that ukraine wins in the long run to become more attractive as a place to be that than crimea is in russia. so that now, that's kind of where ukraine needs to go. i'm not an economist so i have no idea how to do that, go about doing that. i have hope somebody does but that seems to me to be the big long-term challenge. not just economy but also governance as well. so i will stop there and maybe we can do some -- [applause] >> thank you. dmitry gorenburg of harvard university. we have time for discussion. i invite questions. please keep them brief. please identify yourself. right there. >> hi i'm from georgetown university. a question for mr. gorenburg. do you think that the current actions will have some impact in

the future years defense programs or defense budget for fiscal year 2016? thanks. >> for the u.s.? >> yeah, for the u.s., yeah. >> you want to do it or -- >> so i'm sure it will. i don't, i don't know how. i'm not, i'm not a u.s. defense expert. i know that there are certainly people in the pentagon and at the various regional that are thinking about russia, that haven't been thinking about russia for a while. so i'm sure that will translate into force structure and where in planning and so forth. it is far to early to tell, you know. there are certainly no numbers anywhere yet so.

>> is the mic on? >> my name is leo. vice president of george washington university and also a ukrainian-american. i want to first of all compliment the panel. this is really very impressive and formidable panel and especially professor dubovyk. he should run for political office given passionately he spoke about the situation in ukraine. question for each of the panelists. yes or no answer. what is your educated guess about russia going into eastern ukraine in the foreseeable future? just, do you think would happen, yes or no? >> i hope and it is not going to happen and i don't think it is going to happen, thank you. >> just use this. >> my opinion, it is probability of about 7%. 7% probability of invasion in

eastern europe. >> i wouldn't be as precise but yes i think it is possible but not very probable. >> i'm with them. it's, possible in that, but it has to, there have to be missteps by the ukrainian government along the way. again, if the pop student presents itself, certainly possible but at this point i don't think, it's in the plan. >> talk with my friends in, with my colleagues yesterday and, last week and it is about only five or 7%. in the last monday after the crimea referendum it was about, probability of about 15 or 17%. and now it has declined. >> i'm from georgia.

so we still have some fresh memories of russian activities in the same manner and in same style. one thing i would like to comment about the measuring the success. putin has a different measuring system of his own success. so please do not measure how we view success or loss. he doesn't care about much economy or the, the people's lives or the gdp, gdp per capita. this is no measurement for him. and i think in terms of the projecting he embarked on the road where he can not stop because, if he stops, it means a defeat. so he has to continue. he need more victories. where he will dive in, which where it is right now hard to judge. the eastern ukraine i think he

now possesses much more tools to make things workable in there without military intervention. that is should be issue where the interim government before the elections in ukraine should con app concentrate and western community should help ukraine. now i have a question also in this regard and is, seen clearly in putin's interview and had public appearance justifying his behavior that would not stand nato within its own borders and expansion of nato. i think this is something he really fears and this will undermined his own job approval rating back in russia. he will view it as his defeat. what is the ratio of the public support, if some surveys have been conducted in ukraine of the ukraine's nato membership? >> why don't we go ahead and

collect a few questions. first, over here. yes. >> hello. and my question is, professor dubovyk and professor fisun you said what percentage of people in different ukrainian cities would want unification with russia one way or another. i want to know when those polls were conducted and also is there any kind of indicators about what the current feeling in the cities are? i know you two are from the cities so you probably have some kind of perspective on that. because i think over the last two or three weeks there has been a lot of propaganda from the russian language media and that of course would change opinions of people. so i want to get a sense of that, so. >> one more up front here. >> [inaudible] >> they're recording. >> okay.

my phd is in crimea, on crimea. i think going to crimea for the last 12 years. i'm crimea jamestown foundation and scholar school for conflict resolution at george mason. i just wanted to address -- [inaudible] i apologize for that my voice. i spoke with the leader of the crimean national movement in crimea and he spoke with president putin on the 12th of this month because putin wanted to talk to him and he invited him to to moscow and they spoke on the phone putin asked him his support for the annexation and everything and he told him that they always supported ukrainian territorial integrity and this, annexation that he was planning was against

budapest agreement of 1994. he came back and he told the crimean tatar people that everything was planned and this is my opinion now, not his but mine. you are talking about the soldiers. first of all, there were like 25,000 soldiers in, together in sevanstapol you but those green men are not my worries. my worry is i have been in crimea last 12 years and interviewing not only crimean tatars, who are called the russian unity and other groups like that. they have been training for this physician mythical enemy for the last 20 years. they have camps. i saw pictures, because they are my friends. pro-russian guys are also my friends. and so thighs guys the st. george ribbons on their arms, these are local people and

those are the scariest ones. they just killed, tortured and killed one crimean tatar two days ago. they kidnapped the head of the crimean party of opposition party. they are walking around in crimean tatar neighborhoods and putting cross cross on people's doors. these are on videotape. there are other things on youtube that, for instance, when the mosque was burned, construction of the mosque, in december of 2012, that is what russian unity and it was youtubed by the media and it went all around the internet. nobody was punished. news these people have entitlement and that is the most scary part for me. i don't have a question, i'm sorry. it was a just a little comment. thank you. >> thank you. take one more question before we come back to the panel. >> thank you. i'm emily andrews.

i'm retired world bank staff, having worked there for number after years. first of all one comment, wasn't he clever to move his capital in an area also seeded by the -- ceded by the soviet union where there were a lot of russians? my question is about unintended consequences for putin. could this lead to further movements in the caucasuss in particular because of the what happened to the tatars in crimean and what the return shuns have done? i have a feeling there could be many unintended consequences of what just happened? >> okay. the first thing is on, comment, comment on the missteps of the ukrainian government which could lead to further invasion of russian troops into the ukraine.

