>> it is a core and he has been having this experience in egypt.

frankly, how do you see al qaeda today? >> i would like to begin with something that i think is underlying some of our different views of al qaeda. your vision of the africa and so on and so forth. but in fact, al qaeda has always

had a second that has taken up funding time and effort from the 1990s. in 99% of the funding was going to creating what they call guerrilla fighters. the long-term insurgency rather than the 1% that is being spent on external attacks, that is, terrorist attacks. if an organization spends 99% of its money on one effort and only 1% on the other effort, on what basis do we focus on that 1% versus the 99%? that 1% was aimed at us. and isn't that the important thing and it certainly is for americans. we don't pay attention to that or that messy stuff going on out there. al qaeda said was their real objective. and that would replace them with

people with the extremist version of sharia law. that is their underlying objective. attacking america was in a means because they saw america as the main stumbling block in the u.s. always shows up. we are always there with funding and it shows this. and he called himself and the people around him and that was in 2000 a year before and that will change the have to consider

a government in exile. and i'm glad that you pointed out that they haven't carried attacks against the united states. and yet they have managed to recruit more and more people to their cause and their ideology that the insurgency is in syria is acting as a huge radicalizing force and this is a great falsification of a proposal that was put forth by people. that is the presence of the united states that radicalize his people and it turns them into the hottest. it turns out that you don't need the presence of the united states. it is the absence and the u.s.

is not present in any of these fights around the world. and if you just look at what was focusing on and that might be a difference and if this is an al qaeda link to terrorism, like the great leader and founder and charismatic guy who's going to lead us forward into tomorrow. but here's where things are out in 2011, this is where it was at a level and it doesn't mean there weren't other terrorist attacks and this is basically

where serious terrorism is being carried out by people who claim the relationship with al qaeda. all right? and here is the al qaeda terrorism in 2014. and i hit a big question mark. the chinese government said the methodology is being used resonates, but it's uncertain. and this was more violence it was being carried out and that's the kind of failure that any of the company wanted to see. and that is just the tip of the iceberg. so here are al qaeda insurgency is in 2011 and this is a high level but still manageable

situation. they were having trouble recruiting people, the people had turned against them and successfully with the surge that the united states carried out, able to take out most of the al qaeda terrorists and insurgents. so there were only three places where there were serious insurgencies. that is, mature insurgencies occurring. somalia, afghanistan, pat damm and northern pakistan, of course, they had some sort of connection with al qaeda. here they were in 2014. and again, this is the kind of failure that they all want to see.

and what we see here is country after country, al qaeda influenced these groups using my definition of al qaeda and even if you don't use it, those people who believe in their ideology. >> okay. so i don't know if any of these guys have been part of this defense contracting.

and we are giving them too much credit for a lot of things that are there doing. and they said that it should have said in parentheses which also happens to be the largest pile of sand and the planet. they operate in a lot of these places and look at what happens when we decide this. this happens when we decide to do something. remember the country we bailed out? they ran those guys out in a week and holy cow, you never saw that coming. when we decide there is a threat to us and this is a threat to an

entire country or that al qaeda controls an entire country and i think that al jazeera did it as well. and a lot of these insurgencies are shooting themselves in the foot and they are out of control. they are violent. they are not even pursuing things and objectives. a great example from two weeks ago, boko haram.

probably something that he would not recommend. the first article that i read said boko haram kidnaps and sells women. we are giving them this again. the first thing we bring up is the modern in 2003 and 2004 to give some money to start up a training camp. that's the only way we can mobilize a and in some ways this is weakening al qaeda because they are going way out of the bounds in terms of this. they are weakening the popular support in the local area. and eventually, this is an example from algeria if you've ever looked at this, they use a strategy and it's like, okay, you go do that.

