tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN April 10, 2014 3:00pm-5:01pm EDT
chart that irs began targeting withrvative groups conservative-sounding names from march to april, 2010, and ms. lerner was in charge of that particular agency and responsibility. june 2010man issa in alerted irs. it was not republicans who really helped launch some of the investigation.al in february, we heard previous comments from -- february, 2012. the investigation actually started, and i penciled it in, march, a month later, the
inspector general began to review this matter. we now find that even mr. cummings who had made certain 2012cts at irs in august, -- again, the question before us is contempt against lois lerner. she was given the opportunity to come before us and she came before us the first time in may. that is less than a year ago. and she refused to cooperate and testify. we gave her another opportunity just weeks ago to come back and to testify. interviewedime, we over 30 witnesses. almost every one of them, and i will put this in the record, pointed to lois lerner. she started this whole thing out. >> will the gentleman yield?
>> i will not yield. .> the gentleman's time is his we will have regular order. the gentleman may continue. >> what she did is worthy of probably an academy award here and she went before the inspector general report was may -- in it was released may 14. on may 10, she did a broadway production. it was worthy of an academy award. -- when she said that, one of the irs folks who heard it, cindy thomas -- -- innati
it was hit by a convoy of mack trucks. that is what they said according to what she tried to produce. everything points at her and she has refused to cooperate. finally, what is this all about? of the mostt one fundamental abuses i have ever seen in my lifetime of trying to skew the election. she tried to skew the election and probably was fairly successful. hog tying conservative groups in this country. she said in the beginning that they proposed -- that it was a
problem. -- anelection day, we have e-mail, one of the ones we did get a hold of, that she opined that it was important for democrats to retain control of the senate. imagine if the other side -- this is about liberal groups -- the howling would never end. this is a simple procedure. she acted in contempt. she must be held in contempt and we must move forward. >> the gentleman who seeks recognition, mr. lunch? -- mr. lynch?
>> thank you, mr. chairman. i appreciate the opportunity to speak on the motion. this determination that ms. her constitutional rights -- let me go back and first speak to my friend from ohio's remarks. i stand by that. i think it is powerful when a department or agency of government brings that power down on the heads of innocent citizens trying to exercise their constitutional rights. i think it is right for us to be concerned about a dangerous situation like that, whether it is the irs coming down on political groups whose rights are invested in the first amendment, the right to free speech, the right to petition their government freely or whether those rights are in the fifth amendment. and give that individual citizen the right to stand behind the
fifth amendment protection .gainst self-incrimination today's proceeding is a contempt proceeding against that one individual. that is not the matter we have agreed upon, that this is a dangerous situation because of the irs conduct. we are talking about a contempt proceeding against a single citizen and whether they have exercised their rights and had those rights protected you >> will the gentleman yield? >> maybe when i get done. if i can get everything said, i will be happy to yield. it did warm my heart to hear the gentleman from tennessee eloquently site legal precedent -- eloquently cite legal precedent about the question of whether or not ms. lerner as an american citizen waived that fifth amendment right to be protected from self-incrimination.
however, it would have been much if wealuable testimony had had that testimony before she -- we decided she was guilty. we have already voted that she is in contempt. we have already voted that she waived her rights. and the first time we had testimony, through the gentleman from tennessee and a couple other members, is after we decided that she was guilty and she had waived her right. that she was the subject of contempt. that is backwards. my other colleagues on the other side of the aisle cited the 38 interviews that were conducted. however, when we tried to make those interviews public, the chairman refused. he cherry picked little sentences out of one or two or three interviews and made those public to the press. that is a political move. this is a political decision. this is not a legal determination by this committee. we have not had any --
we should have had a hearing here to determine -- we should have brought the best legal experts in america on constitutional law and ask them point blank, based on your lerner's 35f lois words, did she waived her constitutional rights? i don't think so. the vast body of legal testimony is that it must be a meaningful and purposeful waiver of her fifth amendment rights, and that we don't assume that lightly, because it is so important. but we didn't have that debate. we didn't have that hearing. we went a whole different direction. we denied the opportunity to have those transcripts made public. we never had this full and fair debate, some of which is going on now after she was found guilty.
she was put in a position where she was not going to testify. that was not the case. as we've heard from the gentlelady of the district of columbia, which is widely known on this committee, her attorney asked for a week delay. anybody who has practiced law in their previous life knows that is not an unreasonable request for an attorney to prepare, because he was out-of-town. this contempt vote if it goes down and passes, this will be laughed out of court. this will be laughed out of court. the chairman has so bungled this whole proceeding that it will just be a significant cost to the taxpayer and we will not be able to get to the bottom of this through this channel. it is unfortunate. because i think there is a when a powerful
committee works against the interests of the american people. time hasntleman's expired. we now go to the gentleman from ohio. >> 92 -- for recognizing me. i yield my time to cynthia lummis. >> the gentlelady is recognized. >> i think the chairman and i thank the gentleman from ohio four yielding me his time -- for yielding me his time. it is uniquely consequential to judge another american, a woman in a position of public trust, to be in contempt of congress, to have behaved contempt of lee -- contemptively. yes, lois lerner does have a right to remain silent -- a constitutionally-protected right, but lois lerner did not remain silent. her own e-mails refute and contradict her assertion before this committee that she did nothing wrong, that she violated no laws.
she spoke falsehoods to this committee when she said she did nothing wrong. she spoke to the justice department without immunity. i believe she did waive her fifth amendment right. it is often said that the power to tax is the power to destroy. that is why the american people must be protected from the abuse of that power. congress must intervene on behalf of the american people. lois lerner's own e-mails partisanher wrong agenda against conservative speech. that a former director of the irs, a job requiring the high-risk -- the highest level of integrity, a duty owed to the
american people to be fair and would conduct herself in this manner is something worthy of this committee's a consideration -- committee's consideration in this context. we all have heroes. the american people have looked at gangsters and thugs that were brought down by the irs because they didn't pay their taxes as the kind of people that we wanted to look up to, the irs using its power to tax to destroy the bad guys. to be the intimidator. , it is the irs which is the intimidator. the protector has become the intimidator, and it is our duty in this committee to protect the people from an agency that no longer protects them. committee is this
appropriately exercising its authority and power and duty to protect the american taxpayer, to stand between them and the abuse of power by federal agencies. hours. duty of we must conduct our work with the highest level of integrity, and that is why i appreciate the careful deliberations of this committee as to this very consequential subject. to have conducted oneself on behalf of the internal revenue andice with such dishonor disrespect to the very people who have entrusted you -- i'm repulsed by that. to befind our work today
conducted in a manner which the .merican people deserve mr. chairman, i yield back the balance of my time. >> the gentleman from ohio yields back. we now go to the gentleman from virginia. mr. connolly. .> thank you, mr. chairman .his is a very sad day for this committee, for the congress, and for the rights of all american citizens. and thethis proceeding words just other orwellian only begins to touch the surface of the process that has characterized this proceeding for the last year.
we can stipulate that lois ,erner is not a heroic figure and all of us would like to know more about what she did and what thataid and why she did it is -- did it. that is not the issue before us today. non-heroic figures, especially with non-heroic figures, did the bill of rights encompass the right of every ,itizen, even an irs employee to avoid self entrapment? mr. jordan, our friend from myo, cited james madison of state of virginia. he is right. james madison put a lot of believe in the power of congress and felt like that is where it belonged. he believed the house of
representatives kind of trump even the courts with respect to interpretation of constitutional issues and legislation. same james madison had to be persuaded and was persuaded as the very first act in the first congress, to adopt a bill of rights. there could have been 100 enumerated rights. they enumerated 10. and the fifth one was the right against self-incrimination for a reason. what had characterized colonial times and what characterized, frankly, british 17th century jurisprudence, was -- somebody's words can be used against them -- >> in a partyline vote, the committee voted for the contempt of congress citation against lois lerner. that now goes to the house floor. you will see this later on our
program schedule and also at c-span.org. that is senator chris murphy of can -- of connecticut, the chairman of the subcommittee on european affairs of senate foreign relations committee they are looking at transatlantic security issues, focusing on areas like ukraine and their hearing is just getting underway. >> we are in a quorum call to try to figure out a path forward with respect to vote on the floor of the senate. senator johnson and i have managed to escape that quorum call, but others of our colleagues are likely caught on the floor. we may be joined by a few others, but we decided to move forward with the hearing, notwithstanding some of the activity on the floor. today on hearing transatlantic security challenges in central and eastern europe. i would like to, our witnesses today on our first panel. we have to have people who are no strangers to this committee. this is an secretary of state victoria nuland and assistance. defense -- and assistant secretary of defense.