i don't think that is the case because obviously, evidently, we are seeing putin operating, basing on some kind of special picture of imagined reality that he has constructed about what is going on in ukraine. so it doesn't really matter for that matter what ukrainian government does or doesn't do, you know. he would still be talking about riots and missing journalists and people being tortureed which he did the other day and none of that is projects an information is in russia and that is picture russia is trying to project to people in the west here, through their media channels and so un. so if we would know we should be careful and not to do any of those missteps, that would be one thing but if we know, regardless of what we do or don't do in kiev by the government or elsewhere in ukraine, russia would still make

their mind, basically, corresponding to their idea of what needs to be done vis-a-vis ukraine. that is even more scary because that really leaves us without any kind of leverage in the situation. second point is that russia formal nato membership has gone up dramatically in the recent days as you imagine. the recent poll, is 70, seven, zero%, that sun heard of ukraine, that has never been that far, that high, including a lot of people in the east and south by the way. so in the meantime the government in kiev is not talking about membership and the current prime minister, he went to browse sells and talked to people, rasmussen and others and said that in not in the agenda for ukraine. i think life would press them to reconsider this. this to me is a technical position for our government but we need to look for some

alternative ways to provide for -- because all the ways we iced to have they didn't work. they proved to everybody absolutely inefficient. so all the treaties, bilateral, all those guaranties or assurances, they didn't work. so what else is left for ukraine to do other than to look for more efficient and function, funking society of structure or system of providing security. the polls and surveys are taken right before the russians moved into crimea and the right now it is not very good territory ukraine is for conducting polls and surveys. you know, so, society is too on the verge i would say and way i'm seeing and hearing from them, they can not even trying to think of ways doing this because provocations. you know, there is a lot of hostility and negativity towards the people as well in various parts. people would be trying to seize

some kind of double agenda, why are you asking me this question and we should wait a little bit until things calm down hopefully before the new surveys and polls will be conducted. the possibility of confrontation in crimea bothers me a lot, particularly crimean tatars. i would agree. not regular russian troops we should be scared of but the regulars that have been brought and not just local people. they have been moved in vast numbers, chechnya as well. and those are really crazy people there. so they might go and do stupid things and crimean tatars, as you know they have their own emotions running high and that is clear potential unfortunately for clashes and clashes. yeah. >> the question about polls -- >> this is okay.

>> the i have mentioned that was conducted in the middle of february of this year by mckee international institute and regular surveys, i don't know the new date after the crimea, crimea crisis. actually in ukrainian and are, for example, would conduct polls about use of -- for citizen of european integration and so-called custom union integration. and there are only two options. one option for european agreement and second option for custom union agreement. for a person to -- 30% is for

ukrainian citizen. actually about, nato membership. there are two different situations. before crimea crisis and after crimea crisis and after crimea crisis number of supporters of for nato membership dramatically increases including my home city and other urn ukrainian regions. actually it is question of great power game and interrelations between u.s., and russia and ukraine. probably, there are a lot of space for negotiations and for reaching of agreement about military status, military state of ukraine, new architecture of international security after crimea crisis.

>> unintended consequences, yes, it is problem too early to say something very concrete. i, i am not sure of the situation in the caucasus might deteriorate directly as as a result of the crimean crisis and something might happen, and something more probable maybe is the growth of xenophobic attitudes that will accompany this patriotic frenzy which we're observing right now and it will potentially lead to deterioration of internal ethnic relations in russia. this is definitely a potential. another unintended consequence which might occur is, i mean, let's wait and see what happens with the customs, with the eurasian union, the agreement on the eurasian economic union. if i remember correctly was

planned for signature in may. it's not guaranteed that this will happen and, what would, what will be the content of this agreement is also not very clear. i mean how successful it will be. one more thing which i would probably point out in the context of what dmitry gorenburg also said, you sigh the signs in the shops. obama is not welcome here as a response to the sanctions imposed on on the russian elites but i think this is temporary. it can not last for long. this -- with the bureaucracy and the top, not just with putin himself but with the top leaders who are usually considered corrupt and inefficient and so on and selfish, that is

something that can actually in the final analysis turn against putin. also politically and domestically producing further division between the public and the bureaucracy rather than consolidation around the flag. >> yeah, we might just to concur we might remember that there was, after the georgia war there was a similar burst of nationalism and support and it wasn't, then the electoral protests didn't come that long afterwards. so that kind of thing can happen again. i just want to say one thing, one more thing on the crimean tatars. i think you're absolutely right being concerned about these local groups and which saw these, i think the one thing we have to keep in mind is that the interests of these local elites may well diverge from the

interests of putin and company or, elites in moskow or however you want to phrase it. so for example, we have even, as putin has been making all these noises about how we're going to respect tatars rights and include crimean tatars in one of the languages of the republic and regularize everything, there was a statement from the local, i forget local politician but i think one ever them saying, well, we may have to expel crimean tatars from some of the land they're squatting on. yeah, yeah. >> [inaudible] >> but this is the sort of thing where the message that's, because the locals are the ones that have been having very hostile relations, as you indicated with the crimean

tatars for a long time, right? whereas the, you know, moscow is trying to -- >> [inaudible] >> want to focus on this side of the room for a moment first. >> thank you. i have a question and a comment. first, question, this is may be more question of a citizen of ukraine than a question of an expert but this is a question to all the experts. so in case if putin moves further, to eastern ukraine, what kind of sanctions or other steps can we wait from the west? just any kind of your ideas in this because this is the question which bothers a lot of citizens of ukraine today. and as for the comment, i would

like to say this is not the idea but the situation you know, it was widely commented by different experts that non-proliferation regime was shaken a lot with the situation. first of all, first of all with the past memorandum where the state has denied nuclear weapons in exchange for any kind of guaranties for security for and security proved it is absolutely uneffectiveness. it means that not being can defend you, maybe accepts of nuclear weapons and this is the clear message to iran and dprk. even we did have some kind of command by some of our ukrainian journalists that in case crimea would be annexed by russia and united states and united nations and iaea should apologize to iran and north korea for

spending their time and trying to enhance their security with only real means of enhancement of security. it means, so it will be a great impact for the horizontal proliferation or just a push for proliferation movement. and first, then as for the vertical proliferation i think that it will be big idea for the dream of global nuclear zero because now russia has very good pretext not to continue its nuclear disarmament or not disarmament or not some kind of reductions in its nuclear forces just to create new strategic nuclear forces to, not to cause the technical nuclear forces because, everybody understands that the west is style. that they are pushing, that they are creating these scenarios in ukraine and other places because you know, this is not, i'm very

support the idea of viatcheslav that it can be created in kiev, this kind of revolution. not? kiev, even some of my colleagues support this. the idea that the hostile west is coming will create some kind of consolidation in the field of not only just, that they the means to enhance russia's security and it means that russia would not pursue any kind of reductions. so would put it out for the nuclear proliferation, non-proliferation, thank you. >> -- questions of the distinguished panel. i'm retired foreign service. first of all to what extent the russian winter olympics provided cover for putin to plan his crimea operation in the same way that the invasion of georgia took place during the chinese

summer games? secondly, what are the prospects for invading moldova? there are news that russian agents are agitating the situation and there is turmoil in moldova now. thirdly, could you please comment to what extent the european union is unified in their resolve to counter the russian aggression especially watching the german attitude toward the crisis? thank you. >> keith darden, american university. thanks to the panel for a interesting set of comments. i'm curious what any difference that happened to ukraine, listening to fisun these are the same comments that might take place after an election at regional level to accommodate a new power in kiev. does it matter this new power in kiev didn't come into power