and they would say that you go do this all day long. and they would wait until the businessmen would come out and say hey, we thought this was going to be great. it turned out it wasn't so great. so we are open to working with you and bring this back end. and so when you talk about all of these insurgents these, it is a great point that mary got up. i don't think they are mostly sitting around thinking about the u.s., they use it as a bogeyman for whatever their objectives are locally. they use it to rattle support with donors. and so i am of the opposite perspective. and we created safe havens which now hosts isys and we can say

that this is of our own birth. we created that sentiment. and we have no ability to counteract and we can't come in to wait in terms of fighting it. but that is my perspective on the insurgencies. >> whether you paint a sand, there's a lot of territory and i know you have something to say and i also feel that we should start bringing these definitions back into it. because i think that is actually where you two are disagreeing and that's what's bringing up the difference in your assessments. where there our long-term objectives that are quite different. >> i don't think i would disagree on long-term debt this

with the current situation. >> i firmly support you on the issue of of our partners and our friends fighting back. within just a few weeks we have kicked off the vast majority of them there. unfortunately they almost infiltrated back in and started carrying out attacks. right now the french are actually in serious trouble trying to come to a decision he and whether they should withdraw or bring in more troops. because they nearly had a mission failure there in the and the same thing can be said about yemen. yemeni government put its best effort in 2012 and they did a great job except all of them just melted into the mountains and desert. and it's actually a technique that i think they've adopted, when the enemy advances you retrieve.

you take all of your weapons and your people and you wait until they get some of their little doodads down there in the valley and down in the village as and then you go down and start carrying out attacks, keep attacking them until they are depleted enough and that is what they're doing right now in yemen and also somalia. so somalia, absolutely they only control a few districts and areas that they are able to cherry out attacks which they had been prevented from doing so for a couple of years. once again they did with the capability and the ability to carry out attacks. so i don't want to sound like a debbie downer. but i'm just putting forward this is not a map of success but al qaeda advancing and so i would like to answer about the split between this and al qaeda.

which i think is a serious issue and i don't want to downplay it. if it goes towards this, it could lead toward a split end will that lead to less violence or more violence. and so it would be almost certainly more violence. so they really don't carry out terrorist groups that they compete with each other and carry out one more terr

both doing this. so as you mentioned, they are being picked up in other countries other than just isys. and that is a bad thing. and you take a look at what has been going on in northern new nigeria, especially if they were given their full state and it may say that they are fighting

each other, that is not necessarily a great thing. but beyond that i have a little bit of an issue because i went through on each group and i realize, this might be based on false assumptions. so it looks to me -- in the three articles. >> okay. you're talking about official statements. and i don't care about this. >> before you criticize me. it looks like burden of proof is on this to reaffirm the allegiance. to come out with some sort of public statement and you can

criticize me going forward. if ordinary numbers. >> if one or two ranking leaders, like these two guys, or the central group that no one has heard of before. >> right. >> they are soon to be with isis.

so if you make those assumptions with al qaeda, this is what you would do. and he would have only two or three groups that are aligned with isis and without specifically stated, i am with al qaeda and/or i reject isis. so okay, each one of those groups can look at this. >> so at the top of it it is an imperfect model. and a lot of them say they do this where they do that and it's like, it's true.

and i was just interviewing a lot of different people. there are probably 14 or 15 different people saying what you think about this or that scenario. i don't like anything that is a sort of probability of what things might be. i do estimates based on circle science based on my general feel of what the group size might be. so it's almost like a confederation and a conglomeration of it in syria. so i put those together and then i do an estimate of the overlap. i came up with those estimate in terms of not official statements because i don't care about the official statements, but i care about what those supporters are talking about in the online community, who i'm reaching out

to and i will ask them their opinion because i cannot possibly stay on top of these different groups. official statements, i look for pushes and pulls and between in my assessment on this is libya and tunisia and it's based on these numbers. so as we actually read this, this should be updated already and should be part of the team which has committed to this. there are six of these different scenarios. so i don't know what the breakdown is, but i'm trying to give you an estimate of how things might emerge. the main issue is the number is that we talked about earlier and

that is where the default ones are to stick with them. but that is where the estimate comes from. >> thank you. i think the two of you can talk about this. so we will have two individuals walking around with microphones. please state your name and your affiliation and your question, go ahead and ask your question. >> thank you for the discussion. i serve and perhaps because a sand in my life, it seems like you have these parallels and not necessarily hierarchies. and i have another quick

question which is what is going on in eastern europe, is that going to change with what is going on in the world and will that be another opportunity for them? >> thank you. so, okay, let's go back. we didn't get to that counterterrorism discussion right now isis is russia and iraq. they are sticking it to us in the information space that now. so what if instead of trying to just directly counter old guard al qaeda, not paying attention and they are really the ones supporting the assad regime.

