that measure the influence of care on the depression scale administered over time. we are going to be looking at outcomes in anxiety disorders, depression. we will be looking more carefully at people who are at risk for suicide and had we actually improved their chances of not having another -- >> that in general you're telling that you think --

>> we believe that we are having an impact on the mental health of the people we have treated correct. >> mr. chairman, let me just add to this. >> sure. >> this is a tough area for us, and we continue to apply. i think you will see we are putting $7 billion against mental health. we have a separate funding line for traumatic brain injuries, and then we do research in this area. if you think of tbi i would invite you to think about our poly trauma centers. the five polytrauma centers that ring the country, tampa, richmond milwaukee, palo alto, california, san antonio, texas. these are the five tier one polytrauma tbi centers of excellence as they begin many years ago. >> in general, these are for the more severe cases? >> more severe cases.

once they are stabilized then there is a tier two and i think it's about 82. to polytrauma locations. and then there's even a tier three. the whole point of this system is as people improve their move closer to home, whether ultimately they will be sustained. on -- had a chance to to sit at the state of union address recently, and enclosing the president introduced -- he is a graduate of one of our emergence consciousness programs. 70% success rate in bringing patients back from deep coma is does. and years before -- comatose. years before people would've given up and says there's no. so these are people who were injured in an explosion and

became unconscious, remained unconscious for months. and now you're saying were having a 70% rate of brittney people back to normal -- >> bringing them back to consciousness. and their return is over time we have some tremendous community wonderful successes where if you and i were having a discussion with one of our graduates we would have a hard time understanding that. but then there are others who are not as far along, and there are various stages. >> you see the va making some significant breakthroughs in? >> this is a significant breakthrough. although it's being done in one of our polytrauma centers it is research that is giving us opportunities to see -- >> my time has expired a long time ago. senator boozman. >> thank you. it's good to see you, secretary shinseki. we appreciate all of y'all hard work for veterans. in following up with that, last congress, we passed a law that

would guarantee veterans with tbi that they would receive treatment aimed at maximizing quality life rather than restoring function. i don't think we have really seen the implementation, you know, language of that. can you expound on that? and it's great to hear the stories you were telling. one of our concerns with these things is that we don't want to have some arbitrary cutoff that science tells us you've gone as far as you can go and yet we are learning things. and we want to restore quality of life, issues rather than just function. >> i am going to call and dr. petzel for specific sure, but i would say that the program i just described, emergence consciousness, is proof of your

point, that we know more today than we did five years ago and it shouldn't be an arbitrary line drawn this is weak and helpless individual anymore. in fact, the folks down in tampa who tried anything and everything to try to get a response, and 70% of the time they succeed and that's great for the rest of the country can benefit from that learning that has been created through this research effort and tbi which this committee has funded. >> we're talking about a finite number of individuals. this is not a tremendous amount of people. it's certainly a very significant amount but i know that, i'm an optometrist by training, and a year or so ago some of the residents were in the work to at the medical center and also were helping rotating through the veterans hospital there also but just

individuals that had things that you really couldn't exactly quantify as to what was going on, but you knew from their histories that they were different then, and having trouble with cognitive, this and that. can you elaborate, dr. petzel come on what we're doing to make sure again that we're dealing with quality-of-life issues versus some arbitrary function number? >> thank you. >> want to echo the comments the senator made that the sector made and also add that i think one of the pieces of evidence about our concern about restoring people to the quality of life that they would've wanted, or as near to what they wanted had they not been injured over 75% of people that go through our polytrauma centers actually return home. sometimes with great effort and tremendous amounts of support.

but there back in their homes with their families getting the support, services that they need in order to be able to participate in their community. the people that i think you're referring to are those that are less severely injured, have injuries that are not confined to bed are not people that have spent a year and half in a polytrauma center. and there's -- >> really, really both innocents. it's one thing to go home with restored function, as best we can do. it's another thing to go home and be somewhat integrated into society but not fully integrated, or integrated -- so really all bit of both. >> that is our aim with every single one of these patients, to provide them the capacity to do the maximum that they can and want to do in terms of integrating their life back into

society. the example is, it's not quite polytrauma but it used to be that you were happy to give somebody, somebody was happy to get an artificial lake if they lost their lead. that's not true anymore. if you live in minnesota, that soldier wants to go play hockey, he wants to function to play baseball. that's the kind of approach that we are taking with all of these injured soldiers sailors, airman and marine that are coming to us and really want to get back into society and doing the things they had always done. >> very good. we have advanced funding in the health care aspect. has that any positive or a negative, or something that is giving you the ability to plan a little bit better? how has that gone a long? >> senator we first received that advanced appropriation capability in 2012.

