tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN March 12, 2014 11:00pm-1:01am EDT
guest: that is a terrific question. one part of the story we have not discussed yet is i called the nsa for comment. i said do you want to talk to me? i had written a book in the 1990's. i covered the crypto wars where about thea big fight encryption technology. for a long time the government fought it and fermented companies from exporting it. eventually they gave in. to go to thehard nsa and talk to them. in this case they surprised me. they said come down and talk to us. meeting with some
of the top officials of the nsa, including the director at the time, keith alexander. in talking about that, it was really interesting to see how they saw the thing, how they responded to it. they feel they are misunderstood. think like the caller before that the nsa is watching everything they do. one of the top officials who has has since said what can i do to convince people we are not looking at your mail or grandma's mail? in deed because of the secrecy, people do not know how expensive this is. they are upset about the degree to which we are being surveilled in the sense that information is being collected about us.
they said just collecting the information is not the same as collecting the information or this will help them in the subways of new york. people examine the claims and say that could have been other ways to got -- to get to it. in a sense, they have not come up with a lot of examples. the legislators have grilled them on this. i have talked to other people who have said aviators not really what they have stopped so far but what they will stuff in the future. host: talking to stephen leiby, editor at "wired" magazine. the author of seven books.
if you're interested in that. we will go to robert next, kansas city, missouri. independent collar. aller. caller: let me ask you a or then, the patriot act department or the sec, do they have anything in the revision that gives them the right to access your internet or phone there is this: court, secret court, the fisa court, in which it allows the government to get access to your records. not aspoena powers are stringent in some cases for foreign citizens and not existent in terms of what they can get. answer is yes.rt
not like for a u.s. citizen they can easily punch something in, there is the procedure they have to go through, and then they confronted in. i gave you a promotion, senior staff writer. guest: supposedly higher. give me a promotion. host: robert next. caller: good morning. you know, as far as the nsa is concerned tom i understand this all started with 9/11. and under bush's presidency. it appears president obama has take this into steroid mode. i also believe if you're not
doing anything wrong you should not worry. the more and more i hear about this, it worries me. irs, theurts with issue with the cia looking into etc., itmembers, bothers me. is this something obama ramped up during his time frame, and my last question is, how does this guest feel about eric snowden? i certainly feel he was a traitor. if he had issues, he should have went to superiors and addressed it. i would like to know what the guest feels about this and i will take my answer off-line. guest: in terms of president obama, certainly he did not thatd back the programs really came to fruition under
the budget administration. that surprised a lot of people. a lot of the supporters felt that was something that they would get with the administration and something they did not get with the administration. it was interesting to see. something happens to people when all of a sudden they are responsible when their defense about the terrorist act and they are the ones that do not want to theeld before congress or court of public opinion when a terrorist act occurs and says you did not do all you could. that affects them. one person i talked to was a person who works in the white house who used to work for google. what has been the person who would have tried to fend off the request from the government. now she works for the government and basically saying we are trying to prevent the next boston bombing. so this is why we're doing this. so i think that explains the complexities of why obama supporters are disappointed.
they still feel even in his january speech he did not go far enough in reining in the nsa as they would like. in terms of what i think of snowden, i feel it is complicated. on the one hand, i see the point in saying you cannot let everyone go in and grabbed huge bulks of classified data. the on the other hand -- but on the other hand, i think we owe him a lot in terms of generating the debate, and pretty much everyone admitted it may be a good thing for us to have the debate to know the extent to which we are getting this information, essentially -- essentially to protect us so we can decide if it is worth it. i think we owe him a lot, because of that. honest, i am not sure
whether a president should pardon him. the nsa itself floated the idea when i went on 60 minutes, but i service to some degree by letting us know what was going on. when i talked to the nsa, they made the point, they said why did he not come to us as a whistleblower at? there are examples of previous whistleblowers who have had a previous rough time. one of the nsa officials said to wrong we really were doing, if we were using this and abusing the information, the people who work here would not stand for that cometh they would go to the inspector general's office and there would be a line as long as disneyland blowing the whistle on us. has happened to
previous whistleblowers, they would be in for a ride that is much milder than anything in anaheim. host: can the u.s. government asked the problem for the company's? guest: specifically talking about the splinter net probably mentioned earlier. in a sense, and the government's hands are tied. one government official told me if the u.s. went to the countries that were threatening to blow off internet and say don't do this, that would increase their suspicions and would be more likely to do it. they say it is up to the companies to convince the countries they would be damaging the internet itself and herding their citizens in terms of giving them access to the internet if they went through with this. i also want to pick up on a point that the earlier collar made that said we are not doing anything wrong, we should not be were read. there is another aspect to the nsa activities that are worrisome. the nsa takes advantage of
vulnerabilities in the security systems. if you know anything about security systems, if there is a vulnerability, it will be exploited. so the nsa, every time it discovers a weakness in the private sector, it makes a determination of whether they are going to exploit the system to get information or whether they are going to inform the company that makes the system. there is a problem, you should fix it and people are not secure because of that. he discussed one example with me where they said we found the make -- weakness and was huge and could have gone to cop -- gone to town with this but it was so big that after discussion we decided to go to the company to tell them there was a flaw and you have to fix it. i thought it was interesting they had to have the discussion. host: the cover story for "wird magazine." you can follow his reporting on
twitter and wired. >> on the next "washington journal," we will be joined by vicky hartzler. we will discuss russia's intervention in ukraine with a democrat from ohio and founder of the ukrainian caucus. times correspondent michael schmidt on his story about hedge fund manager liam ackerman who invested money in the collapse of a nutrition supplement company. n washington journal" is live o c-span everyday at 7:00 a.m. eastern. you can join the conversation on facebook and twitter. health and human services
kathleen sebelius testified in wednesday about her department's budget request. you can see that online at c-span.org. here is a little of what she said. >> the question is for our families at home, what other delays should they expect in the affordable care act? are they going to delay the mandate that individuals have to buy government approved health care or pay tax? >> no, sir. >> are you going to delay the open enrollment beyond march 31? >> no, sir. >> is it correct you do not have the authority to extend that deadline, a position that the centers for medicare and medicaid have made, do you agree
with that? >> i have not seen their statements, sir, but there is no delay beyond march 31. >> my question is the law clearly makes the case that tax credits are available only to individuals enrolled in the exchanges. yet two weeks ago, and thatation, you deemd thed individuals who have not enrolled are eligible for those tax credits. my question is what specific provision in the affordable care act grants you that authority? >> sir, i can get you the specific site but the authority comes from the law which states if a person is eligible for the affordable care act and in the exchange process, then they are eligible for a tax credit. we have made it clear that if, through no fault of their own, they were unable to enroll that eligibility extends to a delayed enrollment, and they will have a special enrollment.