on the second panel, we will hear from -- i will introduce them later. russia's invasion and illegal annexation of crimea has called into question one of the key assumptions and underpinnings of 21st century transatlantic security strategy, that russia no longer poses a security threat to the alliance and that the main challenges facing the allies emanate from beyond the euro atlantic region. the winding down of the afghanistan mission has led many to wonder if nato, which has been the cornerstone of transit lannett reliance, would cease to be -- of transatlantic reliance, would cease to be relevant. instead, russia's belligerence may serve to reinvigorate the alliance. nato has stood the test of time. mr. putin has ensured that it will continue to do so. the most immediate security challenge in europe is the presence of tens of thousands of troops amassed on russia's borders with ukraine. it is clear that resident putin plans to -- it isn't clear that president putin plans to invade
or send advance teams to destabilize ukraine until a friendly government can be installed in kiev. in addition to calls for increased this -- defense spending and the need to prioritize territorial defense, this is increasingly at the center of this defense when we talk about security vulnerabilities in central and eastern europe. we called this hearing to get an update on the response to the crisis in ukraine and to discuss how the united states and our allies handed her further russian aggression, reassure our allies, and continue to help countries in the region become strong, prosperous, independent democracies. the goal of our strategy must remain as always to make europe whole, free, and at peace. let me suggest a few unequivocal steps we can take to increase security. an increasedt of nato response, i think the
united states should consider increasing troop levels in the region. secretary hagel has already said that a third brigade is being considered. it is time for the united states to reevaluate our historically low u.s. or strength in europe. even a small increase will send a clear message to our friends and adversaries. a tripwire has the same effect as offense. it makes for more stable, neighborly relations. second, the united states and our european allies should zip -- should suspend arms sales to russia. i've done with my colleagues to call for our government and the relationship with the russians -- with the russian weapons agencies. now is the time for nato to approve a membership action plan for georgia. fear has divided our allies in the past, imagine the message
that it will send to mr. putin that not only will he achieve his objectives through threats and bullying, but that it is actually counterproductive. --ope that the prior ash the i hope the administration will make a map for georgia priority at the upcoming summit. >> when we were over in ukraine we saw the very sobering situation there. we have to face the pretty harsh realities. tough talk is fine. that you are laying out some concrete actions we could take to change vladimir putin's calculus. we need to deter vladimir putin. we need to do that in a very forthright and result way -- and resolved way.
making sure that ukraine is successful is the best long-term strategy. we have a short-term problem. we need to change vladimir putin's calculus now so he doesn't go any further. we appreciate you coming here to provide that testimony. >> both of our witnesses are well known to the committee. i won't trouble you to read you your own bios. we will start with secretary newland -- nuland. >> thank you, chairman murphy, ranking member johnson. i'm honored to be here today to testify on the security challenges facing the transatlantic community in central and eastern europe. before i do that, i want to take the opportunity to congratulate my friend and colleague, the assistant secretary, on the arrival of the newest member of his family. for over 20 years, the united states and our european allies have worked to integrate russia more closely into the euro
atlantic community through our bilateral organization and organizations like the wto and the nato russia council. that russia's actions in ukraine over the last month are an affront to this effort and fundamentally change the security landscape of eastern and central europe. i appreciate the opportunity to discuss the impact of russia's actions on ukraine, our policy response to that action, and other challenges in the region. ,ussia's occupation of crimea conducted at the barrel of a gun, has tarnished its credibility and diminished its international standing in the eyes of ukrainians and of the world. this week's violent occupation of buildings deepens our concern. today, ukraine is a front-line state in the struggle for freedom and all the principles that the transatlantic community holds dear. the united states stands with ukraine in its effort to forge
its own path forward to a more peaceful, free, and unified future. we are very grateful to the members of this committee, including our chairman and ranking member, for their attention to ukraine and their travel and support for the people of ukraine. our policy approach includes four basic pillars. first, i lateral and multilateral support for ukraine. second, the costs we are imposing on russia for its aggressive actions. third, our efforts to de-escalate diplomatically. and forth, our commitment to the unwavering security of our nato allies who also live on the front lines of this crisis. let me address the first three. the assistance every -- set -- the assistant secretary will address the fourth. they have passed landmark deficit reduction efforts and
taken difficult steps to reform the energy sector. many of these will be painful for the ukrainian people, but they are absolutely necessary and they open the way to an imf package of up to $18 billion of support. $1 billionstates own loan guarantee will help implement some of these reforms and help cushion the impact on some of the most vulnerable members of ukrainian society. we thank the congress for that loan guarantee. we are also using more than $100 million in bilateral support to assist ukraine in strengthening anticorruption efforts, improving transparency, and helping the ukrainian people prepare for free, fair elections . second, russia is paying a very high price already for its actions. that cost will go up if its pressure on ukraine does not abate. sanctions that we have already put in place are abiding -- are biting. we are considering further measures in response to russia's
continued pressure on ukraine. at the same time, we've -- we want to try to de-escalate the situation to ms. -- diplomatically if at all possible. the russians have agreed to sit down next week in a quadrilateral format, including ukraine, the eu, and the u.s., discuss -- to discuss the ds collation, demobilization, and support for reform. we will see how that session goes. we are also concerned about the pressure this crisis is putting on moldova, georgia, armenia, azerbaijan, and other neighbors of ukraine. moldova in particular has been the victim of economic pressure from russia, intense russian sponsored propaganda against its choice to associate with the eu, and renewed separatist efforts. we are very grateful that you, mr. ranking member, are going to travel next week -- or this weekend to moldova. they will very much appreciate support. we have intensified u.s.
political and economical support to moldova and other states in the region in recent months and this effort will be sustained. the ukraine crisis highlights another deep and growing challenge in the euro-atlantic space. the maidan protesters had many grievances. one of the most galvanizing across ukraine was the pervasive corruption that has infused every aspect of ukraine society, economy, and politics. as secretary kerry highlighted at the munich security council is -- conference, we are seeing a similar disturbing trend to too many parts -- into many ,arts of europe and the balkans where the aspirations of citizens are being trampled beneath corrupt, oligarchic interests, who use their money and influence to stifle political opposition and dissent , to buy politicians and media outlets, to weaken traditional -- traditional independence and the rights of ngos. we are seeing politicians
working together, including across nationalist -- international lines to keep the cash flowing that feeds their preferred oligarchical system. corruption of this kind doesn't simply rocked democracies from t democracies roc from the inside. it makes them vulnerable to influences outside. ofother words, in many parts europe, fighting corruption needs to be a higher national priority in order to protect and defend democracy and protect and defend state sovereignty. as we look to shore up security prosperity -- security, prosperity, and the values that -- vital, fighting corruption must be a more central line of effort, and it will be for rpo going forward. the ukraine crisis is a wake-up call to accelerate other work we've been doing to promote a stronger, more prosperous
transatlantic community. discuss --etary will the assistant secretary will discuss, there is a renewed need for vigilance along ukraine's eastern border. european allies must reverse the downward trend in their defense budgets. as we revitalize the transatlantic security tight, they must also strengthen our economic ties and accelerate the growth and job creation on both sides of the atlantic by completing an ambitious, transatlantic trade and investment partnership agreement. as you said, mr. chairman, we must do more together as a transatlantic community to strengthen europe's energy independence and its internal energy market, including by guaranteeing reverse flows of energy, ensuring greater diversity of supply, and building interconnector's throughout the continent. this crisis has intensified our focus, not just on central and eastern europe, but on a broad set of transatlantic security challenges and opportunities on the road to a europe whole,
free, and at peace. we are very grateful for the bipartisan and very active support of this subcommittee and the whole committee in that effort. i look forward to your questions. >> thank you. -- thank you for having me here today to discuss the security challenges we face in central and eastern europe and how it can work to strengthen our allies there. after russia's collegial -- illegal actions in crimea, the united states has taken action to reassure our partners. air policingthe mission. we deployed aircraft and personnel to poland to supplement the u.s.-poland aviation detachment. we extended the truxton stay in the black see to commence exercises with bulgaria. we will deploy another ship next a to builde black se interoperability. its -- asked
with its allies, the united states wants to ensure a continuous, augmented presence along nato's borders at least through the end of the year in the air them on the ground, and at sea. in addition to reassuring our allies, we have taken prompt action to support our nato partner, ukraine. the department of defense is working with ukraine to review come a prioritized, and -- to review and prioritize its requests. the first round was completed last week with the delivery of 300,000 mr ease to support ukrainian forces -- 3000 mr e's to support ukrainian forces who have been in the field. we worked hard to accommodate this request probably. the united states has also maintained senior-level dialogues with ukrainian counterpart throughout this crisis. just last week, we had a senior d.o.t. team in kiev for defense talks. this morning, secretary hagel talked to his ukrainian counterpart iphone. the it ministration is also
exploring ways to support and reassure other -- counterpart by phone. the administration is also exploring ways to support and reassure other partners, including moldova. russia's illegal military action against ukraine challenges our vision of a europe whole, free, and at peace. as the nato secretary general said during his recent visit, this is the greatest threat to european stability since the cold war. nato has played a critical role. president obama reaffirmed during his recent trip to europe that our commitment to nato is -- more simple it -- forced is the most important element to national security. this alliance is the organizing framework for allies to work together to manage crises. it provides an integrated military structure to support alliance political decisions to take actions and it represents our common values. collective defense remains the essential glue that holds the alliance together.