so here we are so we years later. we've had a little learning to go through. we're better at it today to having a one year budget and planning and programming for a one year cycle versus two, there is an adjustment you have to make. so we are pretty much through that still learning from it. for our health care account medical care, medical services, medical facilities that's been a great fit for what we do in health care administration. on the first of october without having to wait to see of the budget turns out because of advanced appropriation, they can write a contract for services for the entire year. patients and employees are very well sorted but primarily our veteran patients very well served by that. >> there's some of us that would like to keep you that authority extend that authority to other

accounts. from your experience that you've had with the health care aspect would that be a positive or negative? the trouble that we have as you all know better than any we were celebrating not too long ago, a few weeks ago, we finally passed an appropriations bill. it was three months into the year. so it's not like you generally go year-to-year. it's more like you don't know what's going on for several months and then finally you get some certainty. can you comment on if you feel like that perhaps would be a positive thing? commonsense to me dictates it would, but -- >> senator, i would see anytime those of us that are trying to help, our workforce provide services. anytime we can provide them with predictability about what the service are going to be for the entire year is helpful for them.

and so in the health care account this makes pretty good sense. it would make sense and other accounts as well but i just raised the issue as i did in testimony last october when there was this discussion. in the case of veterans benefits administration, we can't process a claim within our own confines. to process a claim where to go to social security to validate other disabilities. we have to go to irs to validate by the law, validate thresholding, requirements. we deal with dod. we deal with the department of education we deal with labor employee ability issues. so for me to say that we can do this without the investment from other departments, i think i wouldn't be giving you the full

picture. as i said in october, and i don't mean to lecture anyone here, the best way for us to see meeting are full mission would be to have our budget for the federal government every year. that's what would make all of our work much easier. >> thank you, mr. chair. i apologize for going over. >> senator blumenthal. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and thank you for having a second round. thank you for being so forthright and helpful in your answers to my question. let me just begin again on a seemingly local issue. our va facility in west haven has been found to be deficient in a number of series respects by the inspector general of the va. and i'd like for your commitment that you will work with me in seeking remedies for those feelings. they have been documented. the va officials have been very

forthcoming and responsive to my visits and inquiries, and i'd like to have the resources of the va committed to providing the high school the care and that westhaven facility. >> you and i have the same goals, senator. >> thank you. next item going to pts. you may be aware of legal action has been brought by the yale veterans clinic. the good news is you're not a defendant. it was brought against the secretary of the army and the number of other officials, and for me it's a very serious legal action, but also one that's really embodies a moral imperative. it relates to veterans of the vietnam war who have suffered from pts the main plaintiff has suffered for 40 years. he was wounded in combat and

then he was wounded a second time because he was denied va medical treatment for post-traumatic stress. that condition was unrecognized at the time to it was undiagnosed and, therefore untreated at all, as you and i have discussed both in public and private. and i know you have a deep understanding and concern on this issue and that changing his discharge from less than honorable to honorable is not within your power. it is the authority of the review board in the department of defense your you've mentioned that you have regular conversations and meetings with secretary hagel. i've asked about this subject in the course of armed services hearing. i believe that you are sympathetic and supportive, sec. and again, i would just like your commitment that you will raise it privately and publicly

with him. because the urgency of this cause, i think is no less perhaps even more than it was when we last discussed it and yet there's been no general action to address this concern among the vietnam veteran population. generally, which may have suffered from pts at the same rate as the iraq and afghanistan veterans have done. >> senator, i will commit to continuing the work with you and work this as a priority as well. we approached dod and have those discussions that i described. and looking for review of the character of discharge. for one thing, as you point out we didn't do well by the vietnam generation. i happen to know many of them and so part of our commitment to is never, not to repeat what happened. so if you go back three years