number two is russia, they are the ones that are really behind the bashar al-assad regime. and they are a really big player in syria. so it's really interesting as you can see the legions fighting together. and so i think that will move back out. it's like there is some sort of huge battle with whatever gets tangled up there. what is the first one again? [inaudible] >> yes, i totally agree. i talk about the two most dangerous scenarios. i've been pushing this since 2012, if they want to compete with each other, how does that work. that works great until they

start pursuing external attacks of europe and so what keeps that going is constant resources. to drive data in the counterterrorism part of this, and the number-one thing number one thing that i can do we really have to focus on is squashing terrorist financiers. old guard al qaeda continues to sustain resources, they are going to mobilizes resources in a way that they will pursue these external operations. it's in both of these operations and i absolutely agree. one thing i see about this dangerous scenario is out-of-control violence tensor wrote popular support. and so they are rushing it and really trying to hurry up and do this. so they are getting caught and i

think we will also hit targets in this way as well. i think it's a concern and i think the europeans should be a lot more worried than i. so we've gotten a lot better at it and it's a testament to the counterterrorism community. but the europeans are going to have a problem with it. so somewhere between three to 10%, you can expect that they will will go back home. we have 10,000 fighters that are there right now, i mean, we are still looking at this depending on what is going on. and right now it looks as if it is divided and attempted to do things elsewhere. the big thing is that they seem

to be incapable of carrying out major attacks inside of syria. in other words, we hear a lot about attacks carried out by them, but hardly anything carried out against the regime of isis. so it looks like this is winning the competition. and this affects the response to read and you're going to get a lot of violence. >> the gentleman at the back table? >> thank you. >> out of these fighters get into this? and it seems like they are going through turkey as well.

>> kayak.com. i'm joking. this is basically where they go find plane tickets. they can link up some connections. you can be someone from the middle east and you're more likely to have one of these affiliates and they can actually pipeline you into a certain group and the other way is to make your way into turkey and you pay some people on social media. and they get to the border and they say i want to make my way down here. so the way that we sort of think about it in our minds, it's like really complicated.

and it's very fascinating and very cool. but i would say that there is a difference, they tend to scream or squander about it. with a kind of takes anyone that shows up. >> i think you miss understand my question. why are they picking these guys up reed. >> i think they're a little bit overwhelmed. we have had u.s. officials talk about the fact that it's the most we've ever seen and scores above what we have seen before. >> hello, i am at the university of southern california and that being the subject i would like

to ask our experts with this divide between the two major terrorism situations, what should we be looking for. because it seems to me that we have two competing blocs and there would be less of a nuclear threat directed towards us and it may be more of a reason to look towards nuclear terrorism in the middle east. so i would like to know what you have to say. >> okay, actually with chemical weapons in syria, obviously that is everyone's nightmare, a nuclear terrorist attack. but i don't have any basis for making that sort of assessment. i'm sorry about that. it's something that we all worry about, but i just don't have that. when it comes to chemical

weapons it was al qaeda in iraq they did use chemical weapons, chlorine bombs. but against ordinary muslims. so scores of people were seriously injured probably for life and a few people were actually killed in those attacks. so to me that suggests that the current incarnation of isis would be far more likely to use chemical weapons than any of the other groups. and i'm very worried about that coming from this as well. >> i think that isis would do it. the only thing that place or favor is executing the sorts of things. so the aqap seems to be those that really plan things out. they made this and they really

thought it out. so the only thing to our advantage is that if those things collide it could put them together like that. >> i think the range is limited. the one thing if they are competing with each other so much and they are in a hurry. >> gentleman in the middle of the room? >> hello, i am an intel analyst. [inaudible] i would like to ask about counterterrorism strategy and why are we engaging on their turf [inaudible] instead of foreign ministries.

why are we at the state department coming out with this appropriate ammunition and tear it down the field to arrest? >> that is obviously a very very touchy subject and one that u.s. officials have been very reluctant to engage upon. so this is what the analogy is for what is going on. he saw himself as someone who is going to remove religion and he also saw himself as a revivalist of the religion in addition to being a great leader of jiang. in his vision was that he alone understood the true version of islam that he was going to impose that version whether they wanted it or not you see what

that looks like in somalia. but his vision of going back to the original, and he was making this up as he went along, it reminds one in some ways of the reformation. so it's kind of like if he is sort of like this, what role do we play? and we are the people who have had this conflicting relationship with this part of the world and looked at in this way. and we are trying to make an argument to the pope that we can solve that and it just doesn't make sense. it's a lot is this as outsiders