>> madam secretary, to be very clear the law is plain. only people enrolled in exchanges are eligible for tax credits. as the committee that handles the tax credits, we know the session well. so maybe you could -- >> i would happy to get you the statute. >> your experts are behind you. if you would like to ask them, please do, but there is no provision there. >> sir, i will get you this in writing. there is a provision that indicates that if a person is eligible, the eligibility in the enrollment process -- >> i guarantee you, madame secretary, you will not be getting us back that provision because it is not there. my point is, if you delay this long because it is not workable for businesses, why are you delaying this law because it is not workable for families? how is that fair? >> i'm sorry, sir. >> how is it fair that you delay
this law because it is unworkable for businesses of all sizes, but it is not workable for families? why are they getting the same treatment? >> sir, we have not delay the law's implementation across the board. the board, butoss for large and medium and small businesses. >> 94% of business owners are less than 50 and the law does not apply to them. there are 2% of business owners who are above the 100%. they have an additional year to fill a paperwork. >> madam secretary, it is just not fair. >> over the next several hours, several events on the russian intervention in the ukraine and the future of that country. interim prime minister yatsen yuk met with president obama at the white house. you will hear their comments in a few moments. in 15 minutes, the prime minister speaks at the atlantic council about his country's future. and then the senate foreign
relations committee marks above inl that includes $1 billion loan guarantees for ukraine, along with sanctions against russia. a couple of live events to tell you about tomorrow are in companion network c-span3. the senate banking committee hold a confirmation hearing for nominees to the federal reserve, the national credit union board, and the department of housing and urban affairs. that is at 10:00 a.m. eastern. secretary of state john kerry is scheduled to testify about his department's budget before the house foreign affairs committee. you cna participate i facebook and twitter. #cspanchat. >> i think what happens to hoover as the depression deepens and people did not know it was the great depression in the -- from day one, they thought it was probably a typical, cyclical
event, but when that pattern do not hold and when the depression deepened, hoover found himself facing increasing pressure from the left for greater and greater expenditures, greater intervention in the economy. and he started to hold the line against that and became very much a fiscal conservative, balance the budget, save the gold standard republican in the last year or two of his life. that perceived rigidity on his part is part of the reason that he got attacked as supposedly not doing anything. he was quite activist for his time, including some policies that might not have been all that effective. on the other hand, he was valiantly struggling against a turn, such as esau coming in the new deal. the missingsh on link in herbert hoover's memoirs saturday night at 10:00 p.m. eastern and sunday at 9:00 p.m. on afterwards. in a few weeks, a former defense secretary bing west will
take your calls and comments on the mideast and the wars in iraq and afghanistan. live from noon until 3:00 p.m. eastern. on booktv. club, jointh's book the discussion on the new biography of stokely carmichael. to enter the chat room. >> the european union has agreed to sanchez against those accused of violating the territorial integrity of ukraine -- including travel bans and the freezing of actions. reuters reports that the eu framework for his first sanctions on russia since the cold war is a stronger response than had been expected. german chancellor angela merkel said that the measures would be imposed on monday and less diplomatic progress was made. while that was going on, ukraine's interim prime minister was in washington for several events, including a meeting with president obama at the white house.
[inaudible] >> everybody ready? it is a pleasure to welcome prime minister yatsenyuk to the oval office, to the white house. i think all of us have seen the courage of the ukrainian people in standing up on behalf of democracy and on the desire that i believe is universal for people to be able to determine their own destiny. and we saw in the maidan how ordinary people from all parts of the country had said that we want a change. and the prime minister was part
of that process, showed tremendous courage, and upheld the principles of nonviolence throughout the course of events over the last several months. obviously, the prime minister comes here during a very difficult time for his country. in the aftermath of president yanukovych leaving the country, the parliament, the rada, acted in a responsible fashion to fill the void, created an inclusive process in which all parties had input, including the party of former president yanukovych. they have set forward a process to stabilize the country, take a very deliberate step to assure economic stability and negotiate
with the international monetary fund, and to schedule early elections so that the ukrainian people, in fact, can choose their direction for the future. and the prime minister has managed that process with great skill and great restraint, and we're very much appreciative of the work that he has done. the most pressing challenge that ukraine faces at the moment, however, is the threat to its territorial integrity and its sovereignty. we have been very clear that we consider the russian incursion into crimea outside of its bases to be a violation of international law, of international agreements of which russia is a signatory, and a violation of the territorial integrity and sovereignty of ukraine. and we have been very firm in saying that we will stand with ukraine and the ukrainian people
in ensuring that that territorial integrity and sovereignty is maintained. i think we all recognize that there are historic ties between russia and ukraine, and i think the prime minister would be the first one to acknowledge that. and i think the prime minister and the current government in kiev has recognized and has communicated directly to the russian federation their desire to try to manage through this process diplomatically. but what the prime minister i think has rightly insisted on is, is that they cannot have a country outside of ukraine dictate to them how they should arrange their affairs. and there is a constitutional process in place and a set of elections that they can move forward on that, in fact, could lead to different arrangements over time with the crimean
region, but that is not something that can be done with the barrel of a gun pointed at you. and so secretary kerry is in communications with the russian government and has offered to try to explore with his counterpart, foreign minister lavrov, a diplomatic solution to this crisis. we are in close communication with the ukrainian government in terms of how we might proceed going forward. but we will continue to say to the russian government that if it continues on the path that it is on then not only us, but the international community -- the european union and others -- will be forced to apply a cost to russia's violations of international law and its encroachments on ukraine.
there's another path available, and we hope that president putin is willing to seize that path. but if he does not, i'm very confident that the international community will stand strongly behind the ukrainian government in preserving its unity and its territorial integrity. let me just make two final points. obviously, because of the political turmoil, the economic situation in ukraine has become more challenging, not less. and that's why i'm very proud that not only as critical members of the international monetary fund, the imf, we are working with the prime minister and his team in a package that can help to institute necessary reforms inside of the ukraine, but also help to stabilize the situation so that people feel confident that in their daily lives they can meet their basic necessities.
we're also asking congress to act promptly to deliver on an aid package, including a $1 billion loan guarantee that can help smooth the path for reform inside of ukraine and give the prime minister and his government the capacity to do what they need to do as they are also organizing an election process. so i would just ask both democrats and republicans, who i know are unified in their support of ukraine, to move quickly to give us the support that we need so that we can give the ukrainian people the support that they need. and then, finally, mr. prime minister, i would ask that you deliver a message on behalf of the american people to all the ukrainian people, and that is that we admire their courage; we appreciate their aspirations.
the interests of the united states are solely in making sure that the people of ukraine are able to determine their own destiny. that is something that here in the united states we believe in deeply. i know it's something that you believe in deeply as well. and you can rest assured that you will have our strong support as you move forward during these difficult times. thank you. >> thank you, mr. president. and we highly appreciate the support that you have given to the ukrainian people. and my country feels that the united states stands by the ukrainian people. mr. president, it's all about the freedom. we fight for our freedom. we fight for our independence. we fight for our sovereignty. and we will never surrender. my country has faced a number of challenges.
the military one is a key challenge today, and we urge russia to stick to its international obligations, to pull back its military into barracks, and to start the dialogue with no guns, with no military, with no tanks, but with the diplomacy and political tools. on behalf of my government, i would like to reiterate that we are absolutely ready and open for talks with the russian federation. we adhere to all international obligations. and we as the state of ukraine will fulfill all bilateral and multilateral international treaties. on the economic side, mr. president, we highly appreciate the support of the united states and the decision to guarantee $1 billion loan for the ukrainian economy. you know that we resumed talks with the imf.
we do understand that these are tough reforms, but these reforms are needed for the ukrainian state. and we are back on track in terms of delivering real reforms in my country. as i already informed you, probably in the nearest future, next week or in 10 days, ukraine is to sign a political part of -- association agreement with the european union, and we want to be very clear that ukraine is and will be a part of the western world, and our russian partners have to realize that we are ready to make a new type or to craft a new type of our relationship where ukraine is a part of the european union, but ukraine is a good friend and partner of russia. so much will depend on whether russia wants to have this talk and whether russia wants to have ukraine as a partner or as a subordinate.