you will see a decision within the va that if a combat veteran has medically verifiable ptsd we will make the service connection and allow the individual to submit a claim for benefits. as well as treatment. and move beyond this discussion of putting the burden of proof on the veteran to demonstrate how and why ptsd was, you know an issue. we have increased awareness about ptsd. we have increased our funding in this area. i do think we are doing better but still not enough with the current generation. and many of our mental health issues, ptsd issues still go back to the vietnam generation. we owe them better, and we're

doing our best to make up for lost time here. and we owe this generation as well the best care we can provide. >> i really appreciate your support on this issue. i know you have a deep understanding. by the way, i refer to it pts rather than ptsd because i think that calling it a disorder gives it a kind of statement that it's completely unjustified, post-traumatic stress, and i welcome your making this policy flexible so as to provide medical benefits. on of course those benefits can't be supplemented by other benefits, whether it led to employment and so forth because of the less than honorable discharge, not to mention the stigma of that kind of discharge

that they have suffered for 40 years or more. so i agree with you that it's a moral imperative, an obligation for this country, not to mention the need to settle this lawsuit which i fully support because i think legally is well justified as well. >> i would just offer to you senator, that the type of discharge clearly remains a dod issue, and i can tell you this topic of discussions on the senator hagel is looking at it. in the meantime we've asked dod to provide is a list by name of veterans who come in some cases may have been discharged under rules that no longer exists, "don't ask, don't tell" for example. behavior issues that could be ptsd. so we have about 73,000 names at, and we are running those

names against our registry of homeless veterans and thus far we found about 6500 name match. and so we are pulling those individuals into our review to see whether or not we can provide benefits and care. and we are in the 65 and cases we are. i think here shortly we have either written 73,000 letters to folks on that list or will complete doing that shortly. for those that we don't get a response from by this summer we will turn around and go try to follow-up on that. again, trying to close this loop on folks who have been denied benefits and services that they earned. >> let me make one last comment, which is to thank you for a gain expanding the circle.

i think it has been a mark of your leadership, that you have sought to increase the circle of accessibility and eligibility whether its agent orange or other disability claims rather than kind of circling the wagons more closely with the courage to try to increase the availability and access. so i really did appreciate the point you just made. and, finally we just say i'm very concerned about discrimination against veterans particularly and employment situations. and most especially when it comes to pts. my concern is embodied in legislation that i've offered that prohibits discrimination, whether it will pass, i certainly can't say. the odds are against any single piece of legislation but the evidence that i'm seeing again

indicates that among a small portion, and to emphasize it's maybe a small minority but it is there of employers. there is this discrimination for whatever reason against the veterans. and the law is a blunt, cumbersome instrument to work against it but i hope that perhaps i can work with you in documenting the discrimination, if it exists. and second, doing something to counter it. >> let me, going to have to interrupt and go to someone else. >> i apologize. i thought i was the last -- i apologize, mr. chairman. >> now my feelings are hurt. [laughter] i just thought you were windy.

>> that, to but -- >> mr. chairman, thank you very much. mr. sedney, your college so thank you for being you. i have three of her questions are like to raise about specific programs, particularly of interest to me as a senator from kansas but the first one is a program, a law that was passed in 2,010,000 the house of representatives than, check the health of subcommittee on veterans and were successful in passing a bill called access receive closer to home arch. the crux of that effort was to recognize particularly in a state like ours, like mine that the hospitals are a long way from many veterans. we initially addressed that with outpatient clinics. and that provide routine services closer to home but still miles, ma hours away from many veterans in our state. and so my effort with the support of many of my colleagues, including the senator from arkansas, we were

successful in passing legislation that would require the va to provide services in a sense hometowns where the veteran chose to have the services provided. if they lived more than a certain number of miles away from the va hospital. that was nearly done for the bills pass, became a pilot program. has been in place for three years to reports i assume are either on your desk or soon to be on your desk, and my initial question is do you have thoughts about this programs success, and what the department's plan is for its continuance? >> the report hasn't yet arrived so i will wait for the. i think we learned a lot from project a.r.c.h. comment and in the meantime we have put in place some of the initiatives that our -- better via programs that address some of those lessons that we got out of arch. i don't know what the next up is going to be with arch but let me go on dr. petzel to talk about