keeping nato strong is critical to ensuring the alliance is prepared to meet the nearly continuous crises it has responded to over the past two decades. ukraine incursion into underscores this point, and it comes at a critical time. allies will have to balance multiple competing issues and priorities. we must transition the alliance from its combat mission in afghanistan, nato's largest and most complicated mission ever. we must work to strengthen the relationship between nato and its most capable partners who have contributed to alliance efforts in places from libya to afghanistan. third and perhaps most important, we must re-energize the political will of our allies to invest in defense capabilities. this will not only demonstrate unity and resolve, but also allow the challenge -- allow the alliance to meet the challenges of today and tomorrow. too many allies have cut spending, including defense
investment and force structure. the ukraine crisis serves as a clear point for why we need nato allies to step up. russia's action in the ukraine only remind us of the importance of the transatlantic alliance and the benefits that come from many years of investment to ensure that this remains strong, that this investment spans across administrations of both parties and many years of congressn support from has been indispensable. simply put, if nato didn't exist, we would have to invent it. as we head to the summit, we will look forward to working with this committee to do everything we can to strengthening the transatlantic partnership. >> i will start with you secretary -- you, secretary chollet. i would like you to respond to the three points i made during the opening statement, that now is the time to mount a serious
defense in congress as to why we need syria's -- why we need serious troop presence in europe . i voted on a number of amendments to follow out the remaining force -- to hollow out the remaining force in europe. obviously circumstances have changed. as you look at the troop numbers that deployed throughout europe over the course of the decade, understanding that sequestration is still a reality, what is dod's thoughts? noted inairman, as you your opening statement, secretary hagel said a few days ago that what we are looking at .s our troop presence in europe it has gone down significantly over the last two decades. we've got about 57,000 or so troops permanently stationed in europe. the general was tasked just last week to come up with some further reassuring steps we may
take with our european partners to help reassure our central and eastern european allies, steps that we would take as member -- as members of the nato alliance. he will be reporting on some of that planning next week. i don't foresee major changes in our permanent footprint in europe. i think that what we are trying to explore our ways that we can are ways -- explore that we can leverage these investments, which is a ,elatively modest investment but very significant for our polish partners, transitioning to help with their training and ways we can augment and build on that. it is a way we can have a forward presence, work closely with our partners, help build their capabilities. beingl also focus efficient in these budget
austere times. >> poland has requested two nato pertains. what is the -- two nato brigades . what is the condition? >> we will wait for the assessment. >> the second point i initially made was regarding military sales with russia. difficult to understand how the french could continue to sell ships to russia that are identical to the ones that were used in the illegal invasion and occupation of crimea. do we think that our european allies are serious about ending military relationships or curtailing military relationships with russia in the wake of this crisis? >> senator, it is something that we have very frank conversations with our european colleagues about review the mentioned also the -- about. you mentioned also suspending the sales and sanctions. the president has signed an executive order giving himself the authority to do those sorts
of things that we would consider. we haven't done that yet. we have the authority to do so. defense,tment of department of state across our government have had very frank conversations with our french colleagues in particular about the way forward in their relationship with russia. >> i will ask this one first to you, secretary chollet and then -- secretary chollet, and then secretary nuland as well. let me ask you specifically with respect to the question of enlargement. i understand the position that georgia is in. i know they have some serious steps still to be taken before they are a candidate for full admission into nato, but a membership action plan could have a lot of steps and caveats and hoops to jump through. it would seem to be a very to russia and to
our allies that we are serious about keeping the open-door policy in nato if we were to give a map to georgia. i know there are other countries interested in getting that status. if you could comment generally on the issue of enlargement and then specifically to georgia. >> i will take the first answer and then in -- then turn it over. the door remains open. we support the georgian ambitions. and u.s. government perspective, georgia is a terrific partner. they are in the fight in afghanistan without caveats, taking risks. they have committed to remain with us post wedding 14 in afghanistan. in afghanistan. they are a very strong partner. we are supportive of the
membership action plan. we have expressed that. this is an alliance decision. it is not a decision the united states will make a loan. we work closely with our georgian partners -- will make a loan -- will make alone. we work closely with our georgian partners. hass ever, derek articulated beautifully to say that the georgians are well aware that they do not have consensus in the alliance and that they have work to do to convince some of our western european allies of their worthiness for the membership action plan. we have been supporting them as they make this case directly to individual allies. that happens very soon for georgia is it is on track to sign its association agreement with the european union, which will deepen its relationship with many of these same countries. a are hopeful that will have
positive impact on how they assess its worthiness from that. >> i will stay outside ukraine and maybe use a quick second round to talk about ukraine to do you were justin moldova -- about ukraine. you were just in moldova. as we try to learn from the things that we could have done or that the alliance could have months ukraine in the and years leading up to this crisis, which i'm not suggesting anyone could have foreseen what do you think are the most important steps to strengthen the transatlantic alliance with moldova to send the right message to russia and to perhaps prepare them for the potential of some kind of offensive action from russian -- >> we have intensified our collaboration and cooperation with moldova. secretary kerry was there in december. as you said, i was there again a
week ago sunday. our primary effort with moldova has been to support their preparations for an association agreement signing with the andpean union and the deep comprehensive free-trade agreement. both of these will strengthen their trade and travel and links to europe and give them more options than simply the russian market. we are also working intensively with them on energy security and alternative sources. we are investing with the european union in inter-connectors with romania. we are also helping them diversify their trade markets. they are trying to influence -- import some of their spectacular wine, which i hope you will sample, into the united states. we have linked them up with a number of key u.s. distributors. we are also helping -- they have ability a challenge compact -- they have ability and challenge
compact -- they have a millennium challenge compact. supporting their past two elections -- their path to elections as well in the fall, a very important set of elections for them. we are also trying to help them -- one of the things that was somewhat distressing on my last trip there was very strong support within moldova for tighter links with europe, but the russian propaganda effort has been particularly vierling -- particularly virulent in the russian speaking areas. they have not explained the benefits of what it will feel like when citizens can have visa free travel to europe, carefree export for goods -- tariff free export for goods.