as i already indicated, we will never surrender and we will do everything in order to preserve peace, stability, and independence of my country. and we appreciate your personal support, the support of your government, support of the american people to the ukrainian people. thank you, mr. president. >> mr. prime minister, thank you very much. [inaudible] >> julie, we completely reject a referendum patched together in a few weeks with russian military personnel basically taking over crimea. we reject its legitimacy. it is contrary to international law.
it is contrary to the ukrainian constitution. i know that we've heard from the russian federation this notion that these kinds of decisions are often made in other places, and they've even analogized it to scotland or other situations of that sort. in each of those cases that they've cited, decisions were made by a national government through a long, lengthy, deliberative process. it's not something that happens in a few days, and it's not something that happens with an outside army essentially taking over the region. as you just heard the prime minister indicate, the people of ukraine recognize historic ties with the people of russia. the prime minister you just heard say, repeat what he said
often, which is they're prepared to respect all international treaties and obligations that they are signatories to, including russian basing rights in crimea. the issue now is whether or not russia is able to militarily dominate a region of somebody else's country, engineer a slapdash referendum, and ignore not only the ukrainian constitution but a ukrainian government that includes parties that are historically in opposition with each other -- including, by the way, the party
of the previous president. so we will not recognize, certainly, any referendum that goes forward. my hope is, is that as a consequence of diplomatic efforts over the next several days that there will be a rethinking of the process that's been put forward. we have already put in place the architecture for us to apply financial and economic consequences to actions that are taken. but our strong preference is to resolve this diplomatically. and as you heard the prime minister say, this idea that somehow the ukrainian people are forced to choose between good relations with the west or good relations with russia, economic ties with the west or economic ties with russia, is the kind of zero-sum formulation that in the 21st century, with a highly integrated, global economy, doesn't make any sense and is not in the interests of the
ukrainian people. i actually think, in the end, it's not in the interests of russia either. russia should be thinking about how can it work with ukraine to further strengthen its economic ties and trade and exchanges with europe. that will make russia stronger, not weaker. but obviously mr. putin has some different ideas at this point. we do not know yet what our diplomatic efforts will yield, but we'll keep on pressing. in the meantime, the main message i want to send is that we are highly supportive of a government in kiev that is taking on some very tough decisions, is committed to law and order, inclusivity, committed to the rights of all ukrainian people, and is committed to fair and free elections that should settle once and for all any questions
that there may be about what's transpired since former president yanukovych left the country. and the most important thing to remember is this is up to the ukrainian people. it's not up to the united states. it's not up to russia. it's up to the ukrainian people to make a decision about how they want to live their lives. that's what all of us should support. and certainly that's the reason why i'm so pleased to have the prime minister here today. >> thank you. appreciate it. >> prime minister --
was also at the atlantic council to discuss the future of his country. this is 40 minutes. afternoon, i am the president and ceo of the atlantic council. we welcome you to this very important event, i would say, historic visit with and meeting with ukraine's prime minister. the prime minister is coming to us directly from the white house and president obama. welcome to the atlantic council, mr. prime minister. us thank you for including
in your busy and important itinerary. we've assembled a very large and powerful community of influence here. to of you who would like spread the word, please use on twitter #acukraine. i also want to extend the word of welcome to your talented delegation, the foreign minister, the ukrainian ambassador to the united states with whom we worked enormous the closely, as well as several other of your officials, many of your staff we have worked with in one form or another for over a decade in different positions. it is a testament to the importance of your visit, of your message thomas and of your country that so many ambassadors, council board of directors and members of the press are here today. ukraine is under siege. this political crisis which laid out in cities across the country is not complicated by another
crisis -- russia's seizure of crime year in an effort to destabilize ukraine. the prime minister has risen to this crisis only two weeks in the job, he has already met almost all of his counterparts in europe and north america and has become his nation's point person in rallying the international community behind the united democratic ukraine. ed, president obama has sent a clear signal to the world of u.s. support for ukraine by inviting the prime minister to the white house on the eve of th e illegal referendum in crimea this sunday. shortly after the prime minister arrived in washington, g-7 leaders issued a hard-hitting statement calling for a halt of the referendum, saying they would not recognize the result is legal and saying "the annexation of crimea could have grave implications for the legal order, the unity and sovereignty thell states, should
russian federation take such a step, we will take further action individually and collectively." g-8 overching of the the years, i have seldom see such a strong statement. we have 15 ambassadors here, including the ambassadors of germany in the u.k., a very strong sign of solidarity. u.s. ambassador towords, ukraine, your call is now. the crisis to man's urgency and focus, but we must plan for the long game. the atlantic council has been doing both, acting urgently and planning for the long game. we have launched our own 100 day action plan which will take us through ukraine's may elections and into the first months of the
new president's term. this will be part of our larger commitment to continuing to work on ukraine at the council. thanks go to the members of the atlantic council board championed by george lund. prime minister, and now i turn to introducing you briefly. the prime minister was appointed prime minister on the very 27. he was a central galvanizing or and a keydan protests architect of the opposition strategy in parliament to ensure a peaceful, constitutional transfer of power in ukraine. he hccomes to the job prepared. from 2001 to 2003, he served as minister of economy of crimea. he led the ukrainian central bank and served as vice governor
, minister of economy and headed ukraine's talks to join the world trade organization. all before taking on leadership roles as foreign minister and chairman of ukraine's parliament, the rada. he is uniquely prepared to provide the steady hands during difficult times that ukraine now its manybalance challenges. mr. prime minister, welcome. the floor is yours. [applause] it is an honor to address such a distinguished audience cared usually people come here to make .ure it is much more important for me to listen to your advice and the .incere questions
this is a very dramatic time for my country. what is going on was unpredictable for me in on acceptable for the world. with no reason, with no grounds, past, and i still believe our partner in the future, started in incursion into the ukrainian territory. started to invade an independent and sovereign country. my country is facing both military and economic challenges. we still believe that the recent option to tackle this military crisis with the political and diplomatic re-- as the clock is ticking, these
as were,re not as big for example last week. but these tools are still on the table. urge the russian federation immediately to pull back its forces to barracks and to start real talks and negotiations. we as a new ukrainian government are ready to hold an open dialogue. these dramatice crises of the 21st-century. and this is not the crisis just between ukraine and russia. it's worse. this is the global crisis. case russia moves further, this would definitely undermine the entire global security.
