very much, Ambassador Burns, your comments earlier that the lack of interest shown by the President of even acknowledging this threat or taking this threat--urging his Administration to take this threat seriously and lay out a coordinated whole-of-government approach to what will be a threat in 2017, 2018. I would argue that Putin and his cronies had a pretty darn good rate of return on the number of rubles invested in their activities to kind of take on our election system. Mr. Sarts, one of the questions--I want to go back to commend you for your good work on the 18 reports that you've done on the robot trolling and how the Russians are using technology tools to exponentially increase the power of their fake news. You've said--you've cited reports that at least 8 percent of Twitter accounts are actually bot accounts and thereby do not represent an actual person. Facebook--I was out recently with Facebook, and they pointed out the fact that in the French elections they took down about 30,000 fake accounts right before the election. I commend them because right after the American election Facebook acted like they had no responsibility for policing fake news. I think they've moved into a more responsible position. But I'd love to hear from all of you what role you feel these platform companies that control so much information-- Google, Facebook, Twitter, et al.--have in this new world. And again, we'll go down the list, starting with you, Ambassador Burns. Ambassador Burns. Senator, very briefly, I had the opportunity to be at Stanford for 5 months last year; met a lot of these people who work in this space. And I was impressed by the number of people--take YouTube for example--that they now dedicate to try to filter out hate speech. And that's commendable. If that's the case, there ought to be an ongoing dialogue between the U.S. Government, our national security agencies, and these companies to try to filter out Russian propaganda. It's a direct assault on our country. I was impressed by Mr. Sarts' testimony. I thought it was quite convincing that there has to be an integration of the technology companies and our government on this issue. Vice Chairman Warner. I concur. I'd love to hear the rest of your comments, please. Mr. Sarts. Well, first, I also just came yesterday back from Silicon Valley, where we talked with a lot of these companies on these issues. First, there's a growing market, black market, for robotics in social media. Some of it is rather innocent, but much of that is of some kind of criminal activity. And that is going to be a growing concern for people in a digital environment to actually understand that they're really interacting with a human being, instead of large numbers of robots supported by artificial intelligence. To counter that, the companies that have these platforms are one of the key players. I was heartened by the discussion back there. They are taking it seriously, probably slightly too late. But there are--most of these big companies are investing in and thinking about how they can be an active supporter of a democratic process, not a disrupter. And secondly, there is a growing number of the technology research on the subject that we can rely on. And as Ambassador Burns said, and I've said in my initial statement, that is a must that we work together. If we don't, we will not succeed in the digital environment. Vice Chairman Warner. Have seen any cooperation in Germany? My time is expired. Dr. Stelzenmueller. Yes, sir. German politicians and policy-makers have made trips to Silicon Valley to talk to the big media companies and tech companies like Google, Facebook and Twitter. I've been told the initial conversations were less than, shall we say, less than cooperative. There seemed to be no inclination to self-police and there also was no inclination to help. That has significantly changed, I gather. Now, the German justice minister has just put out a draft of a law called the Netzwerkdurchsetzungsgesetz--and we use these long words to annoy our allies. But, basically, it's a draft law to help in enforcing hate speech rules in Germany, which are quite strong, obviously, with roots in our history. I as a trained constitutional lawyer and other critics of this law, have mixed feelings about this. I would like the political marketplace to regulate itself. But if significant actors, very powerful actors that have control over algorithms that can really shape the marketplace without citizens even noticing if they refuse to self-police, I believe such laws become necessary. I think this has to be an ongoing conversation between business, citizens and the state, to decide where responsibility for regulation properly lies. Chairman Burr. Senator Risch. Senator Risch. Thank you. Ambassador Burns, you know, we're pretty used to dealing with hyperbole in this Committee with the kind of things that we hear, and I want to talk to you for a minute about your statement that Russia is the most dangerous adversary that we have. With all due respect, if you sat on this Committee I'm not sure you'd reach that conclusion. I think there's a lot of us, with what we hear about what's going on in North Korea and some of our other adversaries, that Russia certainly is a dangerous adversary, but when you have someone running a country like Kim Jong Un and with what we know about what he's probably going to do if his administration is threatened, I've got to tell you that you might be slightly off mark when you say that that Russia's the most dangerous adversary that we face. But don't take that as a criticism that I think that Russia is not a dangerous adversary. I would just caution that it falls in a group of countries, and there's others that are more dangerous. You were critical of or are critical of President Trump and what he's thinking right now. You would agree with me that the Russians have taken no active measures in an election while Donald Trump has been President? Is that a fair statement? Ambassador Burns. Senator, thank you. May I just say in response to your first comment, if you would allow it? Senator Risch. Please. Ambassador Burns. I agree with everything you said about North Korea, but Russia can do greater damage to us from a nuclear weapons perspective and certainly in trying to draw a new dividing line in Europe. So it's a respectful disagreement. Senator Risch. I appreciate that and let me ask you this. Do you think it's more likely that that would come--assuming that North Korea had nuclear weapons that they could deliver, is it more likely that it would come from Russia or from North Korea? Ambassador Burns. Well, I think the problem--the threat from Russia is multifaceted. It's not just from nuclear weapons. It's also about dividing Europe. Senator Risch. No question about that. Ambassador Burns. So I think they are both a problem---- Senator Risch. I agree with that. Ambassador Burns [continuing]. A big problem for the United States. I just made the statement--I was echoing General Dunford, when he was confirmed. Senator Risch. Back to my last question, you would agree with me that the Russians have taken no active measures in an American election while Donald Trump has been President? Is that a fair statement? Ambassador Burns. Well, I think it might--I actually don't know. I don't know what have---- Senator Risch. Have we had any elections since he's been President? Ambassador Burns. Yes, we've had Congressional elections. Senator Risch. And you think that the Russians have taken some active measures in those elections? Ambassador Burns. I don't know the answer to that question. Senator Risch. We do know that the Russians took active measures in the last presidential election? Ambassador Burns. Well, I think the intelligence communities of the United States are confirmed on that, yes. Senator Risch. I think we're all in agreement with that. That--and who was President of the United States when that occurred? Ambassador Burns. That was President Obama, as you know. Senator Risch. And you know he was aware that this was going on? Ambassador Burns. Yes. Senator Risch. Indeed, he's admitted that he talked to Mr. Putin about that, is that correct? Ambassador Burns. So you heard my testimony about President Obama. I have great respect for President Obama. This was a difficult decision. Senator Risch. I hear that. Ambassador Burns. I think that President Obama, with the benefit of hindsight, should have acted more resolutely, quickly, to be transparent with the American people. But he did take action. And what disturbs me about President Trump is that he's not investigating, has taken no action. Senator Risch. Got that. But I'm talking about somebody that could have done something about this while it was going on. You're aware that President Obama talked to Mr. Putin about that, are you not, in the summer of 2016? Ambassador Burns. That's what the news reports say. I also know that the Obama Administration briefed the eight senior members of Congress early on, that there were public statements made by Jeh Johnson, I think on October 7th. So they did take action. It's not as if the Obama Administration just was silent on this issue. Senator Risch. And indeed, when Mr.--or when President Obama told Mr. Putin that we knew that they were taking active measures, that was indeed a classified--that was classified information, was it not? Ambassador Burns. Well, you know, I think if you're the President of United States and you're trying to deliver a stiff diplomatic mission, you're well within your rights to tell Putin what you think he may be doing. Senator Risch. I couldn't agree with you more. Ambassador Burns. In fact, that's the object of the conversation. Senator Risch. Couldn't agree with you more. And that's actually the purpose of classified information. It's no good if you collect it and don't use it. Fair statement? Ambassador Burns. Well, not always. Sometimes you don't want that information ever to see the light of day. Senator Risch. What else should--what else should President Obama have done? Ambassador Burns. You know--and this is Monday morning quarterbacking by me Senator Risch. I understand that. Ambassador Burns. And I appreciate the fact that he finally did take action on the sanctions. I think if you go back and look at it, the American people in my judgment deserved to know what was happening clearly. You have to ring the village bell. And we should have had a more immediate response that was painful to the Russians, whether that was immediate sanctions or some type of offensive action that we could have taken by covert means against them. And so I think, there are a variety of options. I wasn't there, so I don't want to micromanage this. Senator Risch. I appreciate that. Ambassador Burns. But I do think that he could have done more. But my testimony clearly shows that President Trump has taken no action whatsoever and I think that's irresponsible. Senator Risch. Got that. But the description you gave, you would agree with me that the Obama Administration did not take significantly--the significant action that was needed, including informing the American people, which would have gone a long ways to countering what the Russians did? Fair statement? Ambassador Burns. Well, I think that the Obama Administration should have taken greater action, but the more pertinent question today is what our current President is not doing, and that has implications for Europe and they're very negative. Senator Risch. To you it's the more pertinent. To me, what's more pertinent is what should have been done by the commander-in-chief who was in charge at that time. My time is up. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Burr. Senator Feinstein. Senator Feinstein. Thanks very much, Mr. Chairman. Many have said this is actually the crime of the century. If you think about it, it is. If you think about the fact that it's conducted by intelligence agencies, we know Russian intelligence to be relentless and ruthless, and it all happened, and it contributed toward the defeat of an American presidential candidate, who happened to be the first woman running for that office. Well, that's not true, but in a very serious, ineluctable way it is. They targeted 21 states. They went into 21 states. I've been sitting here, Nick, listening to you, listening to your colleagues. I have great respect for you. My own view is that if in fact this is the crime of the century, if in fact it's going to lead to other crimes being committed in the future, that we together have a responsibility to hit back. The question comes, are sanctions really the effective way to do it or do we do it in the cyber world? But I don't think that we can sit here and see the amount of destruction that has been done, the defeat of a candidate, the intrusion into 21 State systems, the continuation even now with spear phishing, what's happening in Europe, and, you know, the Iron Bear is on a march. How do you stop that? And we have had certain abilities discussed of how to develop a hit-back. And it's hard for me to believe that--sanctions make them angry, but sanctions don't really do anything. There is a downside to a cyber war. On the other hand, the United States of America cannot see the critical infrastructure of an American democratic election destroyed by Russia. What--I'd be very interested if anyone would be prepared to talk about what Europe and America could do together to plan, to prepare, and to hit back. Ambassador Burns. Senator, I'd just say briefly, our sanctions have to be aligned. They'll be much stronger if we actually work together with the Europeans to align what they do in sanctions with us, number one. Number two, it's my impression we can do much more in the way of intelligence, but also in active work together to respond verbally to the propaganda. But number three, I think you're right, and I so testified, that we have to think of other means. And we have capacity that if we wanted to use it, we could. And that has to be aligned with Europe. Senator Feinstein. Bear in mind, these aren't fringe people. These are two, at least two of the three intelligence services of Russia. That's a big deal. The President of Russia committed his intelligence services to hit our election system. Do we just, oh, well, maybe we shut off this sanction or that sanction? Maybe we think it's going to just go away? They show no signs of going away. I've been on this Committee for a long time. I have never seen a time when, with full confidence, every single one of America's intelligence agencies have come together and say they have--they have full confidence that this was orchestrated by Putin and he used his intelligence services to do it. Mr. Sarts. Well, if I may, I think the first thing that we have to do is cover our backs. And that is building the resilience. That was the things that we all three talk--four talked about. Senator Feinstein. Could you define ``resilience''? Mr. Sarts. Ability of the democratic process to withstand the attacks, overt or covert, to influence, with a malicious intent from outside, the societal choices within the election system, within the political process. And being able to, irrespective, of these---- Senator Feinstein. With what acts, sir? We do stand in a-- there's no question about that. But---- Mr. Sarts. Well, I can go through the things that I recommended: society being aware; cyber defense being on a high level; having been able to operationalize the information battlespace, and many of these. Secondly, I wanted to say in fact, if you look at Russian documents, they believe we are attacking them, and I think they really believe that. So--which is, I think, a paradox. What we have to really look for is that we're not attacked by Russians, we're attacked by Kremlin. And what we can do is actually help also people within Russia to recognize what is the actual realities. I think that is the most powerful weapon, the truth, the truth that Kremlin is hiding away from their own citizens. And that is I think the weapon that we have which is the most mighty. Senator Feinstein. My time is up. Thank you. Chairman Burr. Senator Rubio. Ambassador Garcevic. Excuse me. May I add a few words? I personally lived in a country which was under sanctions and I have my personal experience of being a citizen of a country and living a normal life in a country under sanctions. For sanctions to start working and to start bearing fruits, you need time. It took like nine years for Yugoslavia, which was smaller, in economic terms very smaller than Russia, to see sanctions working. I can imagine that in the case of Russia, we have to endure. Perseverance is needed, and sanctions will start bearing fruits at certain point. So, I don't think that we should stop or rethink this strategy. On top of it, someone mentioned, I think the Ambassador, mentioned importance of NATO, because NATO is not only military organization. NATO is security and political organization. Since it was formed in 1949, U.S. has seen NATO as a pillar of Euro-Atlantic bond. And the countries who are members of NATO are there because of a set of values that they share, which means that we have to keep ourselves together and strong through NATO, which includes a number of measures. Not only a deterrence, which is taking place right now in Europe, but also a number of other measures, because it's not only that Europe is under attack. Its values are under attack. Values are under attack, values of democracy, values of parliamentary democracy, value of liberal democracies are under attack. Russia is backing those groups in Europe, leftist or rightist, those who challenge the very core values of liberal democracy, because those who challenge from within those democratic systems and would like to see those systems and values eroding. So in power with some hard-core or hard power measures, we have to put emphasis also on soft power, because this is what Russia uses against democratic systems. I think democratic systems in soft-power are much better off than Russia and may offer more than Russia can offer to countries. Chairman Burr. Doctor. Dr. Stelzenmueller. Madam Senator, I would like to add one small remark to what's already been said, and that is, if I may say as an ally and a citizen of your ally of over 60 years: Do no harm. Do not question the alliance. Do not question the alliance that is greatly in your strategic interest with Europe, but that is also in our interest. It is of existential importance for us. And an American government, a White House, that questions the validity of that alliance, that questions the validity of the Article 5 mutual defense commitment, does more to undermine our security and our safety than many things that the Kremlin does. We are all vibrant Western democracies. That's not to say we don't have flaws and vulnerabilities. And we should not only address those, but we I think as Western democracies can address them together. We can look at them together. And I would add only one thing. Sanctions do work, perhaps even more as a political statement of cohesion and will, and as such they have had a tremendous impact on Russia. They have left a deep impression on the Kremlin. They have also done some economic damage, but they have above all been an expression of Europe's and America's will to stand together against the threat toward Ukraine and its neighbors and the threat against the European project and American interests there. So they do work. Thank you. Chairman Burr. Senator Rubio. Senator Rubio. Thank you. Thank you all for being here. My hope is that this Committee's work will produce a document that doesn't simply detail what happened, but how they did it, so that we can prevent--so that we can take steps, preventive steps to address this in the future, because I don't believe it's going away any time soon, for one simple reason: It worked. And I think we're all--a lot of people are focused on a particular electoral outcome. I think the broader design was to sow instability, chaos, division in a country that already had great political division. I don't think anybody can doubt that that's the case. I mean, just the sheer amount of time and energy that's been spent by this Committee, this Congress, the press and everybody else on this issue of Russia alone must be deeply gratifying to the people who authorized these measures. And the way it's exacerbated our ability to get work done on a number of other things has been deeply impactful. And so I really, truly hope that as we do our work we will learn what are the best ways to confront it, within the confines of the following. We have a First Amendment. So I understand that places like France are able to block out. You know, when the stuff came out about Macron they had a blackout at the end period, and so a lot of that was not widely reported. I don't mean this in a--I'm not attacking the media. I'm just saying, one of the most powerful unwitting agents of Russian influence was the mainstream media, that when these e- mails were being leaked from WikiLeaks there was a lot of focus on what was in the gossipy aspects of it and not so much the origins of what it was all about. And, because it's a--we have the First Amendment in this country, and so the people who did this understood that certain information would get widespread coverage. I'm not advocating censorship. I'm telling you, that is what they'll use against us. So, we have that different from what they have in Europe and the like. I want to know, what has worked? Has anyone successfully confronted this threat and proven to us things you can do to alleviate the sting of these efforts? I point to an article in ``The New York Times'' by several authors on May 9th of 2017. It talks about steps taken by Macron's campaign, including creating dozens of false e-mail accounts, complete with phony documents, to confuse the attackers. I'm curious, Ambassador Garcevic, about the efforts in Montenegro, a small country that has far closer historical, cultural, and religious ties to Russia, and where Russian state media and propaganda run rampant. They were unable to dissuade the people there from electing a pro-NATO government. What works? Because--has anyone begun to figure this out? Because we need to do it. Mr. Sarts. Well, first, what works is people don't like to be manipulated, and when they know somebody's out there for them to change their mind and get under their skin they become more cautious. That's the first thing. And we've seen in a number of countries where the public becomes aware, it's much harder, like instantly, to get the effect the Russians are trying to achieve. Secondly, it is I think very important in these, especially misinformation. The Marcon case, you know it is going to happen; you do a contingency plan. And I would say your contingency is not that they're not going to break in. There's always a way through the human fault you can get into the systems. You actually, as they did, you do a trap. You do a trap. That's another thing that has clearly worked. And that takes also the knowledge, preparation, and acceptance that it is happening. And thirdly, in the fake news cycles we see it is always that the fake news comes in first, creates emotion and gets wider. If you are able to get into that cycle first, you are limiting the effect, if not taking it away as such. And we've seen cases in Lithuania where the fake stories about German soldiers raping a teenage girl were trying to circulate, where the government and media actually made sure the first news somebody ever sees was: There is the fake news news that this and this. And they, those government and the media worked their part, and