a job that needs more attention. we will put more effort into it ourselves. >> i hope our friends in brussels heard your answer to that last question. there's nothing untoward about advertising yourself. we know the russians don't play by the same rules that we do. the fact is that in moldova battle for the a hearts and minds of the people as to whether they are going to orient towards europe or back towards russia. the fact is that du is not doing a good enough job in moldova, e.u. is notthe doing a good enough job in moldova, nor in ukraine. the russians are spending money to tell a very different story. air is a propaganda war being fought. only one side is truly at a high
level of fighting it. he can certainly be partners in that. ultimately, this -- we can certainly be partners in that. senator johnson? >> let me pick up in terms of the propaganda war. i agree it is basically one-sided. are we doing anything to provide the alternate view and try and provide information not only in moldova but also ukraine and the other baltic states? >> and has been a major line of effort -- this has been a major line of effort led by secretary kerry and supported by the president. one cannot match the kind of money and effort in a closed society that russia is putting into this, but we can certainly help our friends and partners , get the straight story out.
we have directed a great amount of public diplomacy funds to mounting our own truth telling campaign, which we are pushing russian, allian, of the european languages, also states and across allied territory. we have a number of products we have mounted to the new united for ukraine campaign on twitter. please link up with that. that was started at the state department and now has many thousands of users and repeat tweeters. we ever product called the daily playbook where twice, three times a week, sometimes daily we put out all the positive news about what is happening in ukraine. falsehoods from the russian federation, including this most recent one where they accused the u.s. company of having mercenaries across ukraine. when we called the company, they made absolute clear that no such thing was true and that this was
something put out on a foreign ministry website in russia. we are doing a lot. additional $3.3 million into support for the ukrainian government itself. we will redirect some money to moldova as well. >> what about broadcast media? tv, radio? it came to our attention there was a tv broadcast that was for sale and could have been purchased. is there any expenditure being made to widen our building -- ability to broadcast? >> we are supporting ukrainian broadcasting companies that are broadcasting in both russian and ukrainian. we are also supporting the media center that the transitional government has set up, to help them exploit available opportunities for broadcasting. we have not looked into buying tv ourselves.
i'm not sure that is the best use of resource. rather, we are trying to partner with folks in ukraine and in europe who are active in this space. >> secretary chollet, congratulations on the new addition to your family. you mentioned secretary hagel talk to defense officials in ukraine. can you tell me what that conversation was about? >> he's had many conversations in the last several months with his ukrainian counterpart, i should stress counterparts. i think this is the fourth defense minister he has talked to in the past several months. this is to ensure we have, at of highest level, a channel communication throughout this crisis, so we can hear from them directly about their needs and ways we may be able to help. >> are they specifying needs? >> yes and no. they -- ukrainian military is not an
extraordinarily capable military before this crisis. been ineen -- it has the field and deployed under quite significant hardship over the recent weeks given russia's behavior. the most urgent need they have n intified to us have bee the more nonlethal, humanitarian and medicalmre's supplies in particular. we are working to accommodate those requests. >> when the prime minister was here, i know he made a request for small arms and ammunition, which i know was turned down. part of the rationale was we didn't want to do anything that could provoke vladimir putin. this was before the vote and the annexation. i guess he didn't need any provocation. he just did it anyway. are we rethinking our willingness to help ukraine militarily from the standpoint of those supplies, the small arms munitions they requested back then? >> we are constantly in dialogue
with them about what they may need. this team that was in camp last week was a discussion that was already planned. >> dialogue is great. are we rethinking whether or not we are going to provide the types of support they requested and actually need if vladimir putin moves further? >> yes, but the priority right now -- their own prioritization they presented to us is mainly nonlethal at this point. as we are looking out of this immediate crisis window we are in and thinking of the medium to long term, which is what we talked about last week in k iev, as they seek to modernize and professionalize their military -- efforts we have been working closely with them on long before this crisis. and they still have a long way to go on professionalization and modernization. >> you mentioned nato is augmenting their presence along the borders. what does augmentation mean? how many personnel? >> we can get you the exact numbers of total nato personnel.
from the united states perspective, in poland, the upgrade bytachment adding some aircraft to that detachment, i think a couple hundred folks have added to that . similar with the baltic air policing mission. it is a handful of folks. part of what general breedlove will be coming back to nato and briefing next week is his proposals for the medium to long ,erm, for the rest of this year how, whether by air, land, and sea, nato and our other allies can possibly be -- >> currently, our response to the russian troop buildup of tens of thousands -- hard to say what the exact number is, but tens of thousands of russians troop -- russian troops buildup along the eastern border of ukraine is a couple hundred and dozens. does that -- do you really think that will change vladimir
putin's calculations question mark >> -- calculations? we have been seeking with our allies -- >> isn't it true that russian officials mock the sanctions? >> secretary kerry said there was some chatter of mocking. these sanctions pinch. as the president made clear when he announced the latest round of sanctions, it is not the limit of what we can do. there are further things we can furtherit is clear the we go, the greater ramifications it could have on us. that said, we've made very clear to the russian government that we stand by our commitment when it comes to our nato allies, that their behavior is unacceptable, and that we are thinking -- rethinking many things when it comes to our military posture in europe. >> thank you. i will take time for a short second round here.
i would just associate myself with the remarks of senator johnson. i think we are beyond the point of treading lightly and worrying about provoking russia. i think they are going to make decisions about the future course of events in and around ukraine based on their own security needs. as one neighbor of russia around the black sea came and told senator johnson and i earlier this week that our response should be to do everything that russia does not want us to do. i have expressed skepticism about providing small arms. summit a successful nato , with an extension of membership action plan to georgia, and continued ratcheting up of sanctions is exactly that medicine. two questions. one for you, secretary nuland. can you give an update on the elections scheduled for may 25? maybe give us a sense -- i don't want you to be apocalyptic. what is russia's capability to
undermine these elections when today they don't have a candidate that is polling at any level that would suggest they are a true threat? what are we worried about? what are the things that we and our ukrainian allies can do to make sure that ukrainians get a choice? if they have a free and fair election, there is no way the next president and the next cabinet of ukraine is going to give the time of day to putin in the next administration. senator., first of all, as you may have seen, there are more than 20 candidates registered for the presidential election on may 25, representing every single available color of the political spectrum in ukraine. ukrainian people will certainly have a very broad choice and the election is likely to throw to a runoff, which is a very healthy thing. the media environment, the basic
conditions for this election at this moment, absent the security situation, are as good as they have ever been in ukraine, with a very supportive transitional national government, with a vibrant public debate going on public media and private media. the other thing is we have a very strong response from the -- they are planning to field more than a thousand monitors across the country. ukrainians are also making tovisions for crimeans vote. they won't be able to vote in crimea because russia won't allow it, but there will be polling places for them. the helsinki commission will have a big u.s. contingent as well. that is part of the answer, to have eyes all over this process so that it cannot be manipulated . the number one concern we have now is efforts to destabilize the eastern regions, other parts
of ukraine, to create either a pretext for declaring it too difficult to have elections, to create questions about it, and/or for a larger russian move into ukraine to protect citizens. this is the real threat that .hese moves pose the interesting thing is that none of this has any concept -- any kind of significant support amongst the populations, including the populations of the east. ande was recent i.r.i. ukrainian polling indicating that less than 15% of those in the east want to join russia. they want to stay as a united ukraine. they want to have a choice in their future. there are candidates across a spectrum for people to vote for, including those who want a closer relationship with russia,
but not to hive off pieces of ukraine or allow the kind of settle his ancient -- of settle-ization that could see the country fall apart. you will see this aggressive effort. >> the more successful we are at making sure that election is free and fair, the more worried we have to be about russia's intentions once they see the writing on the wall. one question for you, secretary to u.s. military support for ukraine. it seemed to me one of the logical programs that we could undertake, whether it is the united states with nato, is a longer-term project to rebuild the strength of the ukrainian armed forces. they were obviously hollowed out under unicode which -- under yan and probably even prior