coming in. so the biggest thing we can do is encourage ordinary muslims to stand up and say what they think and feel. and it has been happening. it is just never repeated in our media. so let me give you a great example. it was a huge deal, does everyone know that immediately afterward there were 100,000 person march through the streets of benghazi? by the ordinary people of benghazi? know, by and large that was off the radar. hardly anyone talked about it. and i think that is one of our biggest problems. the only thing we can control is to get our media to pay more attention to the sorts of things rather than focusing on those people who were carrying out

terrible attacks. >> i agree. we are terrible at it. we try to get involved in it and i've never seen it go very well. we can't coordinate this. we've got too many opinions. we don't understand at in translation, we don't have enough experts or voice says that i do think that there has been some success in using other ideological authorities to counter from that region and for us to do and i don't think we do it very well. >> on from the university of southern california. he mentioned that since osama bin laden was killed, this has escalated and that we can't really tell when it was good to play out when. but my question is because this fragmentation has escalated from

how we respond and is that going to be viable as that escalates? >> watch everything, listen to what they say and act very rarely. and so in 2006 we used to run this for counterterrorism and we did hundreds of tasks very poorly and rightly across the bureaucracy and it was a disaster. armor going to the department of education. we used to joke that if we could just capture and i'll cut a guy and smother him, that is how convoluted our strategy was heard we were trying to do everything to solve the worlds problems. in my opinion the centralization, we needed to do one thing, which was fight with our intelligence capabilities right now because edward snowden

failed to prove his gross negligence and has also coughed up to all of our adversaries to include this in a lot of these al qaeda groups have picked up on how dominant we were. with this fracturing and infighting, so many scenarios. so if we figure out which way it's going to go, we better have the intelligence capabilities to know what is going on overseas. the other thing is be very nimble and be prepared for the repercussions. so i will give you one key decisive point. what say we are doing drones and this is the most important person in al qaeda. so what is the chain of events will unfold from that? we would expect there to be infighting and twisting one way and then we can also look

externally and see this in a lot of different directions because there are a lot of young folks going in this way. to do that we have to have capabilities and we have to plan for the most dangerous scenarios. we hope the administration will do that. where these groups are just watching on. and then three, we have do not overreact and not overextended. take a few tasks and see what works out really well. one thing i like is the disposition matrix and what is going on. people thought that was something they were confused about. but that was the smart folks in the counterterrorism community is. forget the politics, i work too hard to be a politician. on the counterterrorism side there are some smart folks in the government and the fbi could've been doing this and they sort of figured out saying

let's come up with the disposition and how we mitigate this. so i think we have to the support that instead of constantly tearing it down and enabling those people with good intelligence. >> please respond to the question and then we will make statements. >> okay, so first of all i actually think that it is more ambiguous and it's really unclear which side is going to win out. but what you can see is the vibrance has spiraled out of control and that needs more and so i have three prescriptions. i would say first and foremost we need to stop the escalation that is going on in this is the first time in our 26 her struggle with al qaeda that we are de-escalating what we are doing. so since 2011, and i don't think

it's any coincidence that violence has spent about a control, we have the escalated in with john from iraq and afghanistan. we are putting a lot of capabilities and doing all sorts of things to draw this fight down and try to pretend it is still 1995 and so i don't think think we can pretend it's 1995 with not going to ever be 1995 again. the second thing that we should be doing is paying attention to this and not ignoring what is happening to the rest of the world and we have been very focused on ourselves and i'm not saying that we should ignore our own security and pretend this as well, but we cannot pretend as well and so even if you want to say that these have nothing to do with al qaeda, the fact that you have gone from this to this says that we have to be doing more than that we cannot simply

withdraw and pretend that all is well with the world. the final thing is we cannot depend solely on attrition. it works for small terrorist groups. they don't replace themselves, problem solved. but it does not work at all for insurgencies. in fact it exacerbate them and can be used as a point of recruitment for them. so attrition alone is not the solution and we really need to find another solution and that's one of the things that we are working on and have been working on for quite a while. >> are there any concluding thoughts? >> concluding thoughts? >> we have bigger fish to fry than terrorism and now. we have russia, and iran, and another thing that i'm really concerned about, if climate change is real, this is all really kind of silly. we are talking about collapse