and i am wondering about the goals of russia. to draw the new lines, to revise the outcomes of the second world war, to restore the soviet union or to preserve peace and stability in the regin? on? and to stick to its international obligations. on the half of the ukrainian government, i woluduld like to underline that we adhere to all, all international, multilateral and bilateral obligations. russian black sea deployment treaty. but we urge russia to stick to its conditions and to execute the international obligations. we are facing an ongoing economic crisis. of thes a consequence
rampant corruption of the former president and the former government. we do believe that the talks that we resumed with the imf would successfully accomplish -- we fully realize that the imf program is not a sweet candy, but on the other hand, my country desperately needs real reforms to stabilize ukrainian economic -- aul the entire financial intor and to move furhtether terms of economic success and economic prosperity. we relaunched and restarted ago she issues with our european partners. and we command a strong and solid support of the american people that you demonstrated to
e.u.ukrainian people of all member states, heads of governments and presidents that they made in their statement last week saying that ukraine is to be a sovereign, independent country. and i'm sure that next week, ukraine is to sing a political-- sign a political part of the associates in agreement and to make a very solid and strong step in order to make ukraine an integral part of the european union. the future of my country is at stake and the freedom of my people. it's all about freedom. and we want to be very clear -- we will never surrender. we will do everything in order tosave the country, in order
save my people, and in order to have my country as an independent one. rely on the support of the western world and we do get this support and we do understand that it's up to the ukrainian people to shape our future. the new ukrainian government is ready to deliver changes. we are ready to implement reforms, but you cannot do it having russian tanks and russian soldiers on your soil. very optimistic. i feel very optimistic, because you always need to believe. and i believe that we will find a solution, that we will tackle this crisis, and that we will do everything to make ukraine a prosperous and pro-european state ready for any kind of a&
q&a. let's get down to business. [applause] >> mr. prime minister, thank you so much for those remarks. i am the executive vice president at the atlantic council. i want to reiterate are welcome to you mr. prime minister and to our guests. thank you for those remarks. it is all about freedom. ukraine will never surrender. an inordinate sense of optimism in this time of challenge. i want to get our conversation started with a few questions and then we will turn to the audience. you have just come here from the white house. many of us were watching in real time as he were sitting there with president obama in the office getting a strong state of support from united states, your visit on the eve of the vote in crimea. in private conversations -- what
we are seeking on your visit to washington? how have your talks gone? do you feel comfortable that the united states and the european union are prepared to act in concrete terms in support of ukraine? everythingry to tell i can. it was very open and frank discussion. and we avoided all this diplomatic language. thatpreciate the support the american people and the u.s. president and the u.s. government and these bipartisan support that you demonstrated. and it's great to have the e.u. and the u.s. speaking in a single voice. the western world is determined to preserve ukrainian integrity and preserved ukrainian defenses. what we already got, we already
go a package of financial aid. it is on the table. both from --we need to butmplish the imf deal, the key factor is that the united states already announced $1 billion of guarantees for the stimulation -- stabilization of the ukrainian economy. and we got a very strong statement of the european union of the united states saying that they will do whatever they can to support the ukrainian people and actually to protect ukraine. i'm satisfied with the way the e.u. help us to handle this crisis. mr. prime minister, you said in your remarks that you would never surrender.
ukraine would never surrender. we've heard in many regards the strategy that you had on the maidan has become a strategy for ukraine today in this crisis. how do you see this playing out? what is ukraine's strategy? youour remarks, you said follow the peaceful diplomatic process but it is not inevitable that can continue. help us understand what you're thinking in terms of ukraine strategy in this crisis. on the strategy of russian. much will depend on the personal vision and stance of president putin. i would like to reiterate that free,ll want to have a equal and partnership relations with russia. hav --cannoto it do it having a military incursion. consider a military
option as the best option how to fix this crisis, no. in the new globalized world, we need to find out the better strategies. and i still insist on political and diplomatic tools. best strategy? the best strategy is to sit and negotiate. what is the best approach? for russia, just to stop and to calm down. >> so what do you think president who's -- putin's strategy is? how far is he willing to take this? is his calculation affected by what is happening in brussels and washington? >> it is better to ask president
putin, because it seems to me he is the only person who knows. there are different case scenarios. they made this incursion on artificial ground saying that the russians decided to protect the russian speaking minority. i was absolutely astonished with this. that is not only because my wife speaks russian. she does not need any kind of protection. [laughter] and my kids, too. we as a new ukrainian government will preserve the rights of all minorities, including russian speaking. and you probably know that in governmentays of new a law in the language was repealed by the president -- decided not to sign this law. and it means that the russian speaking minority is under the full copper has a protection. -- full comprehensive
protection. no grounds at all. another reason was so-called anti-semitic. not know putin does that this is the first government where a deputy prime minister represents the jewish community. then president putin said some stuff about fascists protesters. no evidence at all. we have a government who will fight anyone who claims something that resembles fascist or nazi. first scenario for president putin is to take over crimea in one or another form. but he can move further. and they definitely have another
case scenario. how to take over the entire ukraine. including the ukrainian capital. again, it all depends on his personal goals. you probably do remember his speech a few years ago saying that the biggest disaster of the last century is the collapse of the soviet union. the biggesthat disaster of this century would be the restaurant of the soviet union. -- the restoring of the soviet union. >> thank you, mr. prime minister. i think that is an important statement. let me ask one last question. kiev,just come back from and in meetings and walking through the streets of the maidan today, you feel an incredible sense of unity, steady result that folks
recognize that ukraine is in a crisis and needs to come together. we first had the opportunity to meet in 2004 and 2005. how is this time different? you recall the great optimism was undermined as inciting unity, ,as political jockeying challenge the efforts of good governance. how is this time a different opportunity for ukraine? how do you do your task right? >> very different, i would say. look what is happened. -- has happened. killed 101s regime innocent people. the death toll is more than 100 people. for what? for their fight to have the free country? for their freedoms and liberties? so the revolution of 2004, it
was a peaceful and. -- a peaceful one. the revolution of 2013-2014, in 10 years, this was the revolution with blood stains on the jacket of the former president and the former government. and sentiments of -- are very different. hand, peopleher are very united. people have shown their courage and their determination to fight for the country. signhis is really a great for this country. the territory after this revolution. we have the country and we have the nation. and this is the outcome. >> thank you, mr. prime minister. there are huge number of folks
quite interested in your country and have been working on it for a long time. let me turn to the audience. as i calling you, take that mike. we will start right here to this tournament. gentleman. introduce yourself and ask a quick question because the prime minister is on a tight schedule. go ahead. sir, you said you are interested in a political solution with russia. could you elaborate a little bit your vision of what a political solution might look like, and also under what conditions, what circumstances might there be a referendum in crimea or ukraine nationally as part of the political solution? thank you. >> thank you, sir. so first we need to start the dialogue and negotiations. we as thebout crimea ukrainian government are ready to start a nationwide i love how to increase the rights of autonomous the public crimea
starting with taxes and ending with another aspects like language issues. we are ready to start this dialogue, but the constitutional one in the ukrainian parliament having everyone sitting at the table, discussing every single issue and making each step in the constitutional manner, you mentioned the so-called referendum. pre-ordered referendum within expected result. it seems to me that they have already -- there is no legal grounds for this referendum at all. what we need to do, we need to pass a law in the house which allow so-called local referendums. only afterwards, this referendum could be a concert to show one. -- a constitutional one.
my message is clear -- this is an illegitimate referendum. there is no legitimate government in crimea. there are some folks who get the support of 18,000 russian zeddiers and who sei unconstitutionally and grab the power in crimea. >> that make it up to questions here. this woman. >> thank you so much. although you said it is unconstitutional, but as we know gettingerendum is i nearer. how would you solve this kind of problem within four days? and after meeting with president obama and john kerry today, what is the most difficult name in solving the ukrainian crisis? >> i will pick up the second question right next to her. >> mr. prime minister.
thank you for your stirring remarks. i want to fast forward a bit. if putin does not withdraw from crimea and moves westward, this could easily make crimea his afghanistan. could you comment on the prospects of an insurgency? there are reports of two -- jihadis moving to crimea. >> that is what we want to avoid. intost taking consideration that crimea is a heavily populated area. this could raise an ethnic question, too. reason why the ukrainian government is very cautious and prudent. they try to provoke as a number of times. duma allow the russian president to use military force on the ukrainian
territory, they expected us to do the same, to impose martial law and to start a military operation. we do understand the ratio in the military strike between ukraine and russia. i can for example, give you the numbers of facilities. 1 to 98, excluding the nuclear aspect. so i would like to reiterate again, we need to do everything we can. we, everyone. everyone in the world who wants to preserve peace and stability in order to avoid bloodshed. if it starts, there will be no end.