to that. what about a long-term of -- long-term commitment to help them rebuild their military? >> absolutely agree. i kind of long-term thinking is what we had embarked upon long before this crisis -- that kind of long-term thinking is what we had embarked upon long before this crisis. this crisis provides an opportunity for us to think anew about how we can continue the efforts we started and augment them further. our military relationship with ukraine, although important, and they have deployed with us afghanistan and elsewhere, was relatively modest. part of these discussions that we were having in kiev last week was about the medium to long term and how we can address the urgent needs, but more importantly over the long term ensure that they continue on the modernization and professionalization effort that we have helped with. are about thatwe long-term effort, the better. i've been concerned -- >> i've
been concerned. i've been hearing a term like linesd-ization and red around ukraine. are we using the terms in any way, shape, or form? >> senator, we are not. that term has different meanings to different people, but it generally implies a constitutional neutrality of one kind or another. as you know, the transitional government in ukraine -- and you've probably heard this from the prime minister -- they do not have any plans while they are in power to change the "non status of the country." obviously, it is a matter for future leaders of the ukraine and ukrainian people to decide how they might want to associate in this future. it is not a decision that the united states or any other country can make for ukraine or four ukrainians. >> we are standing by the by being -- assurance
signatory to the budapest memorandum to do everything we can to maintain the border integrity of ukraine? signedou know, that was in 1994 as a political assurance that we would all support and defend the sovereignty and territorial integrity of ukraine. it did not have the status of a treaty commitment and, as such, has been brutally violated by the russian federation. our own commitments reigned solid. can i go back to your point whether sanctions are biting it is easy to mock them. the numbers tell a different story. billion from the russian federation to prop up the ruble to defend it. capital flight in the first quarter of 2014 out of russia
greater than capital flight throughout all of 2013, which was a significant year. economy, itnking was already shrinking, it is shrinking more, downgrading russia by major organizations. this is pinching, but you're not wrong that we have to maintain the pressure. >> thank you very much. thank you to both of our witnesses. yourpreciate your time and late start. you're dismissed, and as you leave, we will see to the second panel. thank you. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] [captioning performed by national captioning institute]
i unfortunately have another obligation and we are going to try to wrap this up as quickly as we can, even what is happening on the floor. we are very excited to have our guests today a senior fellow and rector of the strategy in the centerprogram at for new american security. she previously served as that deputy national security adviser to vice president biden and also office of the secretary of defense. brings more than two decades in experience in u.s. national security, including serving as deputy secretary for defense and native policy. a person who spent 30 years working in the energy
industry, including 20 years with chevron. welcome to all of you. we will go into the order that i introduced you. >> thank you very much, chairman murphy, and thank you for the opportunity to testify. russia's recent annexation of crimea has raised a lot of thorny questions about the future of transatlantic security. statesand the united share three common objectives associated with this crisis. one is isolating russia and ed -- ensuring there are additional costs imposed on russia. the other is supporting our europe, andstern also supporting the government in kiev. i want to start with reassuring our allies in central and eastern europe. you heard about some of the things the united states was
able to do in the early days of f-16's to, providing poland and other plants that we have for the region to reassure our allies. europe, western europe in particular, was slower to respond to this crisis and to calls for reassurance. they have had a number of concerns about unnecessarily provoking the russians. they have look at public opinion data that does not support initiatives that would reassure our friends in central and eastern europe, and some of them lack the capabilities to do so. some of that has changed. o ministerial where we saw a number of countries offer support. as you heard, a general is presenting options on tuesday that i hope will be supported not just by the u.s., but by the alliance as a whole. forward, the challenge
for europe and the united states is to keep momentum going. and get to a point where we do not allow our policy differences to lead to policy for alice's. we do not want to find ourselves in the situation where we are breeding additional overconfidence on the part of the russians. in my written testimony, which i have submitted today, i suggest three things europe and united states should be focused on. the first is resented -- presenting a united front when we cannot reach consensus. you know better than i do that there are some cracked in the transatlantic relationship on this issue. we had times have disagree. we have some public airing of our disagreements, especially over sanctions, which was not a wide mood -- wise move. as we weigh the pros and cons of initiatives moving forward, we have to ensure we keep what is actually at stake in the back of
our minds and remember that crimea is not a bumper the road. this is not a hick up. this is not a short-term incident. or havepened in crimea lasting implications for transatlantic security and the region as a whole. we are not going back to this -- to business as usual. it is important to think about the long-term strategy that would include economic, the nomadic, and military measures. the second thing we have to focus on is getting the nato peace right. you heard from the secretaries that there is a nato summit coming up. we're going to need leadership to drive some of those initiatives forward on some very difficult issues. , chairman, nato and large but as one issue. you are aware of the differences inside the alliance on that issue. if we do not take on nato enlargement, on cyber, if we do not take on missile defense, if
we don't take on some of these tough issues nato will ultimately be unprepared to deal with what is coming at it in the 21st century and beyond, not just with this crisis, but with others. the secretary-general has been optimistic in recent days saying that ukraine is a game changer and will hopefully lead to increases in defense spending. i am not so sure. i would like to count on washington leadership to drive that date forward. also managing the debate we have had many times about article five versus expedition area operations. the last thing i think europe and united states eats to focus on is making sure they do not leave a great zone between nato territory and ukraine. we need to look at the reassurance requirements not just in countries like poland and the baltic states, but also georgia, moldova, and in many ways these countries need more assurance than those already members of nato. we will have to look at things like defense cooperation and security corporation.
people have to put everything on ae table to ensure there is united front there between europe and the united states. it just cannot be the u.s. alone. in terms of our efforts to support the new team in ukraine, we are trying to support the elections. we are working to provide financial assistance so their economy does not collapse. we are trying to address the security needs simultaneously. we have done all right in the first two categories, which try to ensure they have been tools they need for free and for elections. we have provided billions of dollars in promises of loan assistance, all sorts of expertise and all the rest. i think we have not done well in addressing the security concerns. i know you heard dod is looking at some of those requests. we have had the good fortune of relying on incredible restraint on the part of ukrainian military. i do not think we can count on that in the long term. we are not so sure how much longer.
otherularly given some protests we have seen in ukraine. moving forward the united states will have to ramp up efforts to review those requests, nonlethal and lethal, and determine if we can provide additional intel sharing and look at things like ammunition. to close, i want to say i think europe and the united states deserve kudos for the work they have done together in multiple categories of addressing different aspects of this crisis. but what they have done to eight should be seen as the opening act. we have to sustain this momentum, make sure we have a long-term strategy some and make sure that that strategy is paired with real resources and real capabilities. we also have to think through the potential scenarios that we might be facing in the future. what happens if russia goes into eastern ukraine? what happens if the russians try to further destabilize -- and what happens if those may 25
elections to not happen? we need to be having that conversation with our european allies now to prepare ourselves for anything that might be dumbing down the road. thank you very much, and i look forward to your questions. >> chairman murphree, ranking member, i am honored to speak. russia's coercion and the invasion -- and invasion present a security challenge. the west has yet to generate response that will deter moscow from further aggression. the actions of the events dates should be guided by three reinforcing objectives. to deter russia from further aggression against ukraine and other neighboring countries, to confidencekraine's in its capacity for self defense, and assist ukraine in its effort to become a modern, prosperous democratic state. allow me to review six rounds of initiatives that serve these objectives.