some of things that we have implemented. not the least of which is telehealth to help try to bridge even those remote to pull -- remote areas where veterans have no access to health. >> senator moran, thank you. the pilot was done in five different networks. and as you know kansas was one of the -- placques county was a place where we did that. varies things were done in a couple of instances, primary care was provided but in other places it was especially care kind of phenomena where veteran needed and wanted especially care in the community, we were able to provide that. we've made progress in other areas since then as the secretary alluded to. with telehealth, tele- home health we're in a much better position now to provide a specialty care in remote areas

that we might have been three or four years ago. in addition to that in anticipation of the pilot for a.r.c.h. ending, we've developed a new program nationwide called dc-3, which is a program by which we have developed networks around the country to provide specialty care on referral. in other words, a referral network there. if someone lives in a remote area and the city is made they need a specialty care and it's inconvenient, not appropriate for them to travel, we can go to the contract provided under pc-3 contract and provide veteran care in the committee. program started in january when the first network was set up it's now fully operational around the country and the business is booming, so to speak. we are seeing the contract, the network being used all over the

country. >> we do have the capacity we've always had to provide for the basis to end the community. and have used that extensively particularly in places like kansas, again where it's just not appropriate for someone to travel 200 miles to topeka or to wichita or into kansas city. >> i appreciate that answer. we want to continue to work with the va to expand this program. it's important that we test this us within a small county although when the legislation passed i expected it to be tested very wide and the va near it to a county which is very significant in the outcome. let me highlight something that you said and which cause me to bring up to other questions. you talked about telemedicine, for example. one of the problems that we discovered in see box is the

lack of physicians, mid-levels. liberal see box on the kansas oklahoma board has the kansas oklahoma board has not had a position for more than two years. you have been recruiting for more than two years with no success. speak of -- close its emergency room services claiming they had a lack of physicians to man two-person and emergency room and now the va and debate is telling veteran to show up at the hospital into big with no emergency room. you need to go to a commercial hospital. the sector and i've had this conversation that i think every occurrence in which he has appeared before this committee or the appropriations committee and this admonition, this request, i understand the difficulty. on payroll person to another typical it is outside the to recruit physicians, but the va has yet in my view to find a solution -- of the mid-level professionals within the system. so this problem if we delay

going to the private sector to delay going to between hospital and the local physician, we are accessing the problem were to cbocs have no build to provide necessary level of care and treatment. and even at hospital the size of topeka, in the hospital we're told there's not enough doctors to staff and emergency room. one of the other aspect i don't be accused of speaking got my time so i moving quickly to my other question, but chiropractors are making a piece of legislation authored in house of representatives in the day requires the va to place chiropractic care beneath the needs of veterans in every visitor it seems to me the va has been very slow to implement that legislation. we have chiropractic care available but there's a systemic, no systemwide effort of providing chiropractic care. one, you can divide by then denny chin and his eloquent an app is

about health professionals practic care becomes critical. before my two minutes past time goes any further, the final thing i would raise with you is we are confused by something that happened in wichita. the dolby a hospital and mcconnell air force base has been working, again the sector and i had the garcia think the last time you in front of this committee about how do we get the project will combine those two facilities, a hospital it's already at mcconnell and a va hospital the dolby hospital the plan by the va has been to combine those to build a new facility on my, air force base property. lester m. the enemy to look at my notes it was included in the list and as you had we moved that up. mr. secretary not only has not moved up but it's no longer on the list. and at least to our knowledge no one at the dole va center can describe why lash it was being considered. it was ranked.

my question is how to get a high ranking? and now it's gone entirely. >> senator, i owe you a better answer than the one i'm going to give you. and that is, every year we relook our priorities and where we have a safety or security project that leads up that we have to do something about in the ordering, but will move a project forward. i will go back and research what the issue is with the dull-mcconnell project. my guess is it is still on our list of things to do. you don't see in the budget because the available funding covered those projects that we could find this year, a billion and a half in the base account, and then 400 million in the investment account. >> thank you, mr. secretary. the project was ranked 196 in fy