that never got traction. So there are quite a number of good, successful, tactical and strategic examples that one can look at. Ambassador Garcevic. If I may add two things. What was Russia's goal? What is Russia's goal in the region? It goes beyond Montenegro. Russia's goal is to prevent the expansion of NATO and the E.U. It's not only about Montenegro. It's about other countries that are wavering or that are not fully on either side. You know, if Montenegro is considered or can be considered now as a lost case for Russia, others are not lost case yet. And Russia is trying to, by making example in Montenegro, is trying to send a signal to others: what we are willing to do or what we can do if you even dare to go the same way. This is really from a strategical point of view, it comes through the Balkans, this corner of Europe, important for Russia. But it comes to how media campaign was carried out in Montenegro also speaks that Russia has really a diversified approach. And it adopted its approach toward Montenegro how to reach out to people in Montenegro, and not only Montenegro, but in the region. Montenegro, first of all, we are not used to watching Russian TV. We are not used to reading Russian newspapers in Russian. We are not like people in Ukraine, for example. We don't have Russian communities living in Montenegro. So they therefore decided to open, to establish, a number of offices of Russian media in the region that would broadcast news in all local language, and then to use local networks to republish those news. First fabricate news, make either fake or false news, then those news will be broadcasted or republished further by local news. Then people will trust local news or local media, if not Russian media. After some time Sputnik and Russia Today have become the most popular among local population. And finally, because of cultural and historical and religious closeness between two nations, they really effectively use church and state. My society is in principle a traditional society and people trust priests and trust church. And since we are also Orthodox population, as Russians are, so they use church to propagate Orthodox style of life or Eastern Orthodox style of life and to present to the people, to citizens of my country, that it's about identity and it's about cultural roots and it's about dignity; and that Eastern Christianity is fundamentally different than Western world. And if we join NATO or the E.U., at the end of the day we're going to lose our identity, and it's about dignity. So, this is how effectively Russia uses different channels, different mechanisms, in order to reach our people and to send message which will be, how to say, in order to earn the hearts of people they would like to have on their side. Chairman Burr. Senator Wyden. Senator Wyden. Thank you. And thank the four of you. This has been a very valuable panel. Here in our inquiry, I've focused on what I called the follow-the-money issues, and concerns about Moscow's funding of pro-Russia political parties and groups in Europe, of course, is not new. Two years ago, the Committee directed the National Intelligence Office to submit an intelligence assessment on this issue. What is different now is we are looking at this attack on European democracies to help us understand what has happened to our democracy. So, Director Sarts, I want to start with you because you have studied Moscow's financing of pro-Russian political figures. And let me just kind of see if we can go through a few questions here. Have you been able to determine if Vladimir Putin employs particular strategies to develop relationships and curry favor with political figures in Europe? And if so, what would those strategies be? Mr. Sarts. First, there are two strategies to incite different political actors across Europe into cooperating with Russia. First is financial incentives. It can work both through the opening of business opportunities vis-a-vis Kremlin- controlled companies, or it can work also through a number of funds controlled by Kremlin that send in further the money to different Russia-controlled NGOs, and then, therefore, further on, disseminating the financial means to incite people into cooperating. The other venue is nonfinancial, which is giving the Russian information power as the backdrop to whoever's message they're trying to promote and whose political point of view they are trying to use for whatever their strategy---- Senator Wyden. Does President Putin make the decision himself to support political figures in Europe, based again on what you know? Mr. Sarts. Well, we as a center look explicitly at the open source. So I would not be able on my available information to make that conclusion. Senator Wyden. Does Russian assistance to its allies in Europe involve helping political parties, individual political figures, associates of individual political figures, or all of these different approaches? Mr. Sarts. They do. Senator Wyden. They use all of the above. And is there any information available on what mechanisms Putin prefers to provide financial assistance to political figures in Europe? Mr. Sarts. In an open space, there have been a number of reports from the European intelligence agencies sketching out without great detail some of these practices. But of course, there is much more which is not within the open public space that is known on these activities. Senator Wyden. And one last one for you, Director Sarts. Your statement referred to Russian cyber-attacks, including the 2015 Russian hack of the German Bundestag. Last week, the U.K. Parliament came under what British authorities called a sustained and determined attack on all parliamentary user accounts, although the source of the attack has not been identified. The reason I ask is my understanding with respect to these issues is every attack is going to be different. Every attack is going to be different because once you've engaged in one particular strategy, you've got people preparing for that and they move on to the next. What's your advice to us, based on your analysis in Europe, for how we deal with this extraordinarily important issue of developing a cyber-attack strategy, a preventive cyber-attack strategy? Mr. Sarts. Well, first, I think you give too much credit to the Kremlin operations. In fact, what our research says, much of the tool set remains the same. There is a variation and there is an experimentation, but it is not more than the 20 percent of the overall activity. The generic advice is that we have to think slightly differently about what the cyber-attack is. We typically think of it as a venue to get into the infrastructure and get the data. But I would argue that we have to think of two parameters: of course technical as very important; but at the end of the day, the purpose of the attack to get into the minds. And we have to actually, when employing our own countering strategies, focus both on technical as well as in the cognitive aspects of the defense. Senator Wyden. My time is up. I'm glad you think that the Russians are less clever than cyber-attackers elsewhere. I have reservations about that. I just want to make one last point. I know my time is up, Mr. Chairman. Ambassador Burns, I'm a fan of yours, and I just heard one word that concerned me with respect to the relationship of government and the technology companies. I think, and probably you didn't really really mean it--you talked about integrating the companies and the government. I think what you were meaning was better communication between the government and the companies, and I just wanted to make that point. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Oh, if you would like to respond. Ambassador Burns. Very quickly. Thank you. I meant that there should be communication, not that there be formally integrative efforts. Thank you. Senator Wyden. I understand. Chairman Burr. Senator Collins. Senator Collins. Ambassador Burns, it's good to see you. Thank you for joining this panel this morning. I'm struck as I listen to the testimony of all the witnesses that the approach that was used in Montenegro, in France, in Germany has been much more proactive. It's bolder. It exposes the falsehoods that are out there. And it is a far more visible effort. Ambassador, you were somewhat critical of President Obama, and I would be even more critical of his response. And I would call it behind the scenes, ineffective, and tardy. It wasn't really until after the election that sanctions were imposed and that the January 6th, 2017, report on the extensiveness and the scope of Russian interference in our elections was released by the intelligence community. So there seems to me to be a big difference in the approach that's taken by our allies and the approach that was taken by President Obama. And as you pointed out rightly, President Trump's Administration does not seem to have any strategy to deal with this going forward at this point. But then I hear about the efforts taken in France, for example, where there was a coordinated effort among government, the media, the campaigns, and even the technology companies. And there's one headline that says ``French newsrooms unite to fight election misinformation.'' I just can't even imagine a headline in the United States saying `Àmerican newsrooms unite to fight election misinformation.'' So are our systems so different that, while we can learn from our allies much more successful efforts to counter Russian active measures, is that even possible in our country, given the very different role of the media here? And I'm asking Ambassador Burns that question. Ambassador Burns. Thank you, Senator. You know, I think we're learning the lessons as we go along. And I think Director Comey was right when the Committee asked him about this, that he thinks that the next target in our country could be either party. And I applaud the bipartisan effort to try to learn the lessons. The Europeans have learned lessons from what went wrong in our election. And what seems to have worked well in the Macron campaign is speed and decisive action and transparency so that actually all the French people were made aware of the threat. And they have a right to that information. That was the basis of my criticism. And I just want to say this. I have tremendous respect for President Obama. This is Monday morning quarterback by somebody who is not in the government, but you're asked to testify and I think this is one of the lessons that we have to learn from the Europeans, how they've done. And what's missing, it seems, is formal integration of effort by the governments of Canada, the United States and Europe. That's a step that the Trump Administration could decide to take, which would be very helpful both in analysis and also in action. Senator Collins. I completely agree with you that visibility and transparency are absolutely critical, and that is an important lesson from what happened last fall. Ambassador Garcevic, I want to ask you about Montenegro because the State of Maine has a special relationship with Montenegro, and I can see by your smile that you're aware of that. We're part of the State Partnership Program and our National Guard has members stationed in Montenegro to assist the military and we like to think we were helpful in getting you ready for your NATO accession, which I strongly supported. But Montenegro is a really interesting example, because Russia was not able, despite a tremendous effort, to dissuade the people there from electing a pro-NATO government last October. So my question to you is this: Why were the Russian influence efforts unsuccessful in Montenegro, which is a small country that has far closer historical and cultural, religious ties to Russia, and where the Russian state media and propaganda are prevalent, even as their efforts appeared to be much more