first, we need former economic sanctions against russia. the current set of are clearly insufficient. they are overly -- their overly savages scope has created badges of kurds among the russian -- badges of courage among the russian elite. economic and diplomatic sanctions need to be complemented by a strategy to shore up allies in ukraine. nato's response to the invasion of ukraine has been underwhelming. it has been limited to a largely symbolically reinforcement of nato airspace, the testing of force posture studies. this reinforces concern about their ability to act decisively and about the reduction of u.s. combat capability in europe. it affirms those who say washington and nato's commit mint has declined. the united states and nato should reinforce allies in the following ways. it should deployed now a ground
combat brigade with air force support. it should appoint a special operation contingents to the baltic states. the alliance should rescind a 1997 nato-russia founding act. should freezetes reduction of u.s. forces in europe and direct -- to present options to make permanent the deployments i suggested. an hour west european allies -- and her western european house should be encouraged to do this same. we need to provide military assurance to ukraine. haveand the united states unwisely drawn a red line on the eastern frontier that leaves kiev militarily isolated. that redline should be erased. we should grant ukraine's request for military equipment and include antiaircraft
weapons. u.s. equipment would reanimate moscow's unpleasant memories. we should deploy intelligence and surveillance capabilities. this would force moscow to consider repercussions it acts. department of trainers to georgia after it was invaded by russia attributed to that country's security. we should conduct now a major exercise in ukraine to train their military. waiting until may and june as is currently planned by nato only incentivizes russia to take action earlier. under these initiatives would threaten russian territory. they would introduce uncertainty in moscow's military planning and force the government to consider the risks of a military conflict. fourth, the west needs to reinforce resilience to russia's aggressive campaign, which is the most intense we've seen
since the end of the cold war. the secretaryear outlined actions we're taking, but i wonder if it is sufficient. this campaign threatens the ability to conduct elections, and it creates opportunity for the provocateurs in moscow. ukraine'spport efforts to reform its economy. one area where we can do more is supporting diversification of ukraine's energy supplies. easternup exports in europe word server as a priority. the west needs to reanimate a europe whole and free. the situation necessitates native make clear its policies. reaffirmation of this mission is a way to underscore commitment to security in central and
eastern europe. for these reasons no decision or recommendation should be permitted or advanced that would in any way limit its applicability to any european country. that is what i think your concern about the -- is warranted. putin forreward th his aggression. it would violate the spirit of the maidan in which ukrainians articulated their desire to be part of your. those wings should not be clipped at this point. we could not trust putin to live up to any agreement regarding a neutral country, because it would encourage him to pick away at them. let me conclude by saying the most effective way to counter their operations -- the presence of a secure and prosperous to miami in their neighborhood is not threatening, but can help their focus toward resting internal problems.
it may provide momentum to russians who have grown wary of authoritarianism. in central and eastern europe has always been essential to the forging of a true hardship between europe and russia, and between washington and moscow. thank you. >> thank you. we will turn the panel over to mr. chow. >> thank you, mr. chairman, ranking member johnson, senator cardin. i am honored to return to this committee two years after testifying before you on a serious and growing energy vulnerability of ukraine. this is much in the news today. my fellow panelists have covered the various hard and soft security challenges for central and eastern europe. since my own competence is limited to energy, i will focus on the threats and opportunities that sector presents to this region. the legacy of the warsaw pact
left most of these countries relied on russia for their oil, gas, and nuclear fuel supplies. is conducted under barter and other non-market trading terms. transforming a highly inefficient and polluting energy economy necessitated a painful transition along with overall economic restructuring. historical suspicion and actual use of energy as a political tool by russia gave further impetus to the drive to modernize the energy economy. in general, countries that chose to a speedier path to transition, full privatization of energy assets, and transparent regulation by independent bodies, adoption of european standards in is this practices, are in better conditions today than those countries with state-owned companies that retain old is this practices and relationships
with their traditional supplier of imported fuels. state companies in these countries continue to dominate the energy sector so that politics, rather than market forces cannot determine outcomes. countries that have a coastline and better access to crude oil and petroleum product imports from international markets and countries with significant indigenous energy production, such as poland, with cold, and romania with oil and gas, are less vulnerable to cut offs. preemptive action also mitigated vulnerability to cut offs. the czech republic's decision to build an oil pipeline from is ana in the mid-1990's example of a country that invested early on to reduce the risk of supply cutoffs. refineries tech as were -- decisiond lithuania's to commission a liquefied natural gas receiving terminals
are more examples of committed actions to diversify energy's supplies. the potential for shale gas from a geological trend which extends from southern lithuania across poland and ukraine, romania, to bulgaria offers good prospects for developing energy supplies in the medium turn that are affordable and beneficial. european integration offers the best opportunity for energy marketer and is asian. the pathway to the european union includes reform and restructuring of the sector and to remove energy corruption by adopting european standards and business practices. the eu also offers funds for important infrastructure improvements, such as pipelines capable of reverse flows. market integration is critical for smaller countries in this region to achieve under diversity of energy supply.
the energy industry relies on economy of scale to justify multi-billion-dollar investments. therefore, it is difficult for individual entries to economically justified diverse vacation projects on their own without being connected to the energy markets of their neighbors. with pipeline and for structure, shared storage facilities, connected electricity grids, and arrangements.al unfortunately the process of market integration has been painfully slow them and results have been mixed at best for the free flow of gas and electricity. without market integration, the region cannot afford the energy supply diversity it wants. bulgaria is a prime example of a country which is not a can full advantage of the splendid geographic location and opportunities to connect to their neighbors and energy. fund -- and is today not much better off than
in 2006 and 2009 come of the between gas cutoffs russia and ukraine. since i testified previously before the subcommittee about the sorry state of ukrainian energy economy and this topic came up in my testimony before the senate energy committee two weeks ago, i will not spend time talking about ukraine here, and leave this subject to the question time if senators are interested. suffice it to say ukraine in its long troubled gas relations with russia remain the biggest supply vulnerability for the region. half of russian gas sales to all of europe still transit ukraine, in spite of russia's efforts to bypass ukraine. ukraine is the dominant and in some cases the exclusive route centralimports for most and south european countries. the potential benefits of the energy sector reform and ukraine remain enormous, and is now more
urgent than ever. there is much that countries in central and eastern europe, which has gone through a successful transition to modern energy economy, to offer ukraine in terms of sharing lessons learned and assisting in capacity building. there are also countries which will most be affected by the collapse of ukrainian state. in many of these areas it is natural for europe to take the lead, given its proximity and shared interests. the urgency and seriousness of the crisis in ukraine demand american leadership, and for us to coordinate our efforts with european friends and international financial institutions, while enforcing strict compliance on the current and future government of ukraine to meet commitments to reform its critical energy sector as a condition for western aid. thank you for your attention. >> thank you for your testing. thank you all three of you for your testament. senator johnson? >> thanks, senator cardin.