'14. not on the list this time. mr. chairman thank you. >> if it's okay with the members speed mr. chairman, could i just to give general shinseki an opportunity to respond to the question -- i didn't i do know whether you had a response on the issue of discrimination -- i didn't know. you may have been, you may have been interrupted without having a response soap -- >> well, i would say that speakers and i want to apologize before my friend from kansas lease. i want to say that i apologize to him. senator moran, my apologies to you for keeping you longer spent you set the precedent and i -- >> you took advantage of it. sorry, general. >> i which is the our approach has been and didn't begin with my arrival that va is a

welcoming plaques and we generously have taken care of veterans for many generations now. and i think if you look at the decisions that have been made at least the last five years our effort has been to provide veterans the care and benefits that they've earned without drawing any walls around the statement. >> and i'm not talking about the benefits right now. i'm talking about private employers who may discriminate against veterans for whatever reason. >> i would say this is you know this is what i put into maybe the area of what i call the i'm discussable. >> and it is a topic i discussed every opportunity i have with potential employers. and i assure them that a va our experience is we diagnose and treat whatever the issue is but

even pds on ptsd, that people improve and they should not let that be a barrier to them making a hiring decision. they won't regret it. our veterans are very capable youngsters. they come with a tremendous experience, along with the kind of work ethic and discipline we would all like to see. they won't regret making that hiring decision, and i'm happy to work with you on how do we make that a more compelling argument. >> thank you very much. thank you, mr. chairman. >> let me just ask one last question actually, picking up on a question senator moran raised. we know that as a nation we have a real crisis in terms of cancer. -- kansas. where people can't access proper

physicians. we have a problem with that as well and promote. we tripled a couple of years ago in the affordable care act funding for the national health service corps. presents budget was very generous again to the national health service which provides debt forgiveness for those medical school graduates who are practicing in underserved areas. what kinds kind of programs does the va have in terms of debt forgiveness or scholarships or whatever it may be to attract primary care physicians into the va to handle the problems that sandra moran raised? >> mr. chairman, -- senator moran raised. a number of possible is attracting people into these areas. let me go through them quick and i talked specifically about debt forgiveness. we have retention bonuses recruitment bonuses. we have home buyouts but we can buy peoples homes out allowing them to make the move, and we've

got quite a bit of flexibility in terms of sour. our salary rates are competitive and they are flexible in terms of loan forgiveness, right now i think the secretary's limit on forgetting education loans is $60,000. that could be higher, i'll just be blunt. there are not many instances where you need to do that, and the cost of it is not particularly expensive, but it can be a great incentive for somebody that's carrying $200,000 worth of educational debt coming out of college and medical school to be able to have a goodly portion of that speech if my memory is correct what the department defenses will send you to medical school and get asked number of years of your life after you graduate. >> they do. and we have a program that is not unlike that. the difficulty is that you can't

predict where they're going to go. it would be wonderful if you could take somebody that's a senior in college -- >> can't you by the into the contract? we will send you -- >> you don't get anybody to sign into the contract. with dod you will serve in military budget ally of flex builder in terms of what you do in the military. with us if we wanted to direct these people into things like rural health to go to helena, montana, or liberal kansas you would have to write the into the contract. we have been able to a college that spent it's an important issue that is worth further discussion. >> did i mention one more thing for rural and that is the advanced practice nurses who are very flexible and actually have helped keep liberal in its two under 78 patients going. that and we have a provider that visits that area. that's the only place in kansas we are having trouble. interestingly i just checked,

have got a whole continent of providers. we will continue to work spent those people are shocked about liberal, kansas. they can't get that through their head. [laughter] >> i which is, i appreciate, i didn't realize that you were also involved in another committee. this really is a huge problem and it's not just with va. it's regardless of where anybody is out on health care bill, we will have more people into the system, okay? so many of the providers are our age, and it's just something river -- we really need to look at. we need to look hard at making sure that veterans have the benefits that were promised, but if you have is a great deal and she can't find anybody to provide the care, it really is a big thing. maybe that's something at some point we could actually have a hearing -- >> i think --