successful--that's probably an overstatement, but to have some success--in sowing the seeds of doubt and discord in the 2016 election in our country? Ambassador Garcevic. That's very difficult to answer in a couple of minutes. Sometimes--yes, we are a small country. Russia is big. I would say that Russia looked down on us as just peanuts in the Balkans that they can put in order easily. But it turned out not to be the case. Sometimes we had simply luck when one of the computers of one of our people in the mission to NATO was hacked by Russia. Simply, we were lucky because another mission--I don't want to mention name--which had been under attack with the same virus, computer virus, helped us register--detect that virus even before it started working, you know? And then we turned to NATO and then, with the help of NATO people, we checked all computers, not only in the mission to NATO, but also in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Military Defense, and government offices, and so now that we were not affected. Sometimes, as I said, we had luck. But in more broader terms, I would say that Russia didn't penetrate economically, though at the first glance, on the surface, many seeked out Montenegro to explain how Montenegro was packed with Russians living there and with Russian money pouring in for years. But actually, Russian investments in Montenegro were mostly investments in real estate. We are not dependent on energy. The Russians didn't invest in banking sector. There are no investments in any of our important industrial branches in Montenegro, so they couldn't simply sway us easily. Even when we imposed sanctions on them, they didn't know how to react economically on us, so they turned to some political measures in order to show that they are angry because of it. And then, I would say, government, though we were small, what we tried to do, particularly when it comes to cyber attacks, we are not capable to hit back, definitely, but we tried to build a partnership with our NATO partners and we seek help from them. Then, at the end of the day, when it comes to cyber attacks, it's about a human factor. And then we tried to build up vigilance and, you know, government issuing warning signs to its agencies to be careful how to deal with sensitive information. Senator Collins. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Burr. Senator Heinrich. Senator Heinrich. Ambassador Burns, you've talked a lot about the sanctions bill we passed here in the Senate. If Speaker Ryan and the House of Representatives doesn't take up that Russia sanctions bill, what kind of message do you think that that would send to Vladimir Putin? Ambassador Burns. I think a message of weakness, because the Senate by a huge margin has teed this up. It's the right thing to do to have a painful type of leverage against the Russians. And if it's diluted in the House and if the Trump Administration encourages the House to do that, which is what one hears, then I think the Russians are going to receive a mixed message here, not a stiff message, which they need to receive. Senator Heinrich. Do you think it will send--make him more or less likely to interfere in the 2018 and 2020 elections? Ambassador Burns. You know, I read the transcript of your hearing with Director Comey. He told you that he thinks it's going to continue. Senator Heinrich. Yes. Ambassador Burns. Until we have better defenses, until we've gone on the offense. I think that President Trump should consider, maybe Secretary Tillerson should do this--exactly what President Obama did. Go to Putin directly, as President Obama did. It was after our election, as Senator Collins pointed out, and just say, there are going to be consequences, and spell them out. That's actually probably the most effective thing that the Trump Administration should do. Senator Heinrich. Should we take these kinds of cyberattacks and election manipulation as seriously as we would take a military action or an economic threat to our country? Ambassador Burns. Well, as you know, they're different. Obviously, a military action is immediate, consequential. You have to respond within hours. I actually think this is--what they try to do systematically to the Dutch, the Montenegrins, the French, the Germans and the Americans is discredit democracy in the eyes of our citizens. I use the word `èxistential'' in my testimony. I don't think it was hyperbole. I think it was the right word to use. So I think we need to meet squarely. And all of us have suggested a multitude of ways that we can do that. Senator Heinrich. I don't disagree. I think one of the challenges that you've mentioned is that the current President has been unwilling to respond or even acknowledge the validity of the Russian hostile actions in the election. I'm curious what that means for what we as members of the Senate can or should do to advance a conversation with our European allies about sanctions. And I would certainly like your opinion on that, but I would open it to the other members on the panel as well. Ambassador Burns. That conversation has to be held. Normally in this situation, as you know, the State Department and the White House would be talking to the Germans, the Austrians about the consequences of the Senate bill. I don't know if this happened this time. But we're in this phase--we've talked about the separation of powers for 200 years--where it's my own view that Congress needs to play the leading role because I perceive Congress to be tougher against Russia. Senator Heinrich. Nature abhors a vacuum. Do any of you want to add to that? Dr. Stelzenmueller. Dr. Stelzenmueller. Of course. It's well known that German politicians, senior German politicians, the chancellor and the foreign minister, have protested the sanctions bill. And this is, of course, because German companies, and not just German companies, other Europeans as well, are invested in Nord Stream 2. I'm not a big fan of this project, frankly. But I'm far more concerned about unilateral American sanctions that aren't discussed with the Europeans, that are just put out there and we have to deal with them. The fact of the matter is that we had actually for years been asking America to allow the export of American LNG to the European market, and that it had been Congress that was resisting this. So I think the lesson of this experience is for us to, as allies, discuss what is in the interest of the alliance and where we can work together. And I think that would be of significant importance as a deterrent towards Russia. Senator Heinrich. While I have you, Doctor, when President Trump questioned the value, the relevance of NATO, whether we should even keep it as a structure, who do you think benefitted most from that? Dr. Stelzenmueller. Well, I've already said that. I think that that helps the Kremlin, and it's not great. I also don't think it's in America's self-interest to question that alliance because you have significant interests in Europe and in Europe's periphery, and the alliance with us Europeans helps you pursue those national self-interests. Senator Heinrich. I could not agree more. Mr. Sarts, before my time runs out, you talked a little about how we should try to take the truth directly to the Russian people because of the filter that they receive so much of their information through. How can we cut out Vladimir Putin and speak directly to the Russian people? Mr. Sarts. Well, I think it is very clear and evident that is the same environment, which is the digital one. And if one takes note of the recent protests in Russia against the corruption, it was very striking how young the crowd was. And it was also very clear that these people don't anymore get their world view from the TV. It's all about also social networks. And yes, that's the way you can get the truth back to them. And I'm sure Kremlin will try to put up new elements to block us. But I think that is an environment where we can get back to them. Senator Heinrich. I want to thank you all for your testimony today. Chairman Burr. Senator Blunt. Senator Blunt. Thank you, Chairman. Let's try a yes-no question first, just in the interest of time. You know, the Russian economy is failing, not nearly the country it could or should be. Does Putin benefit in Russia from getting credit for interfering with elections in our countries? Ambassador. Ambassador Burns. I think he does. I think it builds him up. Ambassador Garcevic. Yes, politically he does. Mr. Sarts. It is one significant part for his domestic policy to benefit from it. Dr. Stelzenmueller. Sorry, I can't do a yes or no. I'd say it's both. In the short term, he benefits. In the long term, he loses and Russia loses. Senator Blunt. But the short-term benefit is? Dr. Stelzenmueller. The short-term benefit is it validates the narrative that we're all just as bad as Russia and, frankly, Russians are better off living in Russia because their life at least is stable. The reality is that a lot of Kremlin interference has backfired and backfired visibly, and we've been learning from that. And it has taught us to review our complacencies. It's taught us to defend our democracies. That's a good thing. But we also are up against a significant enemy and one that has a lot of energy and patience. Senator Blunt. And in terms of--I was going to ask what we should do about these channels of miscommunication like in our country Sputnik and RT. Starting with you, Dr. Stelzenmueller: What have you--what, if anything, have you done to try to respond or immediately contradict information coming in? I mean, you're much closer to this than we are, but it's no harder to keep out here than it is there. Dr. Stelzenmueller. Well, can I just say, I arrived here in November of 2014 to start working at Brookings, and I was stunned by the amount of RT commercials--sorry--posters, advertisements around Washington. There were these big, expensive ones, the back-lighted ones on the bus stops, and then there were the ones that were plastered all over construction site fences. Amazing. I'd never seen anything quite like that. So clearly, there was a big investment here directed at normal Washingtonians, and that---- Senator Blunt. Is there no investment like that in Germany, or---- Dr. Stelzenmueller. Not in the same way, but there is investment. Senator Blunt. Would you allow it if they wanted to do that? Dr. Stelzenmueller. You know, I tend to think that they can, if they want to buy advertisement, you know, it's a free country, okay? And these are companies. They can do this. I'm not a big fan of nanny state endeavors to protect us from things that we can perfectly well see through. And I believe that Americans can see through this as well. Where it becomes more insidious is where they're doing covert stuff, where they're buying people, where they're buying institutions. And so I have faith---- Senator Blunt. Your view is that's more insidious than so- called ``fake news''? Dr. Stelzenmueller. Well, fake news is insidious if our consumers, if our citizens, are not media-literate. Senator Blunt. Well, let's go on down the line. Mr. Sarts, what--in other countries, what do they do about RT and other Russian outlets? Mr. Sarts. Well, in the information space it's actually quite simple. If somebody doesn't have the credibility, they may message as much they want. There is no effect from that. And I think there is an interesting example where Sputnik opened their offices in the Scandinavian countries, and then within a year's time they had to close it. Nobody listened to them. Senator Blunt. What about in Montenegro? Ambassador Garcevic. Sputnik has no office in Montenegro. I think that--I barely can remember that any of those Russia- based media have offices in Montenegro itself. But they have offices in neighboring Serbia and from there they penetrate Montenegro, because they know that in the case, in the Montenegrin case, government may revoke a license at any moment. So it is not the case in Serbia. Because we speak more or less the same language, they can do that easily. And then from there, their news will be rebroadcasted or reprinted and published in Montenegro. Senator Blunt. And Ambassador, what, if anything, should we do about these known mediums that they use of miscommunication? Ambassador Burns. Senator, I think two things. One is always attach an adjective, a couple, before when we talk about them: ``the Russian government propaganda station RT.'' So expose them for who they are, because they are Russian government. Second, be very careful if you ever go on it, because they'll distort what you say. Don't give them the platform that they want. Senator Blunt. Let me try to get one more question in to you. I actually agree with your current position on Congressionally binding sanctions. I assume you were much more inclined to have a flexible position when you were at the State Department? Ambassador Burns. That's absolutely true. I am a creature of the Executive Branch. I always thought it's better to preserve the President's authority to act. But in this particular case, since the President is not acting, I think the Congress has to take that responsibility. Chairman Burr. Senator King. Senator King. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Starting with just a couple of comments. One, I want to associate myself with Senator Rubio's question, which I think is the real key question of this hearing. What can we do to defend ourselves? And I'd like to ask each of you--you've already testified, talked about it--to submit a written, very short, half a page, bing, bing, bing, here are the five things that we can do to defend ourselves. I think that would be very helpful. Secondly, what we are seeing here, it seems to me, is the invention and expansion and implementation of a new kind of warfare. And it's a kind of warfare that is particularly effective against democracies. Valeriy Gerasimov, who's the chief of the general staff of Russia, calls it ``weaponizing information,'' and said in 2013 that he believes this is--we are engaged now in informational conflict. Putin's defense budget is one eighth of ours, but he is playing a weak hand very well and has found a cheap way--and when I say peculiarly effective against democracies, because this is where public opinion matters. In many other countries, public opinion doesn't have that great a role in how policy is formed. So a couple of short questions. And I think, Ambassador Burns, you just answered this. Any doubt that RT is an arm of the Russian government? [No response.] Senator King. No doubt. Everybody agrees. Secondly, I have heard in a previous hearing in a different committee that the Russians were looking around, sniffing around buying commercial TV outlets in Europe. Have any of you heard of that? Is that---- Mr. Sarts. Yes, there have been in Baltic states the cases where they've tried, but governments have tried to block these possibilities. Senator King. Well, that certainly it seems to me, is one of the--one of the things that we have to watch. Another--I think this is a yes or no question. Was what was done here in 2016 absolutely consistent with what the Russians have been doing in Europe for some years? Essentially the same modus operandi? Mr.--go ahead. Mr. Sarts. Well, it was, but there were a number of new elements and some more risk-taking than we used to see. Senator King. So they're getting more sophisticated. Is that that accurate? I think, Mr. Sarts, you have said something several times that's consistent with my understanding. Some members of this Committee were in Eastern Europe over a year ago in the spring of 2016. We were in Ukraine and Poland. When we asked them how they--and the first thing they wanted to tell us is, ``Watch out for the Russians in your elections.'' And we didn't understand how prescient that was at the time. But in any case, then we said, ``How do you defend yourself?'' And the answer was, I think, exactly what you've said. They said, ``The best defense is if the people know what's happening, and they can say, oh, it's just the Russians.'' And that you've characterized as societal awareness, and that's what I think is one of the most important roles of this Committee, is to educate the American people that, whatever we do, whatever defenses we come up with, this is going to keep happening. And the best defense is for them to be, I think you used the word, ``digitally literate,'' or I can't recall the term. But we need to understand that they're going to keep doing this and we need to learn to shrug it off. Ambassador Burns, do you have any thoughts on that? Ambassador Burns. I much agree, and I think that's the lesson to learn from what happened to the Obama Administration. They were caught unawares. It was new. They didn't appreciate the extent of it, and it was a lack of speed and lack of transparency. That is a problem. Senator King. Well, but I do think it should be noted, because there's been some discussion here, they did release on October 9 a comprehensive memo that this was going on, that really listed all the elements that were later listed in the January. And in the heat of the campaign, nobody paid much attention to it. And I understand. I think the dilemma they had was, do we go public in a big way and be accused of putting our thumb on the scale of the election and those kind of things? But I agree, I think a more aggressive response would've been--would've been appropriate in 20-20 hindsight. One thing that hasn't been mentioned too much is the use of kompromat. Is that not part of the Russian strategy, use of salacious material against candidates they don't like? That has happened in other countries, has it not? Dr. Stelzenmueller. Well, it's one of the open questions about the 2015 Bundestag leak, the German federal legislature, whether they were looking for kompromat and found it. They have not posted anything yet. But, you know, that's kind of the James Bond version. They may just have--also have done this for the simple purpose of espionage. The point about kompromat is that often you don't find out because you're not supposed to. Senator King. Exactly. Yes, sir? Mr. Sarts. Just kompromat has been very heavily used typically by USSR. I think the relative importance has decreased because they've learned actually having one is not always essential. You might make it up. Senator King. Oh, I see. You don't even have to have the data. You can just make something up, ``King Kicks Dogs Every Morning,'' and then I'm denying it for the next three months, or much worse. Well, I want to thank you again for your testimony. This has been very informative and I hope you will give us some written responses about defenses because that's an important role of this Committee, to prepare ourselves for what everyone has suggested is not a one-off in 2016. It will continue to happen and it will continue to happen on both sides of our political divide in this country. Putin is not a Republican. He is an opportunist. And the next time, this attack could come in the opposite direction, but it's still a corruption of our democracy. Thank you all very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Burr. Senator Lankford. Senator Lankford. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I've learned several things today, including that Senator King kicks dogs every morning, and I was completely unaware of that. [Laughter.] Let me ask this panel a quick question, and it goes back to one of the heart of the questions Senator King was just bringing up before, is the deterrence. Let me ask in a more specific way: What price should Russia pay for this type of interference? It's one thing to say we're informing our people, we're trying to do it rapidly. I've heard that from several of you to say, the speed of the information and the response is exceptionally important. Finding cooperation between legitimate media sites, that they will actually help identify here's-- here's false, here's true, try to get that out. But what price should they pay? And let me bring up why. When the Russians were cheating and doping their athletes, in a very short period of time Russia paid a very big price for that by their athletes not going to the 2016 Olympics and saying, I know you trained, but you doped your athletes and you were caught for that. It's just within the last 24 hours, that their doping authority is even allowed to start testing their athletes again, they've been on suspension that long. They paid a price for that. We would hope that that would be a deterrent. What price should they pay for this type of aggression? Yes, ma'am? Dr. Stelzenmueller. This is a really difficult question, politically, legally, militarily. And the main reason why it's so difficult is attribution. And even when intelligence services know how to attribute, they may not want to make that public. And that is the largest conundrum that we are dealing with here. So we may, I think, be looking at asymmetrical retaliation, as it were, political, economic. And I think the biggest price that Russia can and should pay is failure--failure to undermine us, failure to undermine our democracies, failure to undermine our alliances. That is something we can do, and I think it is even more important because it's a consistently--it's a remaining vulnerability that is even more important than the question of retaliation. Of course, we--and American and German and European officials have been doing this all the time, is to make it very clear to the Russians that we know what they're doing, that we want them to stop, and that we have ways of reacting. But the actual legality and viability of symmetrical reaction is a huge legal and military problem, as I'm sure you know. Senator Lankford. Yes, and one of the things you mentioned before, Dr. Stelzenmueller, is the export of LNG. That's something that was debated extensively here in Congress and a large part of that conversation was--the conversation became this is about American energy companies somehow being more profitable while the Europeans were saying this is about geopolitical power. If you don't sell us LNG, then the Russians can turn the valve on and off and they control a large part of Europe. For geopolitical influence, we need to do that. That became debated long-term here and then was finally determined, yes, we're going to sell LNG, and now Europe has another outlet and Russia has competition on it and is a benefit to our alliance and our long-term connection. Other ideas that anyone would share as far as the price that Russia should pay? Mr. Sarts. Well, if I may, actually one of the things that they expect us to talk soft about these things. That's kind of, you know, part of their plan: There'll not be direct, strong response. I thought when Emmanuel Macron met Putin and the way he did it in Versailles was not a pleasant experience for Putin. So, being direct, instead of what they thought will be this polite talk. Secondly, the machinery they're using against us is extremely important for Kremlin to control their own population. So if we are able to dismantle it, then we--we actually, as I've said, we bring in more truth into the internal Russian discourse. Senator Lankford. Other ideas and thoughts? Ambassador Burns. I would just say, Senator, it's a really tough question for both President Trump as it was for President Obama. Can we find a pressure point as important to Putin as the integrity of our elections are to us? And I think Constanze is right, that's probably going to be asymmetric. Senator Lankford. Okay. Ambassador Garcevic. Maybe to add a sentence, that in the introductory it was mentioned that Russia's goal is to drive a wedge between the E.U. and the U.S. I think that one of the things that must be done is that actually this Euro-Atlantic bond must exist and unity between the E.U. and the U.S. must remain. On top of what was said, asymmetric threats ask for asymmetric response. Senator Lankford. Great. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Burr. Senator Manchin. Senator Manchin. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And thank all of you for being here. First of all, I was very impressed in seeing our NATO allies, what all you have done in trying to thwart what Russia has done as far as meddling in your affairs. Sweden has launched a nationwide school program to teach students to identify Russian propaganda. In Lithuania, 100 citizen cyber sleuths, dubbed `èlves,'' link up digitally to identify the feedback that people employ on social media to spread Russian disinformation. They call their daily skirmishes `èlves versus trolls.'' France and Britain have successfully pressured Facebook to disable tens of thousands of automated fake accounts used to sway voters close to election time, and it has doubled to 6,000 the number of monitors empowered to remove defamatory and hate filled posts. All of this, I mean, it's amazing, I think that you all have been dealing with this. And it says here, Latvia has undertaken to ferret out clandestine Russian meddling since it broke free of the Soviet Union in 1991. I think it goes back to what, Mr. Sarts, you just had said. They have been controlling their people by misinforming them, by basically not giving them the facts, giving them what they want them to know. When you all broke, when Latvia broke in 1991, you were able at that time to set your people free by the truth. Have you been able to have any insurgency into Russia, getting the truth in there, using their own weapons against them, their own networks against them? Mr. Sarts. Well, none of the governments that I know of have made a decision to do that. There are civic society groups that try to do that and bring in the different tools that might be there. Some of them--and I would argue in front of this Committee, humor, as awkward as it might be, is one of the best tools I would suggest to penetrate the control system. We in fact recently produced a report on humor as a tool of communication. In five hours since, we had a response from Maria Zakharova. And it went on for whole months, including President of Chechnya Ramzan Kadyrov doing a video as a response to our research of humor. I think that tells you a story. So, there are many ways you can get in. Senator Manchin. Okay. Let me ask this question then. There's been reports--it's open source--that Putin was directly involved giving direction in the United States elections, the last presidential election. Our intelligence basically said he was directly involved. He gave the order to do what was done. Do you have that same verification in your countries and in NATO allies that Putin was directly involved? And have you identified him as being directly involved so that people would know where it's coming from? Dr. Stelzenmueller. If I had that information, I probably wouldn't be sitting here. But there is a general assumption in Germany that the President's office is directly and copiously involved in giving orders to Russian interference. The actual execution is delegated very broadly to a variety of actors. Senator Manchin. Anybody. Ambassador Garcevic. When it comes to Montenegro, I can only repeat or quote what our state prosecutor mentioned just like a few weeks ago. He said that behind these events in Montenegro are nationalist structures from Russia and that certain Russian authorities were involved at a certain level. But we at this moment, we cannot make that conclusion that Putin himself was giving orders to what was going on there. Senator Manchin. If I can follow up with one. The rhetoric coming from our White House under this Administration, has it caused our NATO allies to start moving toward contributing two percent to the defense spending? Or is it because of their concern of Russia's aggression? We'll let all of you answer. I want Ambassador Burns too to get in on this. Dr. Stelzenmueller. Yes. The chancellor has said repeatedly that we will achieve the two percent by 2024, which is the date at which it was promised. And we're increasing our defense budget by 8 percent this year. We're also doing a lot of other things which are working toward---- Senator Manchin. What was the cause? Dr. Stelzenmueller. I think the proximate cause was Russian hostility---- Senator Manchin. More so than the White House rhetoric? Dr. Stelzenmueller. I'd say that the policies and rhetoric of this Administration have been contributing to reinforcing a sense of urgency. Senator Manchin. Got you. Ambassador Burns? Ambassador Burns. Senator, I think 20 of the 29 NATO allies have increased defense spending since the Russian invasion of Crimea and Eastern Ukraine in 2014. That was the primary cause. But I must say, President Trump's been right to raise this issue, as all of our Presidents have. And I think he has had an impact on the internal debate. Canada is one country. They spend barely one percent of their GDP in defense. So, I think he's gone about it sometimes in a way that's not effective. Senator Manchin. Unconventional. Ambassador Burns. Unconventional. But he's right to raise it. Senator Manchin. Thank you very much. Yes, sir. Ambassador Garcevic. Just to add that last year only, other members of NATO increased defense spending by around $2 billion U.S. Chairman Burr. Sen. Cotton. Senator Cotton. Thank you. This hearing has been informative on the specific question of Russian active measures in the United States and in Europe. Of course, that's just one small part of Russia's efforts over the decades to undermine Western democracies, to try to divide our alliance. I think we explored most of those points today. So I want to respond more broadly to what I think are two myths that have been propagated here, mostly by my Democratic colleagues, but by some of these witnesses. And those myths are that somehow President Trump is weaker on Russia than was President Obama; and second, that somehow NATO and deterrence is undermined by the United States, rather than by Europe. So first, let's review what's happened in the first five months of this Administration. President Trump has bombed the Khan Sheikhun military base in Syria. He has shot down Syrian planes. They have shot down Iranian drones, thereby showing that Russia is unable to protect its two main clients in the Middle East. We're on the verge of deploying more troops to Afghanistan, where Russia has been meddling with ever-greater intensity in recent years. And we finally proposed a budget that increases our military spending, albeit not enough, that accelerates ballistic missile defense. And our domestic agencies are doing everything they can to promote more oil and gas production in the United States. By contrast, President Obama famously pushed the reset button a few weeks into his tenure, six months after Russia invaded Georgia. He mocked Mitt Romney for calling Russia our number one geopolitical foe. He asked Dmitry Medvedev in a hot mic moment to wait until after the election to discuss missile defenses because he would have, quote, ``more flexibility.'' Despite bipartisan support in the Congress, President Obama refused to send lethal weapons to Ukraine. He stood idly by as Russia returned into the Middle East for the first time in 40 years in Syria. And he stood idly by, as we've heard today, in the 2016 election. So, I would dispute the premise that somehow President Obama was any tougher or stronger in defense of U.S. interests as against Russia. Second, the myth that somehow NATO and deterrence is at risk because of the United States, not Europe. Talk is cheap. Deterrence is about the military balance of power. It's not about magic words. National leaders can call Article 5 sacred or sacrosanct or inviolate or any other pretty word they want. But Europe's collective failure to meet the two percent goal of defense spending has underinvested in our common defense by something on the magnitude of $100 billion to $120 billion per year. Vladimir Putin can see the reality of what national leaders in Europe think about our common defense, no matter what words they use. Moreover, it's well known that Russia is in flagrant violation of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty. They're also in violation of the Open Skies Treaty. But European leaders continue to resist the Trump Administration's efforts to bring Russia back into compliance with those treaties. Dr. Stelzenmueller, as you noted, the German foreign minister has protested the Russian sanctions bill that passed the Senate 97 to 2, because Germany does business with Russian companies in the construction of the Nord Stream 2 Pipeline, which by the way they shouldn't be building in the first place if they are that worried about Russia and want to deter Russia in Europe. While we're on the topic of the German foreign minister, he said a few months ago that the 2 percent goal is unlikely to be obtained and politicians shouldn't make promises they can't keep. Sadly, I'm afraid he's right. Germany increased its budget last year by 8 percent. This year its defense budget is proposed to be increased by only 4 percent, yet a Forza Agency poll suggested that a majority of Germans oppose such an increase. More alarmingly, a Pew poll from last month asked Europeans: If Russia got into a serious military conflict with one of its neighboring countries that is our NATO ally, do you think our country should or should not use military force to defend that country? Here were their responses. The Dutch said, 72 percent yes, 23 percent no. That is great for the Dutch. They are good allies. Poles, 62 to 26; Americans 62 to 31--by a 2 to 1 margin, very proud of our country. Canada, 56--58 to 31; France, 53 to 43; Spain, 46 to 46--not great. Brits, 45 to 43. Germans, 40 to 53 would defend a NATO ally. So my time is almost expired. I'll just ask one question. Given that so many of my remarks have focused on Germany and, Dr. Stelzenmueller, you're obviously the subject matter expert on that country, what is the matter with Germany? Dr. Stelzenmueller. Thank you, Senator, for your questions and for your remarks. I've already said that I am not a fan of the Nord Stream 2 project, and I think a number of many of my German experts, friends, agree with me. There is a substantial debate within German politics about the use of this project, politically. On the German defense budget, I think, again--I can only reiterate what Chancellor Merkel has said, who looks likely to win this election again, that Germany is on course to fulfill this promise by the time it is supposed to fulfill it. Anybody who has ever looked at defense budgets and attempted to increase them knows how many past dependencies, complications, there are in actually expanding forces. We would have to double our defense budget to do this. But I can assure you from my personal experience, many conversations last week in Berlin, we are racing to do this. In fact, only last week--or two weeks ago, I was on the stage in Koblenz together with the German chairman of the chief--the equivalent of the chairman of the joint chiefs, at the bidding of the Defense Ministry, to explain to Germany's armament bureaucracies why they have to work faster, more flexibly, and more creatively to accomplish the promises that we have made to NATO. And I assure you that this was a very serious discussion. Now, it will also not have escaped you, because we've been talking about this all day, that we're in an election, and that Gabriel is a member of the opposite party, although he is in a coalition with the chancellor, and therefore he has to say