brzezinksi you are recommending a more robust response. you also recommended a more robust response that was implemented in georgia. can you go into detail in terms of what the u.s. did versus what is being reported in the press nowadays and how that had an effect? thehen i look back to georgia crisis, i cannot and say that was a successful example of the west are sponsored to the aggression by a great power. but some of the things that we did do right include the following. one, we demonstrated a willing to take military risk. for example, in the united states called the russians and to fly back, going
the russians threatened to shoot down aircraft in and so the chairman said that would be a mistake, they are coming in. that was a signal to the russians we were serious. the second he we did to help provide greater assurance to the georgians, we provided some military equipment, some arms, we provided trainers on the ground, so the marines were not whichir deployed, increased the prospect of them getting caught up and it was the actions that the russians would take against the georgians. >> do you recall the numbers? >> no, i don't. they were not high. it takes demonstration commitment. today we have not done that. as you pointed out, at the beginning of ukraine crisis, the russians over lysed 100,000 troops -- the russians mobilized
100,000 troops in the front it. what has the was done? westernor so f-16's poland, and offensive flights on the poland frontier. also a company of marines to romania. that is about it. not as not significant, demonstration of resolve, that is a communication of hesitancy to the russians. >> in your testimony you are talking about the types of military support you would provide ukrainian military. can you speak to that now? >> ukrainian military is about 129,000. 80,000 our ground forces. they are not the most highly equipped. they are not the most highly ready. they should not be
underestimated. the event 20 years of independence. they have been in nato operations. a have a battalion of th brigades with poles. they're capable of taking on western equipment. i think they should be given equipment that would hit russia's current strengths, in armor and aircraft camusso antitank weapons would be useful, antiaircraft weapons would we useful. i would not guarantee the ability to survive a massive onslaught, but it would make it painful for the russians, and that should make the russians think twice. right now they do not have to think that way. smith, would you disagree? >> as i stated earlier, i do think the administration needs to ramp up its review of the defense requests that come in to date. a mix ofote to date is
lethal and nonlethal requests. i have not seen specific requests for antitank weapons. i have seen in addition, small arms, as you mentioned earlier, as well as some of the nonlethal support. i think specifically what would be extremely helpful would be on the intel sharing side them and training will be absolutely indispensable. is fromof the problem the prime minister himself, they are reluctant to ask for something they know would not be supplied. their intelligent enough about that. that is part of the problem. esthemr. chow, i read an intereg op-ed talking about permits and applications for them here, and the point being made is allowing the application process to go through on thosel and g terminals. would send a pretty strong signal and have effect, even though the l and g would not be
flowing for a while. would you agree or disagree? >> thank you for the question. from an l and g policy standpoint, there are plenty of reasons why the united states should pre-existin -- should re-examine its policy and rules given that they were written in the 1970's when a time when was a drivingy motivation for the legislation, and those issues are being discussed in congress and reviewed and should take its course. i am in favor of the idea of looking at the level of l and g and other energy experts. toolncern is trumping up a that is in effect in the short to medium term they have
counterproductive consequences. ukraine does not have an l and g terminal. if it were to have one and the to allow the tankers to go through, it would take years to build. we do not have any capablility until 2016. that thee of capacity department of energy has already approved is quite robust rad. alien cubic85 meters per year, more than the consumption of germany. what we are doing is having an effect. to threaten the russians was something they know cannot happen for two or three years is maybe counterproductive, and my reaction is to say that the russian reaction -- if that is
the best you got, then we do not have anything to worry about. >> thank you for your testimony. >> thank you. let me follow up if i might. you mentioned any solution with ukrainewith regard to would be made term, long term solutions, not short term. can you just review with us what we should be doing in the short term. russia has a double edged sword here. they can absolutely apply different pressure on ukraine by either raising price or cutting off, but it is a very profitable source of income for russian. of course, a lot of the energy goes through the pipelines to other countries. however, ukraine eads to make itself more independent --
ukraine needs to make itself more independent and useless energy, which is an area that is interesting in energy conservation. there is a lot of wasted energy. the pricing to the consumer has not been reflective of the cost. the imf is instituting certain reforms where there will be better pricing, and some of the to support will go low-income families and make it affordable. do you have other suggestions as to how ukraine to become less vulnerable to russian pressure on the short term on energy? >> yes, sir. ukraine is not without leverage on its energy gas relationship with russia. more than 50% of russia's exports to europe, it's prime market, go through ukraine. the problem in the past 20 some
years is that leverage has been used by individual ukrainian politicians for private profit or corruption, rather than for state and tryst. even today, ukraine has the means, has the leverage to stabilize its gas transit and supply relationship with russia if the old political relations were to come down. in order to do the that, it needs to remove the pervasive corruption in the energy sector in ukraine, particularly on gas. one thing i would do for sure is to completely restructure the national oil and gas companies, which is at the center of that corrupt practice. the other thing i would do in addition to what the imf rightfully has done in terms of getting market-clearing prices on the consuming side for gas is also to increase wellhead gas prices. is thathappening today
if you are a domestic producer of gas in ukraine, year hitting a small fraction of the price that ukraine pays russia, even three months ago. tot is a disincentive produce more domestic energy. my question why it is the way it is. multi-tiered pricing helps create a great market for gas, domestically in ukraine, which toe again privileged access politically connected folks are the ones who benefit from it. the rest of the ukrainian public suffer shortages, even though they are the ones who supposedly are benefiting from the low prices. this,g reform is key to but not just -- but also at the wellhead. >> i think these are all
important points of the economics of the issues. still, i would hope we would look at alternative sources other than russia energy in the event that this short-term strategy deployed by russia to ukraine.crisis in i understand it would also hurt russia, and i fully appreciate the reforms needed in the energy sec are. i cannot agree with you more. i think your points are very well taken. that me shift gears to the security issues, and i followed with great interest the seriousness the that russia takes, the commitment to defend territories , whether it be ukraine or countries in that region. and, yes, one thing we know, russia does not want to see nato expanded on their borders. they do not want to see troops on their borders.
they're concerned about that. i was the agreement was reached that we would not station there. i think, though, they are very much aware of our treaty commitments to nato allies. i really do think the consideration even for a person like mr. putin before he would take action against a nato ally. but there are other countries in that region are not nato allies. georgia is interested in becoming a nato partner. that would present a very interesting dynamic to russia. ukraine is a little bit early. they have not moved in that direction. russia certainly does not want to see ukraine become a nato partner. but i think moving in that direction would be exactly what russia does not want to see happen. it would be interesting from the point of view of trying to counter what russia is doing today if there were more interest in more common defense, such as nato, in regard to that
region. i would like to get your views as to nato expansion. europe has been reluctant on nato expansion unrelated to the russian crisis. there will be a meeting later this year in which there will be considerations of countries who are -- for nato accession. what are your views in making it clear to russia that we are very serious about protecting the territorial integrity of countries in the region? >> thank you, senator, for the question. you're right, one fundamental question is what does russia want, and europe does not want to see any additional rounds of nato enlargement. the other question is what does nato want? the answer that depends on who you ask. this is a controversial subject. there is a divide. party alliance is not prepared
to advance forward with nato enlargement. the united states feels passionate about the fact that the door remains open and we should not give a country like russia any sort of veto over this process whatsoever. there is also the question of what a country like jordan wants and what it deserves great in my personal view, i think we have come so far down this route -- this road with a country like torture it is hard to figure out how we would ever exit. i would not recommend we would exit, but i think you're countries inside the alliance that would be comfortable prolonging this process forever. if you look at this sacrifice is georgian soldiers had made in a place like afghanistan and all they have done as a trueblue partner to the nato alliance and how they have work to meet the criteria for membership, to me it is unimaginable that we could slow down this process. i personally advocate for georgia to move forward with -- at the next summit.
i'm skeptical whether or not we will succeed in doing that, because there appears to be a great deal of consternation to do that. i recognize that that would add an additional security burden to the alliance. but what better sign of our commitment from europe and united states to a country like georgia and to move forward with that. russia'so you think reaction to nato expansion in georgia would mean? >> it could be quite devastating. emotionally and symbolically, they will raise a complete stink about this, and they will cry foul on all accounts. it is not the same as us stationing ground troops in a place like poland where they will say in 1987 you problem -- you promised not to do that. there's nothing we ever said about stopping nato enlargement. we never made that promise. they cannot claim that. they will claim that we are
infringing on their security, that we are trying to encircle them, trying to contain them. there will be all sorts of complaints. the question is whether or not we would see russian irritation of attention in the relationship, additional further russian aggression if we did not do it. that is the question inside the alliance. half of the alliance and this will provoke additional russian aggression. some say it will prevent it if -- withforward with georgia and i fall into that territory. >> just add a couple points. said iswhat julie accurate, there's great division in the alliance. there is a predisposition in the alliance against larger and for the region she puts. part of it is the administration has not pushed for nato enlargements. in the absence of leadership, it is not surprising it withers on the side of europe. second point i would make is nato is on russia's order.
norway is on russia's border. estonia is on russia's border. nato has not undercut their relationship with those countries. norway has a very good relationship with russia and is proud of its cooperation with russia in the arctic. poland, a country that has a troubled history with russia, had an improvement in its relationship with russia ever since it became a member of nato. there is not a real track record of nato membership undercutting a relationship with russia. what has undercut russia's relationship with the west is president putin and his aspiration for empire. that is the problem that we have. if we are going to counter that those defective --, the most effective way is enlarging eu
membership to countries, a toeadily pushing nea forward. it provides security, nonthreatening to others, a alid foundation for actually context of enduring cooperation with russia. as juliett points out, we want to eliminate gray zones from your. they're like walls. it creates separation. he can ring communities -- we communities together, that will help worship. >> i thank all three of you for your testimony. this is an issue that is going to be around for a while. conflicts in georgia, moldova, azerbaijan. it looks like it is getting pretty cold in the crimea. it looks like we are going to be with his for a wild. there is a lot provided of action by russia in eastern ukraine, and there is concern in other areas that russia is very
much planning for additional military options. andhis issue is very fluid, i can tell you i think there is a very strong support in the congress to make it clear that we will not ever accept the grab by russia, what it is doing by ukraine or other countries. i thank you all for helping the record of this committee. with that, the subcommittee will stand adjourned. thanks.