>> where they feel like we'll be -- >> this is not just a be a problem. >> the trouble is though you can't, this is something that if we're going to be short five years from now, you can't decide three years from now. >> all right. let me -- [inaudible] >> brief follow-up. >> i would ask secretary shinseki if he would give us an idea of when he is going to receive the report and when about a.r.c.h., and when we then could see the results. and then for dr. petzel i would you say your response to the chairman's question about all the array of things we have to offer physicians it may be a long list but it doesn't seem sufficient. and i've asked this question at every hearing. what is it the we can do? what are you missing? and i've never had an answer that says that we have now

examined this, a solution to our problem that doesn't go away, would be additional pay, additional loan forgiveness for all the things that are on that list but maybe more. and so for the answer to the chairman's question to be this is all the things we have i appreciate knowing that, but i just would remind you that it still doesn't seem to solve the problem. >> let me suggest this. i think senator boozman raised the issue. we will have an additional airing on this sound good? >> and the answer to when we did receive a report. >> it's coming to me from dr. petzel but i just asked him that question, send it to come and he said shortly. so i assume i will have it before the second sentence today. [laughter] >> in which capital? >> without i want to thank all of the panel for spending over two hours with us for your thoughtful answers, and in these

very difficult times we are proud of the work you are doing. with that this hearing is adjourned. [inaudible conversations] >> on c-span2, the senate foreign relations committee looks at the bill to provide aid to ukraine. that is followed by the russian prime minister andrew magee green.

>> the senate banking committee examines several federal reserve nominees adhering this point at 10 eastern. live coverage on our companion network c-span3. also today at 1:30 p.m. eastern, secretary of state john kerry appears before the house foreign affairs committee. the committee is looking at the state department budget for 2015. you can see it on c-span3 and participate using facebook and twitter. >> c-span to providing live coverage of the u.s. senate floor proceedings in key public policy events and every weekend booktv. now for 15 years the only television network devoted to nonfiction books and authors. c-span2 created by the cable tv industry and funded by your local cable or satellite

provider. watch us in hd, like us on facebook and follow was on twitter. >> the senate foreign relations committee held a mark appearing wednesday on an aid bill for ukraine. the committee passed the bill and a 14-3 a boat sending it to the full senate. it includes $1 billion in loan guarantees for ukraine imposes economic sanctions on russia and extenze the lending authority of the imf. this is one hour 10 minutes. >> this committee, markup will come to order. we are here today to mark up legislation that sends a message to russia and the world that we

will support the ukraine and the sovereignty of the ukrainian people. the russian invasion and occupation of parts of ukraine is the most recent example of a series of events requiring little imagination to connect the dots of disruptive russian behavior throughout the world. in my view president putin has miscalculated by starting a game of russian roulette with the international security and 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. first, it provides for ukrainian low-key and t.'s assistant with a billion dollars announced by the administration in recent days and it mirrors the house bill. it provides for the obama administration to assist the ukrainian government to

identify, secure and recover assets linked to acts of corruption by viktor yanukovych members of his family or other former or current ukraine government officials but it authorizes $50 million for democracy conference and civil society, and $100 million for enhanced security cooperation for ukraine and other states in central and eastern europe. it allows for additional sanctions, complimenting the presidents regions -- recent executive order against ukraine's and russia's responsible for violence ensues human rights abuses, against antigovernment protests at the disposal for undermines the peace, security, stability, sovereignty or the territorial integrity of ukraine. it provides for additional sanctions on russians officials complicit in or responsible for corruption of the ukraine. and, finally, it provides needed reforms to the united states participation in the international monetary fund which would allow the united states to leverage significant support from the imf for ukraine

today, and for similar unforeseen crises in the future. as far as offsets, the imf reform section of this bill does carry a cost. and we have worked very hard to make sure that we have a real offset tuxedo has scored at 215 million. we've identified offsets working with the progress that cover the full amount. in some cases these funds are drawn from under educating programs and available from i'm obligated balances. in other cases some programs have been terminated, but in all cases the officers authors were carefully considered given the national security interests of approving the imf forfeit i want to say in conclusion that any support this committee in this congress or our nation ultimately provides to the ukraine would be nothing new. it will be another milestone in the long 20 you wrote of american support. but did they ukraine faces a

menacing threat that challenges its very existence and we need to stand with ukrainian people to choose their own destiny without russian interference. let me thank the ranking member senator corker, for his leadership and his cooperation and work so that we can get to this point today to address american interest in the spirit of bipartisanship, and a happy to recognize him now. >> thank you, thank you. i want to thank you and your stuff and everyone on this committee for getting us to the point we are today. i think it's been another one of those actually bipartisan processes but i hope we can have a very successful market today and look forward to this becoming law at some point soon, 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 interest. and that is ensuring that europe remains democratic, whole and