through election in that they came to power through other means? does that affect the willingness of the population in the east and south to support them rather than simply a accommodate? i also want to point out to the panel the logic behind russia not moving, further into the east would also be applicable having never entered crimea. given we know they did enter crimea i wonder if you could update the underlying logic in a way that would both incorporate the fact that they invited crimea and they won't go any further. >> let's have one more question in the back. >> hello? thank you. i'm peter olburg. my question is about the economy. i know none of the panelists are the economists but volodymyr touched on this and demitri, long-term situation about the ukraine. it was economy that triggered

protests last year. my question, will the e.u. and the united states really be able to absorb the turbulences that will be caused by necessary austerity measures and disassociation from russia because now ukraine and russia live in a quasi-symbiotic economic unity and there will have to be a disassociation? so necessarily this will cause social unrest as we've seen in greece, far more stable country economically than is ukraine, which kind of government in ukraine will be able to regulate these kinds of unrests that are foreseeable and that will actually determine the future of ukraine? >> thank you. why don't we start with dmitry and we'll go this way. >> okay, one thing, i can pick two of these kind of parallel, why won't they intervene and what, what, but what further steps if they do intervene?

so, there's no, obviously there is no certainty here, right? but it seems to me the main difference is that crimea is, well, there are three i guess. one i mentioned which was the presence of a base making intervention easier. two, kind of, crimea is self-contained, rye? there is obvious stopping place. if you, if you go into lugansk maybe you sudden should go into d don't nets. doesn't mean they won't do it but unlike in crimea i think there is, i think that ukraine, that ukraine will have no choice but to defend, using arms i mean. and that is big difference. and it is not that russia can't

defeat the ukrainian military, but as we've seen in u.s. interventions in various places in the world over the last decade or two, it is easy to invade. it is hard to, to hold. so there would be a lot of pain to occupying troops i think. i think, i think that is the reason why. the population, even in the eastern most regions, even if you, you know the, even, if there were sizable percentages of some cities before, as we heard from the polling data, rural areas are so predominantly ukrainian-speaking, right? you probably know more about that than i ever could hope to but, so, i, i mean there's, it

is much more, seems to me it is much more complicated. as far as what further steps? i mean we've kind of, we have, we have the plan, right, the level three sanctions. i mean, in the end, i think, you know, the final, you know, assuming we don't want to go to war, the final step is cutting off of russia from the financial, from the international financial system, right? that is sort of the extreme sanction that iran is under. and, obviously causes a lot of pain to, certainly to europe. . .

>> let me just say there was a question about using the winter olympics as a cover, somebody asked? i don't, i, i don't see it, because putin spent an awful lot of money to, for -- to use the winter olympics as a big pr show for the regime, right? neb's, nobody remembers that anybody. it works, you know, it still works on the domestic scene, but as far as internationally, you know, it was wasted. so that, to me, is another sort of indicator that in this wasn't

something that had been planned much in advance. can you address germany question? or, i mean, i can do can it -- [inaudible] go ahead. >> oh. i will pick be up where you stopped with the olympics. and it also goes back to question about different measurement systems. yes, within russia these have two consecutive victories, but in the international context, of course, the ukrainian adventure seemed to be nulled by whatever was gained be by the olympics x. the people this the kremlin probably understand that. it was, in a way, a damage limitation exercise in terms of taking crimea in order to somehow project russia's independence and to show that russia's still strong. in terms of potential other, further intervention, well, let

me risk practicing one more nightmare scenario. why don't you annex -- [inaudible] and then demand a corridor between -- [inaudible] and crimea. that could be a very clever move from a certain point of view. so, i mean, yes, it's all possible. but at the same time, yes, we must be aware of the fact that capabilities are limited, and the people in the kremlin -- and not just in the kremlin, but in the ministry of defense and other, okay, ministry of finance, there are some sensible people there. and they must be able to, well, at least make the case that the risks grow exponentially as you continue down that path. so that probably also partly answers the question about moldova, because moldova, of course, will be also very, come

under very close attention at the european union at the moment, and the association agreement is already in the pipeline, and everything is -- i mean, the trade, free trade area is probably going to be in place relatively soon. visa-free travel is also coming. so that -- yes, of course, it's quite possible that there is some agitation in moldova proper by russia. not probably that much in tunisia because it doesn't need to be agitated. it's already very much agitated by itself. but i think it's, again, nothing is excluded, but i would a -- i would say that there is a possibility for -- [inaudible] just to put it briefly. reaction of the e.u. and swrermny in particular, yes, there is a very strong presence of in this position in germany

that, well, let's do business russia, let's forget about politics that rush that is trying to play -- russia is trying to play, this kind of appeasement attitude very much, very strong in the business circle and also in the intellectual circles. it had been there before the ukrainian crisis, and it's still there. it's still very tangible, and in that regard germany, of course, within the e.u. is now playing more or less -- well, not exactly on the russian side, but on the side, on the more moderate side, let me put it this way. so, but again, there are limitations to what can be done. and i think one more crucial, i mean, first of all, america will come under pressure domestically also in terms of from civil society. i think a crucial indication of what the e.u. is going to do would be the helicopter carriers

which france is scheduled to deliver to russia. that will be a litmus test for what, for the determination of the e.u. to do something about ukraine and russia. >> [inaudible] after russian invasion in eastern ukraine and probably we need military protection from international forces. ukrainian territorial integrity because the question of what is important and crisis in crimea, in eastern ukraine indicate end of current political order and current political, international

system. this was created in yalta in 1945 and symbolically this yalta order was -- [inaudible] this is my solution of probably for way of development. but -- [inaudible] point of view. and question about accommodation accommodation -- occupation of eastern ukraine, my point of view that clear for central government do not have capacity to keep power if eastern ukraine -- in eastern ukraine without a settlement with part of eastern ukrainian regional elite.