thank you. >> starting with the first question. it is not just about ukraine. it is about the global security. that in 1994,you the budapest memorandum emerged. with signatures guaranteeing the territorial integrity for the state. look what has happened. our nuclear weapons. we executed this memorandum. today, we ask for the protection. if we don't get the protection, tell me the way how the world is ask otherce or countries to stop their nuclear
programs. it is impossible to convince nuclearto halt proliferation programs. this is the global problem. it is up to all of us to fix it. election, the presidential elections -- they are scheduled the 25th of march. we are ready to hold free and fair elections. a number ofd that folks will do a lot of things to undermine the elections. uncertaintylay, and -- but the central election
committee is working. we amended the state budget. we are ready to hold free and fair presidential elections. international observers to observe the elections. believe -- i'm sure that the elections will be held as scheduled. on the 25th of may, the new -- not the new president, but on the 25th of may, we will have a clear sense of who will be the new president. questions and two then i will move to the back. in the second row. private individual. i would like to congratulate you
on rising to the challenge of the situation which poses a risk to ukraine, obviously. you and your government and the people as a whole have risen to the challenge. you and the nation recognize the risks. my question is, does the rest of the world, in your estimation, also risk a nice dish recognize the risk. not just a risk to ukraine but a risk to the stable world order. a risk that for bodes the ofsibility of the new wave aggression not just in eastern europe through -- but throughout the globe. estimation, do you feel the international community sufficiently recognizes what is at stake?
>> thank you. just pass the mic down. >> thank you. i would like to express my sympathies and support on behalf of my government. my question is, obviously, what we are witnessing these days is not the first instance where russia has violated international law. five years ago, similar events happened in georgia. my question is, what are the lessons learned for your government? in order to navigate in this difficult environment. what are the lessons to be learned by the international community from the events back in georgia to be more effective in this case? in this crisis?
wendell we take those and then i will move to the back -- why don't we take those and then i will move to the back. >> some folks sent me condolences. thank you for the congratulations. sacrifice, myo government is ready to sacrifice its political capital. in order to tackle this crisis. me personally as well. happens. it let me put it this way. conflict in 2008 in georgia, these are the nato.ations of -- map.
if you don't have a map, you have some the dalles. -- something else. like military aggression. for is the dramatic lesson all of us. articulate a real response to the situation. let's be frank. there is no cut response. desk clear cut response. we're trying to find a way out, how to handle it. the collective bodies responsible for global security are not as efficient as they have to be. in this way i use diplomatic language. back. me move to the jackson please the mic in the
back. this will be our last round. >> jackson, washington post. topping --u.s. are talking about adopting additional sanctions. is the government of the ukraine contemplating any sanctions towards crimea? are you planning to continue water, energy, and other imports to crimea? lot the -- we would like to know what you expected next week from your neighboring countries like slovakia, hungary, romania, and poland. >> final question from anders. from the peterson institute. thank you for a very impressive statement. we really wish you all the very vast.
-- best. what is the wish list with regard to national security that she would put to the united --tes and the european union you would put to the united states and the european union? >> on our ability to provide water and electricity to crimea, i want to be very clear that crimea is a part of ukraine. we will do everything in order to deliver food, water, electricity to our people. this is our territory. they are our citizens. on the european side, we expect that on the 21st, the ukraine is to sign a political part of the association agreement. this is the vest reply and answer.
for what answer -- contribution the eu could make. -- this would still essentially support the ukrainian economy. the vest way to reform the country is to stick to the agreement and execute everything in the deal. what -- western, undertakewe need to and acted boldly, wisely, and strongly. tools that are acceptable to tackle this crisis. country.is a powerful unity and canrong
and will, i believe, do everything to preserve ukraine and ukrainian independence. ukrainebe happy in case could handle this crisis. again, i want to be open and frank. and donot as powerful not have enough capacity to withstand, but if we speak in one voice, if we act in concert, we can save my country and preserve peace and stability in the region. >> thank you very much, mr. prime minister. join me in thanking the prime minister. [applause] >> thank you.
[applause] >> thank you for joining us.. please remain seated while the prime minister exits. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] the senate foreign relations committee has marked up a bill that includes $1 billion in loan guarantees for ukraine along with sanctions for russia. this is one hour and 15 minutes. >> of this committee markup come to order..
in my view, president putin has this calculated by starting a game of russian roulette with the international community and we will never accept this violation of international law. this committee and the u.s. congress have a role to play, which is why i am offering, along with the ranking member, the chairman's mark of this legislation, which includes the following components, because it provides for ukrainian loan guarantees, consistent with the announcement by the administration in recent days and mirrors the house bill. it provides for the obama administration to assist the ukrainian government to identify, secure, and recover assets limpinged to acts of corruption by viktor yanukovych or any other former or current members of their administration.
it assists ukraine and other states in central and eastern europe. it allows for additional sanctions, complimenting the president's recent order. it -- peace, stability, sovereignty, or the territorial integrity of the ukraine. terr integrity of the ukraine. it provides for charges against russians complicit in corruption of the ukraine. finally, it provides for united states -- which allows the united states to leverage significant support from the i.m.f. for ukraine today and for similar unforeseen crises in the future. now, as far as offsets, the i.m.f. reform section of this bill does carry a cost, and we have worked very hard to make sure we have a real offset.
c.b.o. has scored it at $315 million. we have identified offsets ropriators. app in some cases these funds are drawn from unobligated balances. in all cases, offsets were carefully considered, given the national security interests of approving the i.m.f. i want to say in conclusion, any support this committee, this congress, and our nation ultimately provides to the ukraine will be nothing new. it will abe long milestone in a long 40-year road of support. we need to stay with the their n people to help own people. corker thank senator
for his cooperation and his work so we could get to this today. >> mr. chairman, thank you for getting us to this point today. i hope we will have a very successful markup today and i look forward to this becoming law at some point very soon. you know, this bill, this piece of legislation that we're dealing with today, cements more fully 60 years worth of u.s. national interests, and that is nsuring that europe replanes democratic and free. that's what this legislation is about. we all know with the bucharest memorandum we signed a treaty that said we would ensure the sovereignty of ukraine when they gave up their nuclear weapons
when they were a part of the former soviet union. when they did that in 1994, we agreed that we would support their sovereignty, as did russia, as did europe. i believe we're at a defining moment now, and i hope that friends and allies that we have in the area are watching to see if we are going to do those things that are appropriate to ensure that sovereignty stays in place, and i think this bill absolutely meets that test and enerates that balance. as the chairman mentioned, these are paid for legitimately. i want to thank the chairman. i know this is one of the more difficult things we deal with in this process. as was mentioned, this bill has serious sanctions on multiple levels. as a matter of fact, sanctions we have never put in place
before. sanctions for economic dis torings. this is a very, very strong bill. members of the economy have made it much stronger. oan guarantee was discussed. i.m.f. quota reforms. let's face it. this is an issue that will be a little bit more difficult on our side of the aisle, i'll put it that way. this is something that's incredibly important. our nation agreed to this. ukraine is a poster child for why we need the i.m.f. doing what it needs to do in order to help transition ukraine, transition its government, travensigs the way it deals with fuel, transition the way it deals with corruption. i strongly support the i.m.f.