>> you will find this hearing at www.c-span.org. politicodal reports asking for congressman mcallister's resignation. the governor said in this statement he wants privacy to work on issues and the best way to get privacy on work putting his family back together is resign from congress. that is from the governor of louisiana.
in austin texas, president obama delivered remarks at the johnson library commemorating the 50th anniversary of the civil rights act. president johnson signed the act into law on july 2, 1964. john of george's day and the director of the lbj presidential library gave introductory remarks. we will show you those remarks at 8:00 on c-span. on capitol hill, earlier today the house oversight committee 21-12 to hold -- lois lerner in contempt of congress. that citation now goes to the full house for consideration. here's a look at part of that hearing. >> this vote if it goes down and passes, this will be laughed out of court. this will be laughed out of court. the chairman has so bungled this whole proceeding that it will just be a significant cost to
the taxpayer, and we will not be able to get to the bottom of this through this channel. it is unfortunate because i think there is a danger here when a powerful government committee -- department works against the interests of the american people. >> the gentleman from ohio. >> thank you for recognizing me. i yield my time to the congresswoman from wyoming. >> the gentlelady is recognized. fromthink that gentleman ohio for yielding me his time. it is uniquely consequential to a judge and other americans, a woman in a position of public trust to be in contempt of congress, to have behaved contentedly -- contemptably. tos lerner does have a right
remain silent, a constitutionally protected right. but lois lerner did not remain silent. her own e-mails refute and contradict her assertion before this committee that she did nothing wrong, that she violated no laws. she spoke falsehoods this committee when she said she did nothing wrong. she spoke to the justice department without immunity. ive herve she did wav fifth amendment right. it is often said that the power to tax is the power to destroy. that is why the american people must be protected from the abuse of that power. the congress must intervene on behalf of of the american people. most lerner's own e-mails agendat her raw partisan
against conservative speech. director of the irs, a job requiring the highest level intake of integrity ash highest level of integrity, a duty held the american people to be fair and unbiased would conduct yourself in this manner is something worthy of this committee's consideration in this context. mr. chairman, we all have heroes, and the american people have in the past looked at gangsters and thugs that were brought down by the irs, because they did not pay their taxes as the kind of people that we wanted to look up to. the irs using its power to tax to destroy the bad guys. to be the intimidator. in this case, it is the irs
which is the intimidator. the protector has become the intimidator, and it is our duty in this committee to protect the people from an agency that no longer protects them. mr. chairman, this committee is appropriately exercising its authority and power and duty to protect the american taxpayer, to stand between them and the abuse of power by federal agencies. it is a duty of ours. we must conduct our work with the highest level of integrity, and that is why i appreciate the careful deliberations of this committee as to this very consequential subject. to have conducted oneself on behalf of the internal revenue
service with such dishonor and disrespect to the very people who have entrusted you -- i'm repulsed by that. and i find our work today to be conducted in a manner which the american people deserve. mr. chairman, i yield back the balance of my time. >> the committee voted 21-12 to hold lois lerner in contempt of congress. that citation now goes to the full house for consideration. you can see the entire meeting tonight at 8:40 eastern or anytime online at www.c-span.org . during this month, c-span is least revert -- is pleased to prevent our videocam documentary
competition. the annual competition encourages middle and high school students to think critically about issues. tos year students were asked create their video based on the question, what is the most important issue the u.s. congress should consider in 2014? parker, david bingham, and cliff white are from texas. they would like congress to change the way that way the federal reserve drives the economy. >> today we face a manufactured political crisis that is beginning to deliver an to oursary blow economy. >> if you paid any attention to our news, and the past six years you probably know that our economy has had some rough times. some might ignore this fact. taking it has nothing to do with their individual lives. this worked view of this this
view of economics may be held by the majority of the publishing. the people only think of the here and now when it comes to a healthy economy. we are nowhere near as concerned about the present as about the future and what it holds for us and our children. if the federal reserve continues its -- the long-term effects could be drastic. over the past 50 years or nation's central-bank has been mandated to take on more solid abilities. responsibilities it was never intended to a compass. to gain a better understanding about the fed, we traveled all the way to dallas to interview some of our nation's most knowledgeable man in order to clarify what the original purpose of the fed was. we will endeavor to show how the fed's purpose has become delusional over the years. seek to will also suggest a few ways in which congress and the president can
and never to reform the fed so it may fulfill its true purpose . >> to begin our lesson, let me introduce you to mr. john mauldin, one of our leading analysts and is the president of malden economics. >> it was originally created to -busto smooth out the boom cycles. it was a reaction to the crash of 1907 when morgan had to perform the function of the fed by stepping in and quieting the markets. the country had been through a series of panics and boom-bust cycles. they decided to go back to a thinkl bank model, and i that is in my view the real purpose of the central bank. >> we had a series of panics in the u.s..
1907 was a particularly bad one. you have a bunch of people running to get their money out of the bank and there is no lender last resort to banks. what happened was a private sector stepped in in 1907, jpmorgan, you may have heard of them and acted like a central bank. congress had had enough by then. it set up a commission to study this and say what can we do about this? it was mostly congress' attempt to rectify that periodic financial panics that had happened up until 1913. >> now let's turn to our attention to robbins created by congress due to his lack of involvement. >> you had the s&l meltdown in the late 1980's which was regulatory mismanagement by lawmakers. in the 1990'sghts
that resulted in enron and the transition to the 2000's you had mismanagement, the dropping of glass-steagall, and the leveraging of the banking system along with irresponsible housing laws at the congressional level which made the system vulnerable, and we saw what the results were. if the fed sets rates too low, that means the people who have retired are not going to make as much money on their retirement savings. they have done what they were told to do. were called all their lives, save money, and now you are supposed to retire and live off your savings. the difference between five or six percent interest rates and being able to make a seven or eight percent return and being able to make a two percent return is significant. they kept rates too low for far too long. they created an environment we were reaching for you.
what workers do not understand is they created this financial repression where they lowered interest rates beyond what they would he naturally in an effort to try to get people to consume more. meaning thee relyon funds that people on are making less money. it is not the money that people invest in the pension funds that pays for the retirement at the end of the day. it is the returns on those funds years. 30 compound interest is where the big bulk of your money coming from. if you lower the returns on those funds, there's going to be less money in the future, which means either that people in the future, your generation, are going to have to put more money into paper for my retirement, or i'm going to be getting less money, because we have all stand,sure we coudld
we have to make some money on our own. is coming clash of generations is going to become very real. >> is it too late to fix the problems? no, it is not. we do not want this video to be -- we want it to be a force for positive change. >> they need to get the budget issues in this country under control, the spending issues under control, realize the fed isn't interested in the fed is an instrument of u.s. government. as it now sits, interests is now % to numeral -- is now 6 8%. congress needs to re-examine its prior earnings, re-examine what its place was by the founders and generations before us and get back on track for the coming generations. the future of this
country, my future, rests squarely in your hands. forcountry has stood almost 230 years. sound fiscal and monetary policy with the ideals of life, liberty, and the piness. of habip >> to watch all the winning videos and to learn more about our competition, www.c-span.org cam.o and click on student tell us about the issues he these students want you to consider. >> the whole number of the elect ors, 538, the majority is
270. george w. bush has received 271 votes. al gore has received 266 votes. the state of the votes for vice president of the united states and as delivered to the president of the senate, is as follows -- line the whole number of electors for vice president is 538, of which a majority is 270. dick cheney has received for vice president of the united states 271 votes. joe lieberman of connecticut has received 266 votes. this announcement of the state of the vote but the president of the senate shall be deemed a sufficient declaration of the persons elected president and vice president of the united states each with a term
beginning on the 20th day of january, 2001, and shall be entered together with a list of the votes on the journals of the senate and house of representatives. a god bless may god bless the united dates s -- states of america. >> more highlights from 35 years of house coverage on our facebook page. 35 years ago and brought to you as a public service by your local cable or satellite provider. >> the senate foreign relations committee look at the president's budget request for usaid. administrator rajiv shah testified on efforts to fight global poverty and hunger. this is an hour and half.