and to that -- [inaudible] in current situation in eastern and southern ukrainian region shows pattern of integration of oligarchs and new government -- [inaudible] second pattern is the transition, settlement with former elite -- [inaudible] between governor and -- [inaudible] and way to failed state and to fail region. for local -- [inaudible] to to settlement, no integrations. it's way to nothing. it's way to civil war. and, actually, the topic of my

future academic paper and my position is that we need to -- [inaudible] solution for ukraine. establishment, establish a i new ukrainian constitution and power sharing solution between east and west of ukraine. because each part of ukraine, each own 50% wards -- [inaudible] ukrainian elections. and we need to include the government after the new parliament of elections including -- [inaudible] we need a broad coalition government in ukraine if you want to keep eastern region in ukraine. >> thank you. we have about one more minute. [inaudible conversations] >> my colleagues have done a good job in answering questions, so i'm going to give it to you,

corey. >> thank you. in that case, let me say thank you very much to all of our panelists for the discussion. we remain hopeful and optimistic about ukraine's future, about the relationship of ukraine with the western community and all of its neighbors, and we remain optimistic about russia's future as well. please join me in thanking the panel. [applause] >> and the senate gavels in today, 2:00 eastern with a test vote at 5:30 on whether to begin debate on ukraine legislation with $150 million in economic assistance, imposing sanctions on russia and providing the imf with assistance for ukraine. we'll have live coverage of the senate right here on c-span2. and at 2:00 eastern the house gavels in for legislative business. nine bills on the agenda over there including legislation to encourage tax-deductible donations to help the philippines recover from typhoon be haiyan. live coverage over on c-span.

also on capitol hill today, the acting white house drug czar will testify on the president's 2015 budget request. the $3.9 trillion plan includes $25 billion to fight drug addiction. that hearing is at 3:00. we'll have that live on c-span3. and at 5:30 eastern on c-span3, a hearing on the satellite home viewer act. the legislation allows satellite tv operators to include broadcast television coverage, but the provision expires at the end of the year which means that 1.5 million households with satellite tv would lose access to broadcast networks unless congress acts. and today is the 25th anniversary of the exxon valdez oil spill which dumped hundreds of thousands of barrels of crude oil into alaska's prince william sound and polluted more than 1300 miles of shore. last week the sierra club and the alaska wilderness league held a press conference on the continued impact of the exxon valdez spill.

>> thank you all for joining us this morning. my name is gene karpinski, i'm the president of the league of conservation voters. i'm going to be moderating this event this morning. you're going to hear from five speakers briefly and have plenty of time for questions. we'll hear from people all from alaska who will tell the story how they've been involved in the efforts in the aftermath of the spill for the last 25 years, sadly. also hear from cindy shogan, executive director at the alaska wilderness league. and, again, i'm gene karpinski, the president of the league of conservation voters. you know, it was 25 years ago that alaskans suffered from the oil spill seen around the world. and it's an absolute tragedy that today, 25 years later, alaskans are still suffering economically and environmentally from that spill. we're still seeing the effects

of that spill. that makes no sense. it's time we learned the lesson from that spill of 25 years ago. and one final opening thought, as we know, the biggest challenge facing us today from an environmental perspective and from a national perspective more broadly is the challenge of climate change. president obama has recognized that challenge. he's actually taken some very significant steps forward to cut carbon pollution that causes those problems. but the science also makes it clear that if we're going to solve the climate crisis in the future, we need to keep a significant portion of those fossil fuels in the ground. that's why our community is united to make sure that the dirty tar sands don't come out of canada, and that's why we also need the president to declare a moratorium on leasing and development in the arctic ocean. we need to keep many, many of those fossil fuels in the ground. so let me turn it over to my friend and colleague, david grimes first and then dune and

rick will all speak about alaska. thank you. >> thank you, gene. yes, everyone, stay up here. [laughter] greetings. david grimes, cordova, alaska, former commercial herring and salmon fisherman, accidental activist and wilderness guide. the oil to spill for -- oil spill for me and my friends and for all of us became a profound, huge wave of crisis and opportunity, so we're all aware of the crisis and the damage that we incur through being addicted to our number one drug, fossil fuel. but we want to also speak about the opportunities in the crisis. let me set the stage. prince william sound, the copper river delta, two ecosystems side by side at the very northern end

of the coastal rain forest, a giant bio-region or earth organ that runs from northern california all the a way up the coast to kodiak. prince william sound and copper river are the northernmost part of this coast. prince william sound is arguably the finest marine ecosystem in north america. the copper river right next to it is arguably the finestwetlands -- finest fish and wildlife wetlands. this is the place that took the hit. incredibly powerfully symbolic. took place 25 years ago on good friday, in the midst of the day of sacrifice. 25 years before that was the giant alaska earthquake epicenterred in the same place, also on good friday. so right before the oil spill and the week before we were thinking, hmm, the 25th anniversary of the earthquake is about to happen. wonder what could happen? here we are 25 years later.

it's a bittersweet irony. i'm so grateful to be here with my be friends and loved ones that went through that. and what we want to remember is it's not just us humans here. we're speaking about this living land, fish and wildlife without which we're not fully human. so the lay of the land at the time of the oil spill, 89-90, the wall comes down in berlin. tiananmen square, apartheid falls apart in south africa, and the animals died for our sins in the oil of alaska. the day before the oil spill it was widely known that the arctic wildlife refuge was getting green lighted to be developed. in cordova the day before the oil spill, our conversation is this is the year we've got to get serious about the forest. the northern end of the great temperate rain forest had never

been commercially logged. tax loopholes were going to force that issue. the trees had just started to fall, and in the next 20 years, the whole area was going to get clear cut. the day before the oil spill we're thinking how can we ever spotlight this? we, the citizens, were going, well, we're going to have to figure something out. the oil spill happened. the great be irony of the oil spill is that seven years later in that crisis of opportunity, the roughly thousand dollars -- thousand -- one billion, roughly one billion dollars that exxon under duress was forced to pay for restoration, our argument of the wounded resources, our argument was on the -- was only time and mother nature can clean up the injuries of the oil spill in the ocean. humans cannot clean up major oil spills. in the meantime, we're about to have the equivalent of an oil spill on land in the same ecosystem. the whole forest is going to

come down. salmon are forest animals just as much as they are ocean animals. if you clear cut their native streams, if you oil them in the ocean. so one of the great opportunities in that crisis is seven years after the oil spill we had managed to protect about 600,000 acres of the most significant fish and wildlife habitat in the forests that were about to come down. so i want to -- this is a time to remember, but it's also a time to keep track of what did we learn prevent more oil spills and, first, do no more harm. protect this habitat. so habitat, habitat, got to have some habitat. ♪ ♪ thank you. >> fighting some allergies, so bear with me a little bit. my name is dune lankard, i'm a

indian from the copper river delta and prince william sound, alaska, i'm from the eagle clan. my name means little bird that screams really loud and won't shut up. and sometimes i have to live up to that name. so, you know, i guess what i'm here to share with you is that oil spills continue to happen around the planet. we haven't figured out how to clean them up. we never will. and so the best thing we can do is figure out how to prevent them from happening in the first place. and alaska was -- in prince william sound, you know, i grew up fishing with one of the last families that fish in prince william sound, and when the exxon valdez oil spill happened in our backyard, a part of the

ocean died. and yet a part of we came to life. and i realized that i had to become louder than everything else, but yet remain a voice of reason and work with david and rick and carol hoover and these amazing people and try and figure out how we could save what was left, save what was right. because what we lost was we lost our faith in humanity. we don't, we can't trust anybody anymore. it'll never be the same. you know, we thought that, you know, people would come and help us, you know? we really thought that the cavalry would come. no one showed up. and so we had to defend ourselves and defend the land and the animals and the fisheries and, you know, go through 25 years of hell.