reforms. with that, this bill i think helps ensure we have significant geo-political effect on what's happening. i look forward to the amendment process we're getting ready to go through and hopefully passing a bill out of this committee in the next 30 minutes or hour. thank you. >> thank you, senator corder for a strong statement in support of the bill. let us get started. i have a technical amendment to get started that makes several technical fixes that do not affect the substance of the bill. i will go through these quickly. the earlier draft is -- two earlier amounts come from the offset for the i.m.f. reform without changing the total amount, and the word "act" in section 11 is amended to say the
plurp "acts." let's start off there with those technical amendments to the bill. does anyone want to speak to those? all those in favor say aye. no? the ayes have it, and the technical amendment is adopted, and therefore the underlying text now starts with that technical amendment. are there those that wish to offer any amendments? enator mccain? >> i have an amendment, number one. first of all, i would like to thank you and senator corker for the hard work and other members for the hard work you have
onsumer on this legislation. bject -- obviously there are issues that may be controversial, but the amendment i believe that is the support of our offices and the american ople, and i want to thank or competent staff for the effort they made on this legislation. i thank you. he amendment i'm proposing would give the president authority on targeted sanctions. that would be asset freezes and visa bans on the most corrupt officials in russia. it would be per misive and not mandatory. it gives the president discussion. it includes a waiver. did for agnitsky act human rights in russia this would do for corruption. it would not attack russian's
financial institutions, it would focus squarely on the most corrupt officials in the russian government and their close associates. the sanctions we have in this legislation are good, but we should not only focus on russian corruption in ukraine, we should target russian corruption in russia. we don't want to send a message to russian people that we care about russian officials' corruption in ukraine but not their corruption in russia. this amendment would provide the president with additional authority to impose further costs on putin if events call for it. this is a pro-russia provision. corruption is the most salient issue in russia today. it is what motivated the protests in ukraine to drive yanukovych from power. this amendment will say that putin may back corruption, but
we do not. we would tell putin's top cron ies and partners in crime that we do not sand for corruption. i thank you. >> thank you, senator mccain. would any other senator wish to speak to the amendment? >> let me thank senator mccain. as i'm sure the members of this committee know, this committee passed the minitsky bill that would have applied universal. it would not have been limited to just one country. it would have been applied to any gross violations of human rights anywhere in the world. if we had that bill passed in the form that passed this committee, then the president could act with the authority of congress if this type of episode occurs again. we hope it will not.
but we know that unfortunately e're seeing too often, world leaders and individuals commit types of actions that require united states to show eadership. senator mccain, i support your amendment. i was offering a provision to make these provisions global. after talking to the chairman, i have determined that could slow down the progress of this particular little, and it is critically important that we speak in one voice on ukraine nd what's happened in ukraine. i do hope we will speak to a
global minitsky bill. therefore that we cannot only give the authority of the administration to react to world circumstances but also involved congress so that we can have some degree of impact on u.s. action if this 0 kirs in the future. >> thank you. >> i want to thank senator cardin. he was the leader on the minitsky act. this act has already had impact for the good. i would like to consider pursuing under his leadership a global minitsky act and i hope the committee and its members will push for its passage. i thank you, mr. chairman. i want to thank senator cardin for his leadership in this regard. i thank him for his willingness to hold in this regard, and i share his goal and purpose, and we look forward to working with to make that happen.
any other member that would like to speak to this amendment? all those in favor say aye. nos? the ayes have it. senator paul. i believe we should send an unambiguous signal and message to the russians that their incurings into ukraine is unacceptable. i support the sanctions of the russians. i support the military and technical assistance. i have trouble with the loan assistance in the sense that the loan assistance i believe will be a gift and a benefit to russia. ukrainians owe about $20 billion to $30 billion to the russians. both private russian banks, as well as a couple billion to the gas entity in russia. bailing out russian indemocrat knit to ukraine i don't think is a way to punish russia or send a signal. in fact, i think it sends the wrong signal. there are other questions you
might ask if you are going to loan money to ukraine. i would ask for a show of hands of those who would personally bayou cranian debt. ukrainian debt is rated triple c minus. not one person in this room would buy it. in is not one expectation they can pay it back. ukraine is ranked as one of the most crument nations. corruption is one of the main reasons that the i.m.f. quit sending money to ukraine. i think sending ukraine loan money that will go to russia is not a great signal. and i think sending money without the precondition that we know this is a brand new government. this is a government that just came into existence with maybe many questions as to how they came into existence. we don't currently have a president in ukraine. there are some questions about
loaning them money. we have two billionaires from ukraine who have been recently appointed as mayors. i would be more inclined to loan them money if they would be first in line to put their name on the list of creditors of those first to call if the loan is not paid. so there are a lot of questions i have here. the question primarily is, if you loan money to ukraine, are you sending a signal or are you sending a gift to payoff russian creditors. my amendment would trike the loan guarantees and the i.m.f. one of the reasons for striking the i.m.f. reform is in the i.m.f. reform you would be giving russia an enhanced vote on the i.m.f. their vote percentage will increase by 8%. you will be giving russia more power within the i.m.f. with these i.m.f. reforms. so i don't think you are sending the signal you want to send by allowing russia to have a greater deal and greater power within the body of the i.m.f. really it should be going in the
opposite direction. billion owedto $30 to russia by ukraine. i know the impetus is to send a signal, but i don't think we are ending the correct signal by sevending loan money that will find its way very quickly into russia's hands. >> senator paul for purposes of understanding, you have amendment number one? >> yes. >> senator corker. >> first of all, i always enjoy hearing from my friend from kentucky. he always makes interesting points. i want to thank him for thinks divot on this bill. the russia quota expands further eforms from 2.5% to 2.71%. this was done to bring growing onomies into the i.m.f. in a
more appropriate way. so while that may be 8% of an increase for them, i just want to say to everyone, that 2.5% to 2.71%. and while russia may be a creditor, ukraine has lots of creditors. and somehow or another, they have to make a transition from where they are and in doing so in offering this loan guarantee the stated policy, the state department, that this does not happen unless they have entered into an i.m.f. agreement which would move the country hopefully toward these processes that we'd ll like to see happen. >> mr. chairman, do we have copies of the amendment? >> and mr. chairman, can i make ne quick response?