free. and that's what this legislation is about. we all know that we signed a treaty that said that we would ensure the sovereignty of ukraine when they give up their nuclear weapons when they were former part of the 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 right now, and i think the friends and allies that we have in the area are watching to see if we're going to do those things that are appropriate to ensure that that sovereignty stay simplistic and they think this bill absolutely meets that test and generates that balance. as the chairman mentioned first of all this is paid for legitimately. these pay-fors are real. i was a part of our discussion. this is not some a four down in 2024. this bill really is paid for. and i want to thank the

chairman. i think that's one of the more difficult things that we deal with in these processes. i want to thank you so much working with us in that regard. as was mentioned this bill has serious sanctions on individuals at multiple levels. as a matter-of-fact sanctions that we have never put in place before. sanctions for economic extortion, sanction for corruption. people on the committee, members of the committee have made it much stronger. as loan guarantees as was discussed. u.s. security assistance civil society democracy, technical assistance. imf, let's face it. this is an issue that's going to be, this is going to be a little bit more difficult on our side of the aisle, i'll put it that way. this is something to me that is incredibly important to our nation agreed to these reforms back in 2010. ukraine -- for a while we need the imf doing things that it is doing in order to transition

ukraine, transition its government, transition the way it deals with budgets transition away deals with corruption. and i strongly support the imf imf reforms and another will be members of the committee on our side of the aisle that likewise do that. so with that this bill i think helps ensure that we have significant geopolitical effects what's happening. i look forward to the amendment process that we're getting ready to go through, and hopefully pass a bill out of this committee in the next 30 minutes or our. thank you. >> thank you, senator corker for every strong statement in support of the bill. let us get started. i have a technical amendments to offer that makes several technical fixes that should not affect the substance of the bill. i would go through, list them. an error made in the draft sent to members to clarify that we are authorizing 50 million for

democracy, still second governance. the only draft was missing that. two additional edits adjusted that's coming from two sources for the offset for the imf reform without changing the total amount. and the word act in section 11 is amended to say plural ask. so let's start off there with a technical amendment to the bill. is anyone who wants to speak to those. all those in favor? the ayes have it. the technical amendment is adopted. and, therefore, the underlying text now starts with the technical amendment. arthur those who wish to offer any amendments? >> senator mccain. [inaudible] >> i said are there any member who now, legislation is open to amendment, any member wishes to offer an amendment?

senator mccain spent i have an amendment number one. first of all i would come if i could, mr. chairman i would like to thank you in senator corker for the hard work and other members, for the hard work you've done on this legislation. obviously, there are issues still that may be controversial but associate with the legislation, but the legislation itself i am confident has the support of the majority of our colleagues in the american people. and want to thank in senator corker and our incompetent staff for the effort they made on this legislation to i think you. the amendment that i was would get the present us authority on proposed target sanctions that would be asset freezes and visa bans on the most corrupt officials in russia.

they would be permissive and not mandatory. it gives the president the discretion, includes a waiver. what the magnitsky acted did for human rights in russia this would do for corruption. the and in the would not target the russian people are the russian economy a russian financial institutions. it would focus squarely on most corrupt officials in the russian government and the close associates. the sanctions that 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. you don't want to send them message to the russian people we care about russian officials involved in corruption in ukraine but not corruption in russia. this amendment would provide the president with additional authority that he does not possess currently to impose further costs on putin if events call for it. this is a pro-russia provision. corruption is most salient issue in russia today.

it is what motivates a protest in ukraine to drive yanukovych from power. bypassing this meant we can show the russian people that putin may tolerate and reward corruption but america does not. we could tell putin's top cronies and partners in crime that you can't protect them or their money. in short this is the cost but i believe ordinary russians would cheer, and putin's revenge would fear. i thank you, mr. chairman. >> any other member wishes to speak? >> mr. chairman, let me thank senator mccain. as i'm sure members of this committee know, this committee passed the many ski bill that would've applied universally. it would not have been limited to just one country but it would have been applied to any gross

violations of human rights anywhere in the world. and if we had that bill passed in a form that passes 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, we are seeing too often world leaders and individuals commit types of action that require the united states to show leadership. so senator mccain, i support your amendment. corruption is one of the issues that we want covered under the magnitsky act. i think your language makes that very clear, and clarifies the provisions as it should be. and i would just urge this committee, i was contemplating offering an amendment to make these provisions global, after talking to determine i have determined that that could slow down the progress that this