and it's not over. you know, this oil spill never leaves our mind. it's a part of who we are. and so, you know, i do everything i can every day to let people know that we can do things differently. you know, we can figure this out. and, you know, when i think about the development in the arctic national wildlife refuge and npra, the buford sea, we're living proof of what can go wrong. not only will they not be able to clean up the possess, if there is a mess, they'll never settle with us. they'll never take care of the people. our way of life will be lost. for what, for grueled? for money? -- for greed? for money? for oil? no. you know, our way of life, there's fog like it. it's comparable to none -- there's nothing like it. it's comparable to none. i'm proud to be a fisherman.

i'm proud to, you know, go out there and subsistence or harvest off the lands. i remember when i was a young pup and my father would always do about 10-15 drops at different community, different families, and we would drop off fish and herring and deer and what not. to different families. and i asked him, i said, why do we do this? and he said, because we can. and those people can't afford to get out there and get this food themselves. and so all my life i've been able to have this incredible bounty at my finger townships, and -- fingertips, and when we lost that, we lost a part of ourselves. and what a lot of people don't realize is subsistence is philanthropy. when we give to another family, when we take care of someone else, they share that food with someone else and someone else.

and, you know, and we don't know what's going to happen. but the herring haven't recovered. it was 50 percent of our annual income. 50 percent. we haven't fished herring but maybe three out of the last 25 years. our wild salmon haven't come back. not in the numbers that they were. and so when we think about development, you know, we gotta figure out how to do it right. we have the technology, we have the intelligence. obviously, the companies, the oil companies, the energy companies have the pun, but we have -- have the pun, but we have -- have the money, but we have to make them use it right, otherwise we end up with more exxon valdezs. it's one of those places where we only have a few be chances to get things right.

and right now we're just starting to recover. but an oil spill could happen tomorrow. it could happen again. and when i see these other spills happening around the planet and people call me and ask me to come there and help them, i can't do it, because i can't, i can't live through it again. you know? and i thank rick and ricky for doing what they do and traveling to these oil spills to help the people. but the last thing i'd like to say is that we can't let the arctic national wide live refuge and these places -- wildlife refuge and these places that are pristine and absolutely bountiful for the people who choose to live this way of life, we can't let them suffer and go through what we have. because it never goes away. and for the oil companies to just go in there and destroy our

way of life and take what they want and leave us with nothing, it's not good enough, you know? americans are better than this. and we have what it takes to figure this out. we can't drill our way off the this problem. and so -- out of this problem. and so i just want everybody to remember that the exxon valdez was a terrible, terrible nightmare, but we obviously haven't learned anything yet. because the number one response to oil spills today toddies burstments. sink it or -- today is dispersements. sink it or try to get it out of everybody's eye. when i hear these things about the oil if it gets on the ice, once it's offense the water, it's on the beaches, it's over. there's nothing we can do. so the best thing we can do is prevent it from ever happening. thank you.

>> i'd like to echo what you've just heard. i'm rick steiner, i was a professor at the university of alaska, a marine conservation professor for 30 years stationed in the arctic and then this prince william sound for 14 or 15 years both before and during the exxon valdez. now i'm a consultant on oil spills and environmental issues globally. yeah, i think the one take-home message from exxon valdez is that it is not over. the damage persists and in quite remarkable ways. there was a promise made to the people of america before they built the trans-alaska pipeline that all the technology in the world will be in this system, it'll be safe, there will be not one drop spilled. obviously, as soon as the approval was granted, all those promises evaporated. exxon valdez spilled 40, 50,

60,000 tons of very toxic crude oil spreading over about 10,000 square miles of alaska's coastal ocean ending up oil toking over 1300 -- oiling over 1300 miles of a very pristine shoreline, many national parks, wildlife refuges, one of our nation's largest national forests, indigenous lands. and we knew the damage, the images that everybody saw that year were spectacularly horrible. with the otters dying and birds dying. the acute mortality was spectacular. but 25 years later what we have learned is that the injury persists. most of the monitored fish and wildlife populations and habitats that the governments have monitored are still not fully recovered. let me say this again. most of the fish and wildlife populations have not fully recovered.

some, the killer whale pod and pacific herring that dune just mentioned are listed a quarter of a century later as not recovering. not recovering. the at-3 killer whale pod was 22 members prior to the spill. we saw them surfacing in the oil that summer. they dropped to seven members, ross their reproductive females, and now -- this is not our quote, this is from the government trustee council -- they conclude that there is no hope for recovery of this killer whale pod. because they will not -- the last cap they had was just before the oil spill. they will not reproduce, and they expect them to go extim. the take -- extinct. the take home from this is there will not be, there will never be full recovery from the exxon valdez oil spill. period. this has to, you know, be figured into our risk calculus about oil development, drilling,

transportation, pipelines, shipping anywhere and everywhere. we have to simply be honest about what the potential risks are. of so there's long-term damage. the litigation is still unresolved. the private litigation was resolve several years ago at very poor dollar figure for the plaintiffs, but the government litigation, the reopener for unknown injuries that was put into the settlement in 1991 allowing the government to collect up to another $100 million for up -- unanticipated injuries at the time of settlement, the government presented a claim to exxon for $92 million in 2006, and exxon, although they had agreed to this stipulation in the settlement in 991, they said we're not paying it, and they haven't. and, so that's a betrayed promise. another betrayed promise is the government has done absolutely nothing. this is the state of alaska and the federal government have done

absolutely nothing to collect this delinquent payment. it's unimaginable. you know, our governor now was an attorney for exxon's law firm at the time the governments paid the claim for $92 million. and now, only in alaska, he's the governor in charge of collecting this payment from his former client. there's still thousands of gallons of exxon valdez crude oil in the beach sediments of prince william sound. here's some i collected just last month. we knew that would be there a quarter of a century later. what we didn't know, though, is it would still be relatively unweathered, still relatively toxic and still being taken up into the ecosystem, still affecting near-shore marine organisms. so any way you look at it, the whole risk of oil development is much greater than we knew 25 years ago. my take-home messages are these: spills will happen, you cannot