these things. He has also said other things. For example, the first time he went to Moscow he told Foreign Minister Lavrov, his counterpart, that he did not believe in the post-Western world Lavrov had spoken of in that Munich Security Conference, that this was wrong, that we very much stand by the idea of the Western--of the West and Western alliances, and that this is a question of shared values and not of geopolitical location. So, as for the Pew poll, I'm as unhappy about that as you are and I know many Germans who are unhappy about it as well. Maybe that is also rooted in our cultural memory of the Cold War. I am old enough to remember the Cold War, where we knew that if the Article 5 came to pass, there would be three weeks of conventional warfare, then it would move to nuclear, and then my country would be a heap of ashes. I think that that is a memory that informs that kind of judgment. But I know that German politicians of all parties have made it clear beyond a shadow of a doubt to Russia, to Moscow, and to the Kremlin and Mr. Putin himself that any violation of Article 5 will have us all standing there as one, as allies, to defend an attack on NATO territory. Chairman Burr. Senator Harris. Senator Harris. Ambassador Burns, can you tell me what you believe has been the impact on our reputation with our allies, in Europe in particular, as a result of this Administration's failure to acknowledge that Russia hacked and attempted to manipulate the election of the President of the United States? And if you believe there has been an impact in terms our standing with our allies in Europe, do you believe that it's going to have an impact on our ability to protect ourselves and guard against what should be a predictable attack in our 2018 elections by Russia? Ambassador Burns. Thank you, Senator. I think the basic problem is that the Europeans are accustomed to looking toward--for the United States to lead on any big issue. This is a big issue, and the hearing is central to it, because all of us are under attack from a systematic Russian campaign. But they don't see the United States leading. And if you combine--and this is partly in response to Senator Cotton's very good question as well. President Trump has not been strong on the sanctions against Ukraine. He's not an advocate for the territorial independence of Ukraine. He's not spoken out on interference and he's been very ambivalent, even hostile, to NATO, and seems to look at Germany as a strategic economic competitor, not as an ally. If you put all that together, I think it is the first time since 1945 that Europeans might likely see Angela Merkel right now as leader of the West, not President Trump. I don't say that lightly and I think it's a sad statement to make, but I think it's a true statement. And so we need to recover our leadership role, and you do that by actions. And on this subject, it's by aligning yourself with the Europeans on the sanctions issue. That's why I support what the Senate has done on a bipartisan basis. And it's by trying to raise our defenses, as Janis has talked about here, in a very effective way. Senator Harris. And can any of the other panelists offer that? Mr. Chairman and Vice Chairman, I appreciate you having this hearing and an open hearing on the issue. I think the American people should have a better sense of how our reputation and standing in the global community has been impacted by our failure to acknowledge that Russia attempted to manipulate an election for the President of the United States. Do any of the other panelists want to add to the Ambassador's point? Ambassador Garcevic. I will add, just to remind you that the Article 5 has been invoked only once in the history of NATO, in the situation when the U.S. was under attack after September 11th, and that all our allies from Europe stood up and stand behind U.S. at that time. And we've been in Afghanistan for years now together, alongside, fighting the same cause. Dr. Stelzenmueller. I'll just add one number to that. More than 800 Europeans have died alongside American troops fighting in Afghanistan, for a joint cause. Senator Harris. Thank you. Mr. Sarts, you mentioned a couple of points about the French elections. And I was curious about--and Senator Collins I think raised this point also--you talked about media as a partner and their cooperation with the French government, and that they actually were very active in verifying the factual accuracy of misinformation. You also discussed the importance of assuming that a country will be hacked and then trapping hackers, and arguably then at some point being able to prosecute them in France and get some consequence and accountability. How would you propose that that would be applied in the United States? You know that, for example, I won't name the stations, but there are two cable networks that if you watch them at the same time on the same subject, you will hear two completely different versions of what's happening. And so we have to acknowledge that we have a culture around the media in this country as it relates to politics at least that may not be as coordinated as some of the media in Europe. How would you propose--again looking at the 2018 election as a goal for protecting ourselves, how would we work with the media to inoculate or prevent harm or to be resilient once we know we've been hacked? Mr. Sarts. Well, truth and facts matter. Facts matter. We don't build bridges on false facts. We want to then get them straight. It is very hard to have a functional democracy without facts as a basis for it. We tend to go into different directions because of opinions, and that's okay. That's what the democratic process is. But at the end of the day, all we have to agree is that if we don't value the factual basis of our reality, democracy would not work. Senator Harris. I'm sorry, I only have a couple of seconds. How did the French media expose a misstatement of fact to be without factual basis? How did they expose the fake news, if you will? What did they do? Mr. Sarts. There are a whole set of ways how you verify what the information is in front of them. The journalists should be very good at it. And actually, the whole--the biggest point is actually value and understand the role, as it is called, soft power. It is both also the power and the responsibility. And understand that within the responsibility of that for media in a democratic society, to have it functional is to value the factual basis. That's I think the understanding upon which the French media were able to come together to actually work together. I wouldn't classify there was a cooperation between media and the government. Media cooperated in between themselves irrespective of different political viewpoints, valuing that the democratic system is based on fact. Senator Harris. I agree with that. And I would just say that it's important to value a free and independent press in order to allow them to do their job. Thank you. Chairman Burr. Senator McCain. Senator McCain. Mr. Garcevic, do you believe that the United States has a strategy to respond to the cyber warfare that we're in today? Ambassador Garcevic. I think yes. Senator McCain. Could you tell me that strategy? Ambassador Garcevic. That's a very difficult question. I would say that I can see that strategy through NATO and what I also---- Senator McCain. Through NATO? Ambassador Garcevic. Yes, because when it comes to cyber attacks, you remember that as a result of the first cyber attack on a large scale, which happened years ago when Russia attacked Estonia, a Center of Excellence was established in Estonia, which was supposed to be---- Senator McCain. That didn't have anything to do with an American strategy. I was there at the opening of it. Ambassador Garcevic. Yes, but I think that there is a--in our case, in our case, if I can just return to our case, you know, thanks to--when we found out that it would be difficult, at least as far as I know, it would be difficult to clarify the case, we turned to and asked for help from the U.S. and the U.K. agencies. I would like to believe that, you know, that strategy exists. I can only--I cannot comment on it because I'm not--I'm not in the loop. I didn't read it. I didn't talk to people who can explain. But what I can see that's happening every day there is that through your embassies and through your diplomatic network, a network that exists in NATO at the working level, countries like Montenegro if in need receive assistance. Senator McCain. Well, that's a great answer. Thank you. Should we expect similar aggressive behavior as we saw in the attempt to overthrow the government of Montenegro at other NATO aspirants, such as Bosnia and Herzegovina, Macedonia, Kosovo? Ambassador Garcevic. What I mentioned in my introductory, I'm sure that this is just one case and I'm sure that Russia will continue doing something similar in our neighborhood. Senator McCain. That's pretty exciting. They recruited people. They were---- Ambassador Garcevic. Yes. Senator McCain [continuing]. Willing to kill people. They were willing to send people in uniform to kill the Prime Minister. I mean, it's--it reads out of a novel. Ambassador Garcevic. That's why I think that U.S. and European partners must remain active in the region. And if there were any retreat from the region would be detrimental for democracies in our part of---- Senator McCain. They came awfully close to succeeding. If we hadn't had an informant from the inside, they might have succeeded. Ambassador Garcevic. What I answered--what I answered previously, that in some cases we simply hit luck. I cannot say that we were capable to fight back. Simply it happened as a result of certain circumstances. One of them you mentioned. And that helped us a lot. Senator McCain. Like an informant on the inside. Ambassador Garcevic. Yes, this was an informant who came to--who was aware of the proportion of bloodshed that would happen if this action succeeded. And he turned to--he turned and showed up in police to report. Senator McCain. Mr. Sarts, should we be concerned about that level of violence that the GRU is willing to engage in in order to overthrow a freely elected government? Mr. Sarts. It is concerning and we should be concerned. Senator McCain. Why do you think we haven't heard more about it? Mr. Sarts. I'm quite surprised about that as well, because I think that is a very, very telling story that we have to reflect upon. I have one hope, and that is the fact that it all failed. Russians, like everybody else, do their lessons learned. So I hope the lesson that they learned, it's not really that effective. And in these cases, they tend to lose what they like to have, that is plausible deniability, at least---- Senator McCain. What has been publicly actioned in Montenegro about this failed coup? Ambassador Garcevic. I would say reaction was mixed, even including me, at the beginning. I was at that time in the U.S., not working any more for government. And the first reaction was a mix of feelings, whether this was staged or not, whether it is true or not. But time goes on and we are more and more aware of the proportion of the action and what was behind this action and how the action was organized. And then, also, as a result of two suspects decided to cooperate with the police and they disclosed in their verdicts how action was planned, who financed it, who were the people for contacts in Serbia, those two agents that I mentioned at the beginning. Senator McCain. What--go ahead. Ambassador Garcevic. The Russian agents. Then this actually helped us make this picture completed, putting pieces one by one so then now we have clear picture what was happening---- Senator McCain. What's the reaction in the Baltics, Mr. Sarts? Mr. Sarts. In the Baltics, I think currently all the governments are looking at--there's a great concern at the big- scale Russian military exercise that is planned for September, Zapad 2017. We, from all---- Senator McCain. Are you talking about the reaction to what was clearly a very complex, detailed plot to violently overthrow a freely elected government? Mr. Sarts. Well, there were all kinds of political statements condemning that. There was a discussion within the countries, both--within the government's closed circles as well as openly, of what has been the parameters of it. And I would tell that governments have taken very great care to look into elements of what made it, and what was the plan, to make adjustments for their own planning in the case of this particular crisis. Senator McCain. I thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Burr. Senator Reed. Senator Reed. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, panel, for an excellent discussion. Ambassador Burns, thank you for your distinguished service to the country in so many ways, and your wise counsel. And thank you for promoting us to the best hope of fixing this problem. But I think we're the second best, frankly. I share your concern that the President really has to take the lead here for obvious reasons. Commander-in-chief, chief diplomat, the most recognized public figure. There was a missed opportunity at the NATO conference. Forget what was said. What wasn't said was the common threat we face today, the most significant one, not the only one, is this deliberate action by the Russians. And my sense at least, that the most immediate game changer would be if the President, standing next to the Chancellor and to the President of France and to the British Prime Minister, took that position. I assume you might have an opinion on that. Ambassador Burns. Well, I do. I was Ambassador to NATO, as you know, Senator. And every American President has been the leader of that alliance, has affirmed that bedrock commitment. And we know it was in the President's speech and it came out, and so it had a devastating impact on American leadership. What we haven't talked about today is that, in addition to the intelligence and judicial and political measures to take to defend against the interference in our elections, you and Chairman McCain lead another Committee. We have to keep funding the rebuilding of the U.S. military in Europe; I hope permanently station the NATO battalions in Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland, because we're into containment of Russian power. We're back into containment on multiple levels. And this hearing exposes one of those levels. Senator Reed. In that spirit, though, not only the reaffirmation of Article 5, but also a positive statement about the common threat of cyber against the United States. We missed one opportunity, but if the President could stand with the leadership of NATO and the Prime Minister of Canada and many other interested parties and make that declaration, that would do as much to stop this process as anything. Is that fair? Ambassador Burns. Well, it would, because the immediate threat now is this threat. It's the cyber attacks on the electoral processes. It's a much bigger threat than the conventional threat. He has the opportunity. He'll be in Germany the week after next. He'll be at a summit hosted by Chancellor Merkel. There are opportunities for the President to get back into this leadership role and to try to build some bridges with the European leaders. My sense is that Secretary Tillerson and Secretary Mattis want us to go in that direction. They've been talking publicly about trying to play a bigger leadership role, a more concerted one. Senator Reed. Well, thank you. Mr. Sarts, we have had discussions about the vulnerabilities of our electoral system, our information, social media, all of these things. We know, as several people have suggested, that they're coming back. From your perspective, are the Russians working on--you know, already working on, in our case the 2016 campaign and the 2018 campaign in the United States? Are they going to deploy more sophisticated cyber operations against our registration and electoral systems? There's been some reports, in Great Britain, within the context of the Brexit vote, that there was an attack on registration systems. And, I guess the biggest question of them all is, are they already there and we don't know it because of the ability to use some tools that have fallen into their hands? So, if you could. Mr. Sarts. One thing that we've registered, Russians do experimentation. Sometimes you see an odd pattern that is inconsequential in the given circumstances and you kind of dismiss it because it has no effect. But when you look forward or retrospectively when you see these cases, you see that has been the test case for a particular tool. So they're doing it right now. It's not necessarily that they test it in the theater they're going to deploy it. It might be a very different place. So, yes, there will be elaborate--more elaborate tools, both from technical, but also from a cognitive perspective. I would expect there'll be more. But I think the choices whether to and how to do that would be made pretty close within the contextual circumstances of the moment. Senator Reed. Now, your Center for Strategic Communication, are you actually dealing with this issue of, in Germany, for example, the upcoming election, trying to help them in the United States, trying to give advice? Is NATO taking the position, with we hope U.S. leadership, of proactively dealing with this? Or are you caught up in this kind of paralysis that we see in the United States? Mr. Sarts. Well, NATO is facing now this from a very different--well, not very, but slightly different angle, where the NATO is putting troops in the three Baltics and Poland. They are bombarded with disinformation, with fake news. Robotic networks are trying to attack. So NATO is taking different trends of response, capability build-up, practical steps, etcetera, etcetera. We at the Center, we are not part of the military structure. We are run by the countries that made our Center, so we respond to them; and if they ask, and they do, to give our advice, knowledge, or methodology, how they can counter specific cases, including election, we are there to support them. Senator Reed. Thank you very much. My time is expired. Thank you all very much. Chairman Burr. Thank you, Senator Reed. Thank you to all members for their participation today. And more importantly, thank you to each and every one of you. Your expertise is invaluable to us. Your testimony today is crucial, as I shared with all of you before this panel, at our ability not only to work through the current investigation that we're in, but to create a road map for the appropriate committees of jurisdiction, both at home to figure out how we can change elections to build defensive mechanisms or to make it less vulnerable and to work globally with our partners to make sure that any changes, any best practices might at least be shared and offered to be implemented. Just a couple of comments I've got. I was challenged from the beginning with the names today. I remain as challenged trying to figure out exactly what we do to stop Russian interference. But as we complete this process, I think we'll have a clearer and clearer picture. You've been asked today to submit some things. I would also ask you to think about the challenges that we've got and that you have in your respective areas of expertise and provide any additional input to us that you feel is pertinent to the decisions we'll make. Ambassador Burns, again I go back to something that you said and it's what Jim Comey said: Next time it could be the other party. As a matter of fact, when this whole effort started it wasn't targeted at one party or the other. I know you know that because you know the root of when this started, and it was a mere phishing expedition that probably encompassed hundreds, if not thousands, of individuals and nonprofits and organizations. It turned into a data-rich environment for Russia to be involved in an election. No question they would have been involved, but maybe not in the same direct way. They just happened to have accumulated the data. So right at the heart of it is this cyber security issue that the world continues to deal with and try to figure out what the silver bullet is. And the answer is there's not a silver bullet. The second thing is, I'm glad you admit it: You are a product of the State Department. And, you know, I can't envision the day that there would be a Secretary of any State Department that would be in favor of sanctions from the U.S. to a foreign entity because it's inherent that that makes their job tougher. But even though I don't think Secretary Tillerson is out there calling for Russian sanctions, I wouldn't expect any Secretary to do it. But there has to be--there has to be leadership. And I think that's what the world's crying for right now, is for leadership. And I hope that we do what we have historically done and we fill that vacuum, not because we're better at it. It's because I think as I travel the world, the world's waiting for us to do it because we provide a liability umbrella for a lot of countries. Because our elections have certainty and most other elections don't have the length of time certainty that we do. So there are things that are unique to the United States and we have to realize how that aids our partners around the world at leveraging that certainty of U.S. elections. So here's where I end up. I believe voters in Asheville, North Carolina and Houston, Texas deserve the same thing and that's to vote with no interference. Just as voters in Berlin and Paris deserve elections that have confidence that their votes and the integrity of their election systems are intact. As the Committee continues its investigation, it's increasingly clear that Russian activities fell into what I would refer to as a seam. It was domestic activity by a foreign power, so the intelligence community wasn't quite sure how to approach it. It involved what I might informally call pseudo- government, organizations and the political party, so that it confused our government's approach somewhat. Lastly, the intelligence community diligently avoids political issues. So that added to the additional complexity of this problem. Here's where we are today. This Committee's got a charge from the leadership and that's to thoroughly review Russia's meddling in the 2016 election. And the Committee has committed to finish that investigation no matter how long it takes, no matter what the results are. I'm not sure that Russia's involvement in our election will change much from our initial assessment, which was the ICA that was produced by the Obama Administration. But what this Committee can do and should do is to make sure that every American and every person globally that cares about the integrity of elections, reviews what we find, embraces what's needed to assure that elections are fair and there's no interference in the future, and that we collectively commit to make sure that we carry that out. So the Committee's work is vitally important to how this difficult time in our history ends. But I'm confident that we can come out of this with a report that not only spells it out for those of us that are members of Congress, but spells it out for the American people and our partners abroad in a way that can be understood and can be received with confidence. Your contribution today has been incredibly helpful to our ability to put that report together. With that, this hearing is adjourned. [Whereupon, at 12:40 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.] [all]

Committee Leadership

Tom Cotton

Mark Warner

All Committee Members

Recent Legislation Activity

Hearings & Meetings

Reports & Publications

Committee Resources