particular bill, and it's quickly important we speak as one voice on ukraine, and what's happened in ukraine, but i do hope that we will look at a global magnitsky bill. senator mccain and i followed that legislation, and that we will incorporate the type of amendment that senator mccain has offered today, and that we can therefore give not only the authority of the administration to react to world circumstances but also involve congress so that we can have some degree of impact on u.s. action if this occurs in the future. >> thank you. >> i want to thank senator cardin. he was the leader on the magnitsky act. already it said significant impact for the good. i look forward to pursuing under his leadership a global magnitsky act, and though by the time the committee and its members will push for its passage. i thank you, mr. chairman.

>> i want to thank senator cardin force leadership. i thank him for his willingness to withhold at this time and i sure as they did in his underlying legislation is goal and purpose and we look for to working with you to make that happen to any other member who wishes to speak to this amendment? if not all those in favor will say aye. opposed will say no. the ayes have it and the mimic is agreed to. any other member wishing to offer an imminent? senator paul. >> i believe that we should send an unambiguous signal and message to the russians that they aren't encouraging in ukraine is unacceptable. i support the sanctions on the russian that i support the military and technical assistance but i have trouble with the loan assistance, ma in the sense that the loan assistance i believe will be a gift and to benefit to russia. the ukrainians oh about

20-$30 billion to the russians both private russian banks as well as a couple billion dollars to the gas entity in russia. bailing out russian ingenuity to ukraine i don't think his way to punish the ukraine. the way to punish russia or send a signal. i think it sends the wrong signal. are other questions you might ask if you're willing to loan money to ukraine. i would ask for a show of hands of those who would personally buy ukrainian debt. ukrainian debt is rated triple c, not one person in this room would buy it. there is no expectation they can pay it back. ukraine is rated as one of the least transparent nations in the world and one of the most corrupt nations to senator mccain has point out corruption is precisely why the imf quit sending money to ukraine. i think while we are in a big rush to send russia a signal i think sending russia loan money are sending ukraine loan money to go to russia is not a great signal. and i think sending money without the precondition that we

know that this is a brand-new government. this is a government that just came into in existence with maybe many questions as to how they came into existence. we don't currently have a president in ukraine but i think there are some great deal of questions about loaning them money. we have to billion is for ukraine have been recently appointed as mayors. i be more inclined to loan the money if you put their name first on the list of creditors that would be first up for a call if the loan is not paid. so there are a lot of questions i have here but primarily the question is, is when you loan money to ukraine, are you sending a signal to punish russia are you sending a gift to pay off russian creditors? so i am quite concerned about the loans and opposed that. my amendment would strike the loan guarantees and the imf. one of the reasons for striking the i'm f. reform is in the imf reform you would be giving russia and enhance to vote on the imf. their vote percentage will

increase by 8%. you'll be giving russia more power within the imf is these imf reforms. i don't think that you are sending the signal you want to send by allowing russia to have a greater power within the body of the imf. really should be going in the opposite direction. moody's assessors 20-$30 billion owed by the ukraine to russia. i think we just need to think this through and i know the impetus is to hurry up and act and send a signal but i don't think we're sending the correct signal here by sending loan money that will find its way very quickly into russia's hands. and i would urge support for this amendment which is paul an amendment one. >> for purposes of understanding, your enemy number one? okay. >> first of all i always enjoy hearing from my friend from kentucky, and he always makes interesting points but i want to thank him for his activity on

this bill. russia quoted expense for the reforms from 2.5% the two-point 71%. this was done to bring growing economies into the imf in a more appropriate way. so while that may be 8% of an increase for them i just want to say to everyone that's 2.5% to 2.71%. russia may be accredited ukraine has lots of creditors so on a they've got to make a transition from where they are wind come in doing so and offering this loan guarantee its stated policy to the state department that this does not happen unless they've ended into in imf agreement which would move the country, hopefully, towards these processes that would all like to see happen. so i thank you so much. obviously,.obvious i don't plan to support the amendment. >> mr. chairman, do we have

copies of the amendment? >> and mr. chairman, could i make one quick response? no? yes? [inaudible] yes. >> be happy to return to you and then go to -- >> just a quick response. ..