contain them or clean them up when they do. once the oil is out of a tanker or a pipeline of a well head, it's game over. i work on oil spills all over world, and that's simply the sad, unfortunate conclusion. you can have long-term, permanent -- even permanent ecological damage, and you cannot restore a spill-injured coastal ecosystem, period. all the money in the world can't fix what we break in oil spills. so three lessons from that for me. number one, we need to prohibit oil drilling and transportation in these ecosystems, excuse me, we need to prohibit oil drilling and development in these precious coastal areas where we do not want to accept or can't tolerate the consequences of a catastrophic oil spill. that's number one. and that includes the arctic ocean, bristol bay, other

precious coastal places. why put that at risk? number two, where we are continuing to do oil and gas development and transportation we need to do it with the highest, best available technology standards possible. regardless of cost. and that's something the oil industry and the government have yet to step up to. they use a risk reduction standard now called a larp, as low as reasonably pact pact able. that means we'll do it if it seems cost effective. if it's too costly even though it's best, we're not going to do it. and that is, that's a very unfortunate posture for risk reduction. i think if we're doing oil and gas development, the consequences of mistake are so large it needs to have best available technology and risk reduced to as low as possible regardless of cost can. and in prince william sound, we did put in a very effective

spill preare vex system. -- prevention system. we can talk about that later if you have questions. thirdly, we need to urgently get serious about transition into a low-carbon, sustainable energy economy. i think it's disgraceful that our energy policy subsequent to exxon valdez has been get more carbon out of the ground. and that's, you know, i did a back of the envelope calculation that the world has used twice as much oil since exxon valdez as in all of human history up until that day. 700 billion barrels of oil have been burned, produced and burned. subsequent to march 24, 1989, and about 300 billion were used and burp bed up until that -- burped -- burned up until that date. co2 levels were about 350 ppm at the time of exxon valdez, now they're about 400. we've lost about half of the

icecap since exxon valdez, and this is just going from bad to worse. we don't seem to learn this lesson. so if there's a lesson there, we need to learn it. we can talk about any specifics of this in questions if you want. thanks. >> hello, by name is cindy sho to began, i'm with the alaska wilderness league based here in washington, d.c., and i'm really honored to be with my be friends from alaska, and i'm really mad that we're still talking about drilling in special places, and i'm mad that we haven't learned the lessons we should. the anniversary of the exxon valdez is a time to remember promises made and promises broken. rick had a whole laundry list of promises made by the government and by the oil industry that were broken even before the tragic spill on march 24th. what also struck me, he talked about the permanence of these bills. once -- spills. once the spill happens, the damage is irreversible, and the battle is lost. despite what we learned from the

exxon value tease and the more recent -- valdese and the more recent bp oil spill, the government continues to make the same bad promises. broken promises about safety, oil spill response capabilities and also technology. so we need to think about these promises and these broken promises when we think about drilling in the arctic ocean. the very speculative payoffs of drilling in the ocean have really encouraged and rushed the industry to drill without thinking through the consequences. the arctic ocean is nothing like the prince william sound, and it's certainly nothing like the gulf of mexico. it's very remote. it's a place that is harsh, has gale force winds and subfreezing temperatures much of the year. this environment presents challenges to drilling and has unique needs for infrastructure. unlike prince william sound or the gulf of alaska, there's no infrastructure around the arctic ocean. planned drilling sites are more than a thousand miles from the nearest coast guard station, and its waters have ice floes in the

summer and are packed solid with ice for eight or more months each year. no one knows how to clean up an oil spill in ice, and no companies are truly arctic-ready. as you all might remember, on december 31, 2012, we all watched as shell's problems became part of the national stage. the nation watched as shell's drilling -- [inaudible] ran aground of the coast of kodiak island. soon afterwards we learned from the freedom of information act that it was crushed like a beer can. and this is in addition to other accidents that shell had, like losing -- like its drilling ship slipped its anchor and caught fire. as shell's operational management and technological failures demonstrate, oil companies are not ready to operate safely in the arctic ocean. in the arctic ocean, an oil spill would be impossible to clean up and would have devastating long-term effects like we learned from prince william sound. so that's why gene talked about at the beginning we are calling on the obama administration to place a moratorium on the arctic

ocean. america's arctic is teeming with wildlife, and the native communities have subsisted there for hundreds of years. this is a special place. it's a place that we all care about and one we cannot barter for short-term gains. >> thanks, cindy. and by name's athan manuel, i lobby for the sierra club, and i've worked on this issue for a while. in fact, dune and i -- the last time he can and i were together, in fact, not to talk about our social lives too much, but was here for a press conference about the exxon valdez oil spill and exxon's fight in court to cap the amount of damages they paid, and we were joined at that press conference by sarah palin, of all people, who were pushing exxon to pay for their fair share. so it is just to echo all the comments of my colleagues, it is sad that we're here 25 years later talking about the consequences of our dependence on fossil fuels and dirty energy. and you have seen, obviously, the consequences of valdese.

prince william sound is still not recovered. we're still seeing the same issues they dealt with 25 years ago. besaw the deepwater horizon spill happened, and again the industry was uncapable of meeting their promises, uncapable of cleaning up the mess they made, and just like prince william sound you're still seeing the damages in the gulf of mexico three years later, four years later from that spill. you see commercial fishing impacted, marine mammals impacted, oil mass that washes ashore. the gulf has not recovered the same way prince william sound has not recovered. so we have all these examples and consequences of our dependence on fossil fuels and the irresponsibility of the oil industry to handle special places like the gulf or prince william sound. but now it's all been made more profound by the issue that gene opened the press conference with, about climate change. even the spills alone would be one reason to stop drilling in special places like the arctic refuge or the western arctic.