>> i think we have more leverage -- see, the question has been on both sides. there has been a lot of corruption. transparancy international ranks most corrupt the nations on the planet. we have more chance of actually getting reforms if the money is dependent on the reforms, rather than you get them the money and say you hope this new government will institute reforms. >> senator corker. >> let me point out, it is in our national interest to have strategic partners that respect the human rights of their citizens. ukraine has gone through a difficult part. ukraine is critically important to the united states. it is in a strategic location. it is very important to regional
stability. we have a lot of our native partners in that region. this is a very important country. the corruption that you are referring to was under the previous administration. that prime minister as you know is now hiding in russia, and ukraine is starting a new government, inclusive government, a government that will represent all the people of the ukraine. and it is critically important that they have the economic underpinnings so they can gain the confidence of the people. this allows for the international monetary fund to go in, do the necessary audits, put the country on the right path, and allow them to become a viable, economic country. the loan guarantees is part of a package. as senator corker pointed out, it only becomes real under the i.m.f. plan. otherwise, it doesn't become real. it is not just the united states
. it is the e.u. that wants to understand the importance of the ukraine. this plan is much more effective for the united states and the world community than the alternatives. this is a relevant stiffly small investment to get the type of strategic partner, stable partner in that region, which is important for u.s. interests. i respect senator paul's views on this, but i would urge my colleagues to reject the amendment. >> senator murphy. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. building on senator cardin's comments. with all the comment on crimea, what has been lost in the fog of this is the fact that only about two million ukrainians live there, and the fact of russia has predecember continued -- many have a at
chance to make good on their deal with the e.u. this is a matter of weeks before ukraine faces default. there is only one alternative to support from the united states and europe, and that is russia. if you want a guarantee that ukraine falls back into the russian orbit, then withhold aid from the united states and europe. i know it is never an easy decision to commit this amount of money, but ultimately this is a sign of russian weakness as they lose their foothold in ukraine the way we guarantee that continued path into the e.u. is to make sure that we are an option and that they aren't forced back to russian funding nd ultimately russian control. >> any other members? >> at the risk of being rundian ant, if we -- at the risk of
being redundant, if we allow the ukrainian economy to collapse, all kinds of bad things happen. i have confidence that the new leaders of ukraine are absolutely committed to erasing the corruption which has plagued that country and brought an otherwise rich country on the brink of economic collapse. i say to my friend of kentucky that the prime minister of ukraine is here, and i hope that he would have a chance to hear from him how dire this situation is. and it isn't just the $1 billion in loan guarantees. they need a lot more help than that. they are going to get $15 billion from the european union. it is a sign -- it is a signal, a clear signal, that this congress and this president working together are willing to help them and assist them at a time of the most critical need that they have. and frankly, if we adopted the pending amendment, it would send
exactly the opposite signal, and this whole situation in ukraine is extremely fragile. i would think the worst thing that we could do right now is say that we aren't going to assist you, and i also would point out again, i.m.f. loans, which is really the long-term solution to their economic difficulties as senator murphy pointed out, they require as ms to be implemented they give the money in traunches to this government. i have seen the i.m.f. in action before in these kinds of situations, and i am confident they would insist on the kind of reforms that are being promised now. thank you, mr. chairman. >> the member senator paul, i am going to recognize you for final comment, then i will have a comment, and then we'll call for a vote. >> you know, i think if you were a bank, and you were going to give a loan, you would have some
analysis of whether or not you can pay back the loan, what your are. i don't know that we've had any testimony on whether or not ukraine has the assets to be able to pay back any of this loan. so the real question would be, if we are going to be more honest, we would say, if we're going to do this, we just want to give them a gift maybe and not call them a loan. that would be much more honest. i don't know. if a person owes $150,000 on their house and their house is only worth $100,000, and they can only make payments really on $90,000, is it a good idea to give them more money? i don't know. i think maybe sometimes restructuring your debt and starting over might be a good idea, particularly if a lot of that debt is owed to the russians. really, the money goes to somebody. some very wealthy people will profit off of this. maybe not the people of ukraine, but some banks will get their payments from this, very wealthy countries, countries we are not very happy with will make profit
off this money. they owe $2 billion to russia. they owe another $20 billion to banks. it is unclear how much of this will find its way to government hands. realize when you give money to ukraine, you are giving it to russia. you may think you are sending one signal but i think you are in an unintended fashion sending another. >> i appreciate the senator's views. let me say the chair poses the amendment. the amendment strikes all loan guarantee he's, it strikes the i.m.f. reform. while it strikes that, it keeps rescissions that were originally included in the bill to offset the i.m.f. reforms. so it doesn't seem to me we should be having to keep rescissions if we were to adopt this amendment. there is no question for those who want to stand with the ukraine, for those who believe that in doing so is in the
national interests and security of the united states, for those who are concerned about security issues that it is the i.m.f. that is going to play a critical role, not only in the economic recovery and stability of the ukraine, but in doing so, playing a national security issue. it is also very clear that the i.m.f. is not going to give ukraine a single dime if, in fact, it does not meet a series of standards and obligations in order to do so. so our best guaranteee of ensuring both what has been stated on both sides of the aisle, which is to promote the stability of the ukraine because it is in our national interests and national security as well as obviously the people of the ukraine and to have the i.m.f. be the vehicle to be able to ensure that that happens in terms of the key role in developing an international assistance package to stablize
ukraine's committee, help implement critical reforms and reassure financial markets. with regard to the loan gaurptees in this part of the reform, this bill closely reflects that passed by the house of representatives 385-23. the one thing we do here that the house does not do is we actually have offsets to deal with the loan guaranteee. i think for all of these reasons i would urge my colleagues to vote against the paul amendment. i don't know if the senator is seeking a voice vote. does the senator accept a voice vote? all those in favor will say aye. all those opposed will say no. no? the "nos" have it and the amendment is not agreed to. any other member wishing to offer amendments? mr. barasso. >> i would like to call barasso amendment number one. page one, u.s. hopes boon in
natural gas, quote putin easing on ukraine. then "tightens squeeze on ukraine." my bill would allow liquefied natural gas exports from ewe tain to our nato allies. if we are serious about helping the people of ewe craven, we must extradite the process of liquefied natural gas. russia has no problem using its natural gas to intimidate and coerce other countries. the united states has an tun to be a supplier to l.n.g. and to our allies. this would allow increased energy and security among u.s. allies, help reduce their need to purchase oil and gas from countries such as russia and iran. as the international relations emergency in ukraine unfolds, it is clear exports from ukraine and other nato allies furthers
both the public interest and natural allies. it would help nations diversify energy imports in order to break russian dominance and their control over natural gas supplies. >> mr. chairman. >> senator corker. >> i want to thank senator barasso. he has been way before this crisis out there on this issue. i have a second degree amendment that i bheeve would bring this amendment more fully in mind with w.t.o. issues, which i am afraid that base amendment bumps up against. i know there are some complexities. i know we had a discussion the other day about l.n.g. and how you cause it to get to the place you want it to get to. i'm going to not offer the econd amendment, but i think
this may not pass. i will say to my friend from wyoming, i will vote for this, and as we move along, if it is offered again on the floor, we might work together to make this work better. but i appreciate the thrust, and for that reason i'm going to support your amendment. >> before i recognize other members, which i will, and i appreciate senator barasso's being a continuous voice in that regard. and there are other members of the committee that join him on that issue. committee know that it is the chair's intention not to rule on this because it is without of the chair's jurisdiction. this bill has been referred to the banking committee. i know the energy committee also has strong jurisdictional interests on the matter. our committee has not examined the issue. i certainly want to work with my colleagues who have strong feelings about the issue. senator barasso, senator mccain,
senator udall, and others, to build the record and to try to forge where we might be headed. but for right now, this amendment, which is, i believe, not in the jurisdiction of the committee. also i would urge it be set aside. if it were in fact to pass, we would ultimately have this referred to other committees, d we have the urgency, i think, of the moment. there is also a view that because we have that urgency of the moment that what is proposed on l.n.g. would not have an immediate impact for the ukraine because ukraine does not have the import infrastructure to accept u.s. natural gas. it does not currently have the wherewithal to build that, and turkey has atold ukraine if it ever did build l.n.g. structure, it would block them out of