but climate makes all thosish hsus much more important. so if we're serious about fighting climate change, we have to start doing the hard things which is keeping the oil in the ground where it belongs. if we're serious as a nation to face, to really solve this challenge of climate change, we would make those hard decisions and say we're never going to drill this the arctic ocean, we're going to have a more to have ya on drilling in that area and cancel the lease plans for 2016 and 2017 and not allow shell to drill until we study their drilling plans completely and make sure they have con contingency plans in place. we would not develop the tar sands in canada, but we wouldn't open up the south atlantic to new drilling the way this administration is allowing, and we wouldn't drill, obviously, in the coastal plain of the arctic refuge. those are important choices but choices we have to make if we're serious about avoiding disasters like the exxon valdez and

deepwater horizon oil spills. so these are difficult choices but, again, we think we're up to it as a nation. we need to lead on these issues. so hopefully if we do all those things, we save the planet, and we won't have to come back here in another 25 years lamenting oil spills that have happened in the future. so with that, i think we just want to wrap it up and open it up to any questions you guys have. >> so -- [inaudible] houston chronicle. the discussion about the technology and prevention of oil spills and accidents to the extent that we do drilling and continue doing drill anything sensitive areas, looking at the arctic the regulators are developing, you know, are developing arctic standards, seem to be taking a very long time, and the indications are it's just going to mirror a lot of what shell committed to already. so i was hoping you could speak to what you understand to be the process there, any concerns you

may have about how that process is going. also since the regulators are working on separate tracks, do you see that being incorporated on arctic trilling or on -- drilling or on alaska drilling anyway? >> very fine question, jennifer. we're very worried about what other standards are put in place simply from two points of view. one, people will continue to make mistakes, and equipment will continue to fail. we can reduce risk in these operations, these highly complex, technical operations as low as possible, but there's still a residual risk of things happening. aviation industry presently is a good example of that. no matter how safe they think they can get drilling in the arctic ocean, there will be a residual risk of a catastrophic blowout. everybody that knows the bids knows that. they know it. they're just loathe to give voice to that conclusion. be there is a new center for offshore safety that the

industry has set up, api has set up. there's a new offshore energy safety institute that the doi has set up in a few texas universities. these are good conceptually, but what will matter is exactly what gets in the water from those two efforts. and right now we haven't seen anything. so it's too tentive to say those are both effective efforts. i have no confidence whatsoever that government and industry operating together will put the safest system in place anywhere, which is why one fundamental thing we learned from exxon valdez is you have to have a robust citizen stakeholder oversight function to make sure that all the is are dotted and all the ts are crossed and every potential risk is identified and mitigated as much as possible. we had the prince william sound regional citizens' advisory council in prince william sound. we recommended that that be

established before the exxon valdez, and industry basically said, get lost. government did too. why would we want citizens breathing down our neck? we need that in the arctic. there's shipping there right now, and there will continue to be no matter what we do, so we need a robust citizen stakeholder oversight to make sure that government and industry get it right. >> but one thing to add to that too, though, we think the arctic ocean is the last place they should be drilling even if they have stronger regulations. the infrastructure, it's laughable when you look at -- and shell proved all of our fears when they tried to drill their last summer. that it's a thousand miles, as cindy said, from the nearest coast guard station. there's no port to store facilities or to have an oil spill response equipment on site. i mean, i think this is still true, the closest thing to a port on the north slope is a boat ramp in wainwright. so there's just not any on-shore support facility there. so we don't think the area should have been leased when it

was under the bush administration, we don't think the permits should have been issued to shell, and then shell had six years to get ready to do their exploratory drilling last summer, and they were caught completely unprepared for drilling in a very, very hostile environment. and so it's a hostile environment, there's no infrastructure. even if administration comes out with strong regulations -- which we think they will do as far as they can administratively, you know, until congress acts to change these other laws they're going to do as much as they can, but even the strongest laws are inappropriate in the arctic ocean because it's a dangerous place to operate. there's no infrastructure. it's thousands of miles away from any kind of coast guard oversight. so the last place we should be drilling is the arctic ocean no matter how strong the regulations are. >> and just to adjust a little bit to to that, you know, there's a profound misunderstanding here. the world's topsy-turvy. places like bristol bay, the arctic national wildlife ref fuming, the arctic ocean, they are already developed.

these enormously, profoundly productive factories, if you will, of mother nature producing, you know, the most magnificent salmon runs this the world, some of the great fish and wildlife habitat inside world. we're not fully human without that stuff. and they're already developed. and in many of those places we can only uneconomically undevelop them. and as a interesting little irony, you've all heard the expression just say no, you know? and nancy reagan's people brought it to her, it was a great slogan. does anybody know where that slogan first came from? the great irony, it was a national poster, as i understand the story and friends in the arctic have told me this, there was a national poster contest. one of the winning posters was from a youth in arctic village alaska, and the poster said

"just say no to drilling in the arctic refuge." it's very interesting because, again, it was right to the point. oil is our number one drug. and so it's really, this is a great challenge of our time to see -- why did we care about alaska? it's because deep in the child heart symbolically around the world, alaska is a remnant of eden. and all of us know we really can'tly without the rest of -- can't live without the rest of creation. it's who we are. so it's great test of our time to see if we're going to have the democracy of all beings and so thank you for your time. >> after the bp spill, congress talked about passing legislation, never did. is there any hope that congress will do anything? anyone? >> well, i think you know the answer to that. probably not.

it's unfortunate that, you know, not to talk about too much ancient history, but in 2010 the senate had written a bipartisan oil spill response bill that, you know, lisa murkowski had cosponsored. but at the markup of that bill, it was torpedoed by ms. murkowski and mary landrieu over an issue of revenue sharing. so i think it's unfortunate. we had held out hopes. i think people remember in 1989 the spill happened, but the ocean protection act wasn't passed until 1990, so we thought the spill would at least motivate members of congress even a year removed from the deepwater horizon spill. but that, sadly, did not happen. and i don't think it's going to happen anytime soon. you know, now with ms. landrieu and ms. more cow city in charge of that committee -- murkowski in charge of that committee, they're not looking at oil spill response as an issue, unfortunately. it was a real tragedy -- not tragedy, but it was really unfortunate that that bill

didn't pass because the house had passed an oil spill response bill in 2010, so -- the last day before the august research, the democratic house passed that. but the senate just couldn't step up primarily because of an obsession with revenue sharing from a couple of oil state senators. >> i answer that? -- can i answer that? >> in your packets i have a list of asks of congress, some specific asks. and the question is very good. congress has only passed one piece of legislation relative to oil spills post-deepwater horizon. and that's the restore act which simply dedicates 80% of any clean water act recoveries to restoration of the gulf. that's kind of a no-brainer. that was probably going to happen anyway, even in an out-of-court settlement, a consent decree. it has nothing to do to raids oil spill liability -- raise oil spill liability rates, and that is disgraceful. we've been recommending this for years. essentially, all oil spill

liability limits need to be eliminated period, and that's a strong motivator for companies to put as low as possible risk reduction technologies into their projects. if they have unlimited liability on the line, which they do now only for gross negligence, not for simple negligence. they're apt to pulse as safe -- to put as safe a system in as possible. that's number one. and, two, no matter what they do as far as oil spill response, it doesn't work. it will never -- it's never worked, and it likely never will work no matter all the guys in the orange suits and clipboard and hard hats in the world are not going to clean up a major offshore oil spill. it just won't happen. what we need to do is prevent them. there is a federal fund, i've got it in this little congressional ask list called the oil spill liability trust fund that was established after exxon valdez and the oil pollution act of 1990. right now it's got $3.3 billion

in it. just sitting there. it's gaining about $500 million a year from an 8-credibility-a-barrel tax -- 8 cent a barrel tax, and that fee needs to be raised to about 20 cents, and we need to clarify that it can be with used for spill prevention purposes. right now it's authorized for that, but it never is used for that. the coast guard sits on it and uses it for post-spill response activities, to reimburse them for that. that is irrelevant this my mind. we need to break loose that fund. it is sitting there. all these arguments that we can't afford the costs of spill prevention, tug escorts, better stress el tracking system, better the next generation of oil tankers with redundant rudders and oil systems, we can't afford all this stuff. we can't afford to not do it. thanks. >> yeah, i have a question about

the -- [inaudible] >> yeah. >> [inaudible] >> these quotes are the official government position. they are on the exxon valdez oil spill trustee council web site. these quotes are straight from the -- there's a lingering oil page, and it's a great -- lingering oil to. but that is the terminology they use. there's a lingering oil page on the evs-tc web site which is directly where these quotes come from. same with this. there's a long-term injury page on the web site where they use the no hope for recovery quote. this is pretty stark. no hope for recovery. and that basically says it all, to me. yeah. the thing is what happened -- again, we knew the oil would be there 25 years later. you can still see from the 1964

earthquake in prince william sound which was also epicenterred right in prince william sound where it ruptured the fuel tank, and this heavy fuel flowed out. you can see splatters of this 1964 earthquake fuel spill on rocks. it's part of the geology. this is now a part of the geology as well. you find this down, you know, several inches deep in the batch cobble, but you also see splatters of exxon valdez oil hardened on the rock surfaces that will simply be there for centuries. what happened is it asphalted over on the surface, the stuff, in the beach gravel, and so it protected it from weathering. so it didn't evaporate or degrade as quickly. it still has a relatively high pah content, some of the more, the nastiest component of oil. and the enzyme markers in otters and birds and some fish were

showing continuing toxic exposure to the residual oil. this is what the government's reopener claim was all about, was going back out to the beaches and seeing if they could inject oxygen compounds and nutrients in this residual oil toll see if they can enhance the degradation of this. but they made their claim, they presented exxon with a $92 million bill. exxon said i'm not paying it, and the governments have done absolutely nothing. it's really another sort of -- the end in a long list of betrayed promises. so, yeah, it's till there, it's still toxic. there's not hundreds of thousands of gallons of it, the estimates are around 100 tons, so the 30, 40,000 gallons. but nobody really knows, to be honest with you. >> [inaudible] >> no. the best estimate that i've seen is about a hundred tons which is about, say, 30,000 gallons. >> that's the remaining oil? >> yeah. yeah. but it could be much more than

that, it could be with less than that. again, this is, this is maybe 5% of our problem. the greatest problem with lack of recovery was the immediate demographic effects of the bomb that went off in 1989. this is thousands of tons of toxic crude oil that killed so many animals, and, for instance, the killer whales, they're not affected by the residual oil on the beach today, but they certainly were affected by losing their reproductive females, and they will never have a calf. the last calf was born just before the spill, so he's a 25-year-old young fellow. and they're not expected to reproduce ever again. so -- and they are genetically distinct. >> and, you know, so these things, there was that enormous, acute effect immediately. you know, hundreds of thousands of birds killed, and we all saw, you know, the otters dying in

the oil. you could walk on beaches. it was a vision of hell. the oil would be several feet thick. you didn't know if you were clambering around on boulders or dead ducks, you know? it's a vision of hell. but the ongoing effects, you know, the herring population, it took four years for the herring population to collapse. young herring take four years before they become adult and enter the spawning runs. four years after the oil spill, like clockwork, the herring populations presumptioned. all of the young that were -- plummeted. all of the young that were born at the time of the oil spill and for the next three years were picking up enough of the hydrocarbons that they couldn't make it to adulthood. and that effect then -- the herring were one of the cornerstones of the food web, and 25 years later today still haven't recovered. >> um, so before deepwater

horizon spill we don't have a settlement or a clean water act settlement, but there is some early money there. there's this -- [inaudible] i don't know whether you all are following that, but are there lessons when you look back 20 years later from exxon valdez how that process is going? >> we have people in the sierra club in the gulf who are tracking that, but i'd have to follow up with you on that later. unless one of you guys -- >> i can say -- the one thing we learned conclusively from exxon valdez, and it's applicable if all these -- in all these oil spills is you can't fix what is broken, but what you can and must do is protect from additional injury. that's why we came up with the concept in alaska of using hundreds of millions of dollars of the exxon settlement to purchase conservation easements on coastal habitat that was threatened by other activities, and that's been one of the sublime silver linings in the

whole dark cloud of exxon valdez, to be honest with you. the gulf, i am following that. i've worked down there some during this whole mess, and i certainly sympathize with the folks down there. to the credit of that situation, putting $500 million early on into restoration before there is a settlement is the right thing to do. i thought that was -- we tried to do that in alaska and exxon, again, told us to get lost. they didn't want any part of it. i do know that some of states that are the recipients of some of these monies down there, some are planning ball fields, one is manning a resort casino -- planning a resort casino with, ostensibly, environmental restoration funds. that's the kind of distraction and dark alley that big money can cause. so there has to be an absolute carte blanche dictum that all these monies need to be used in the highest and best interests

of full ecological recovery, period. it's, you know, economic recovery is something else. that's what the private case is all about. but the government money should be used for full ecological recovery period. no casinos, no ball fields. whatever good idea there might be, they have nothing to do with recovering the environmental harm caused by the deepwater horizon. >> okay. so thank you all for joining us. we appreciate it. people are available for additional questions. in particular, thanks to our friends and colleagues from alaska for sharing their experiences. thank you all. [laughter] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> and on capitol hill the senate about to gavel in. expected to debate a bill dealing with ukraine which would provide $150 million of economic assistance to the country as well as impose sanctions on russia and guarantee that the imf has resources to assist ukraine. a test vote scheduled for 5:30. live now to the floor of the senate here on c-span2.

the president pro tempore: the senate will come to order, and the chaplain dr. barry black will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. creator and sustainer of our destinies, you have loved us through the seasons of our lives. you accept us as we are, infusing us with your peace and strengthening us