safety concerns. we can have a debate about all of that, but above all, i don't believe that the amendment is within the committee's jurisdiction, and i also believe that we would also believe that we would delay the bill. senator boxer? >> i strongly support the bill. i am so pleased you have worked across the aisle with senator corker and all my colleagues to stand with ukraine. i have to say that this i'm type of amendment that will lead to increases in energy prices of up to 30% to our people deserves more than a cursory vote attached to a ukrainian bill. and for those of u.s. putting a price on carbon, we are yelled at every day because it might lead to a 20% increase in electricity. this is a huge increase. for all the reasons you've
cited, we can't today resolve all these issues. some day it might be a terrific idea and it might work real well, but right now, i want to help ukraine, i don't want to hurt the american people. so i hope we will table this, or perhaps it can be withdrawn. it needs a much longer discussion than we have time for today. and again, congratulations on the underlying amendment. chairman.ou, mrs. senator barasso raises an important and legitimate issue. we know that the ukraine as well as georgia, the balance ticks, the former warsaw pac countries and former soviet repics are all subject to extortion by vladimir putin and the russians as well as the european union, i might add, over the availability and cost of natural gas. he has played that card every chance he gets to put pressure on them. i think we need to ad depress
this. i won't rule out the possibility, but some of the questions that have been raised here. not just the environmental question, and the cost of utilities in our country, but we are seeing a mini resurgence of manufacturing jobs in america because of the low cost of natural gas. i think it is incumbent on us to ask the important question, what cost to the american economy will there be? how many jobs will we lose? we may create jobs in liquefied natural gas, transport facilities and the like, but how many will we lose in the manufacturing sector if the price of natural gas in our country goes up because of this decision? these are all relevant, important questions. i don't know how they will be resolved, but i think the chairman is right. this really needs to be brought to several committees of jurisdiction to make sure we have a thoughtful approach. >> senator udall. >> thank you, very much, chairman menendez. and let me just say, senator
barasso, the thrust of where you are going with this is a very good idea, and i support it. i think the support of l.n.g. is something we should be doing as a country. we have to somehow shake up the d.o.e. process that is going on. it is, in my opinion, going through slowly. several bills have been introduced. senator barasso, as you know, my colleague and our colleague mark udall, has introduced a bill that would improve exports of all w.t.o. countries from existing or future facilities. i support this effort. the volume will be determined by the price of gas and the cost of facilities. the gas will likely go where there is the most need. there is a strong interest, i think, in eastern europe given ssia's strong economic
behavior. last summer i joined a bipartisan letter with both democrats and republicans to support further l.n.g. exports, and i understand there is also bipartisan opposition to this policy. but what the letter said, and these are both democrats and republicans saying this, and it is even more true today, the world is hungry for u.s. natural gas. and the geo-political implications of l.n.g. imports are tremendous. what you are doing i would really like to work with you on, but i think this could derail this very important bill we're working on, so i'm going to support the chairman in terms of referring the jurisdiction and the ruling that he has made. hank you, chairman menendez. >> senator. >> thank you. because this has come up a number of times, i can see at least three positions on this committee and i can see at least one in the body. one the position articulated by senator boxer and it was also
articulated by senator markey. second, that we should be exporting l.n. g. it is a commodity, like all commodities. and a third opinion, which is mine, that we should export it in a limited way to accomplish certain national security objectives. if this bill were just about the ukraine, i might be willing to support it. frankly, there are three different positions about a pretty complex issue. i feel pretty strongly about my point of view, but i acknowledge faith re some other good arguments. i think doing it in the context of this bill when i hope we would send a strong message of support for ukraine i think would complicate it. i hope we will be able to get to that debate, because these three positions ought to be thrashed out. we should have the kind of debate senator marquis was talking about -- senator markey was talking about last week.
>> thank you. yeah, we need a timeout on this issue. we don't know enough to make an informed judgment in this committee on an issue which is fundamental to american economic security. and i think that the more people understand about this issue is the more reluctant they are going to become in exporting our most valuable resource, oil and natural gas. we're not in surplus in the united states us -- in the united states at all. we still import natural gas and oil. we're not in a squation where we should be sending this valuable element in our security overseas. as we export young men and women over to the middle east to defend the imports of oil into our country. that's a pretty big decision for us to make in a foreign policy context, by the way, in terms of what does enhance our security. last year natural gas prices
went up 27%. as a result, there was fuel shifting back over to coal. meaning our careen house gases went up 2% last year, went up last year, because of the shifting back to coal because the price of natural gas went up. that's a big decision as we talk about climate change in this committee. we have jurisdiction over any climate treaty. we should think about that. reach rk to america to its commitments to copenhagen on greenhouse gases in 2020, we have a responsibility to talk about that. we also have a responsibility to talk about the natural gas vehicle industry, and the utility industry, and consumers in our country as well. the more we export is the better it is. by the way, this natural gas is highly unlikely to ever go to the ukraine. let's just say that. pe we know they have plans --
they don't have plans to build a terminal, they don't have the apacity, and they -- the turks would oppose them even getting access to it. is is a highly flammable cryo-frozen fuel that would have a nuclear bomb-like impact if there was a terrorist attack. i understand tour turkey's objections, but ukraine is unlikely to ever build a terminal. moreover, as we look at this issue, we have to ensure that we think about american consumers. there has always been a debate over what impact -- our climate change bill would have on american consumers. well, this would have a dramatically larger impact than anything else that's ever been done. the energy information agency pretty much has concluded in its
statement back to the congress that if four trillion cubic feet of l.n.g. have been imported, it would lead to close to a $262 billion increase to american consumers. now, if we talk here about a $62 billion tax on consumers each year in any other context but national security, people would be outraged. and as i come from an energy exporting state, i understand that. but 31 states are energy import. they don't have any natural gas or oil. we have to import it. i understand the perspective of those states that export. but this is our most valuable commodity, oil and gas. it's not like a watch manufacturer exporting, it is ot like the kumkwat industry
exporting. if we're going to talk about a country that is not in surplus right now, the united states, or diplomatic reasons to be sending a signal, well, the signal is going to be for rio, seoul, beijing get ready to purchase this low cost natural gas. because as that goes out on the open market, our price goes up, because we have less levels, but the bonanza is in these other countries. and we have to talk about who the beneficiaries are in terms of manufacturing of our goods sold back to us. the control of this is not in the congress, and it is not for sure in the bhouse. the control is in the c.e.o.'s offices of energy companies in the united states. they are going to take it to the highest price. and the highest price by far is china, but the way, and japan and rio, going south and going east. but it is not going west to europe.
the hands on the tiller of those ships is controlled by rex tillerson at exxon, and he has a responsibility to his share holders to get the highest price. the ukraine can't compete and europe can't compete, and that's the bottom line. that's the reality of where it is going to go, but the reality is the american consumer is the one going to have the energy tax put on their shoulders and it will hurt all aspects of our economic growth. i thank you, mr. chairman. >> i urge members, since i am going to rule this out of order, that this may be a debate or another time. senator johnson. >> thank you, mr. chairman. senator markey mentioned reality. i have heard it repeatedly said that russia moving to crimea demonstrates its weakness. to me it seems like a pretty strong move. what i like about this is it highlights the strategic weakness that has allowed this.
e fact is, the west, europe, handing out oil, we need to recognize the reality, we need to weaken putin's hands and strengthen ours. long-term we need to have this discussion, this debate. again, that's what i appreciate about senator barasso's amendment. > senator sheheen? >> i thank asenator barasso for raising this discussion. i think it is a discussion we need to have. but given that your intending to rule this amendment, and i assume the other, out of order, i would hope we would discontinue our debate before we lose our quorum.
>> i appreciate the senator's observation. senator barasso. >> mr. chairman, i realize you have the power to make certain rulings in this committee, and i obviously disagree that this be put off until another day. amendments other that deal with the jurisdiction f the banking committee, reappropriating funds from the department of defense is not necessary -- not necessarily the jurisdiction of this committee. i appreciate the kind comments from the committee. many members of the committee have said they want to take real steps to help ukraine. i am offering congress a chance to help ukraine and our allies. the message we are sending now is we are more willing to protect russia's energy monopoly. the irony is not going to be lost on the people of the ukraine or the allies or the