and things like that. the second thing i would tell you is stop listening to al qaeda experts. there are too many things going on and you really have to find people that are experts in regions. all of these great folks that are out there, i talked to all of them and i can't stay on top of all this. so if you really want to talk about it and understand it, you better have language skills. i used spanish when i was younger, it's kind of useless now, you know people that have been on the ground in a really understanding the cultural dynamics. you have to work them together in interdisciplinary teams. some really fantastic stuff, you really have to have that. you have to trust in their government. they are not all great, but

they're a lot better than they were 12 years ago, which brings me to the escalation. i was in the army in 1995 and never once did i see parallel places in africa on the same day. we did two raids on the same day and we withdrew with no casualties. we could not do this 12 years ago. that is a testament to our military intel folks who have been out there working. so i'm not about the escalation, but i'm about being nimble and not overreaching. if you really want to bring all of these groups together, we will get right back where we were six or seven years ago. really think what we are going through thinking that we will not have another attack from one of these groups. let's do our best to mitigate and the power it can help these

people. it took like a half hour. as anyone watch the video of the al qaeda guy in tripoli? so we really had some great capabilities but let's not tear them down with our politics. >> please join me in thanking our panelists today. [applause] >> they will be sitting around afterward to follow up. thank you so much again. [inaudible conversations]

>> tomorrow is the 78th anniversary of the d-day invasion president obama and françoise hollande will give remarks at normandy. the live coverage starts at 4:30 a.m. eastern on c-span. later in the morning on c-span2, the two presidents will travel to another d-day commemoration close to the allied landing at sword beach. that is live at 8:30 a.m. eastern. >> senate democrats outlined the bill that would allow borrowers to refinance their existing public and private student loans at lower interest rates. from capitol hill, this is 20

minutes. >> student loan debt is an emergency in america now and this week the democrats have introduced the reef financing act to can help young men and women who are struggling. right now there is one point to chile in dollars in outstanding student loan debt. 40 million americans are dealing with student loan debt. today it is causing young people not to be able to save up money to buy a home or to be able to start small businesses or make the purchases the move this economy forward. consumer financial protection bureau, the department of the treasury have all sounded the alarm. student loan debt is a drag on the economy. this is truly an emergency circumstance. it is hurting people household by household, family by family. and it is also hurting the

economy. the democrats have introduced emergency financing and it is a pretty simple plan. the idea is to refinance the outstanding student loan debt. we propose to refinance debt from the current high interest rates and there are people out there with student loan debt at 6%, 8%, 10% and even higher depending on when they took out their loans. our proposal is to refinance all that debt down to exactly the numbers that the democrats and republicans agreed upon last year is the right number for new debt issued in 2013 to 2014. would bring it down to 3.8% fixed across the board and this is fully paid for. we propose to limit this for millionaires and billionaires

and this includes the cbo that has just given us the scoring and we not only fully pay for it, this would reduce the deficit by billions of dollars and this includes an economic emergency and it is also an issue about our values. did we invest in? do we invest in the billionaires or do we take that money and invest in young people? those who are trying to change their lives. is it time to get started with those who are trying to make something of themselves? we want a fair shot at affordable education and we have introduced a bill to provide that. >> we have worked on a number of ills related to college loans and college debt and this is the

centerpiece. the senator has worked so long and hard to put together an approach that will give millions of american students and families an opportunity to finally get out from under the burden of student debt it poses the basic question to congressional publicans. whose side are you on? we have asked this question over and over again and we asked this when we wanted to extend unemployment benefits to the folks out of work so that they had a fighting chance either families together and to find a new job. we pose this question to those when it came to paycheck fairness, whether men and women would be treated fairly when it came to compensation. we will give them a new opportunity to decide whether

congressional congressional republicans are on the side of the 44 million americans who are currently paying off college student loans. what we have at this legislation is a lifeline. chicago, campus after campus, story after story from a, student after student, and it's all the same. they are overwhelmed with debt in america that compromises their lives and reduces their opportunities in life. we are going to give them a chance with refinancing a lower interest rate and coming to grips with debt which is compromised and i want to thank the senator for this leadership. will any senate republicans step up and join us in this effort to help these students and the working families that support them? >> most americans don't realize that 40 million american families are paying interest

rates that are exorbitant and they are paying into u.s. government. the u.s. government is charging people six and 7% when interest rates are at three. for their student loans. it is just incredible. and our bill rectifies that as well as the private banks. what does it mean? it means a family that could be starting out to buy a home. maybe they can start a new business. student loan debt is the hidden anchor on our entire economy. when young families can't get started because they have this huge burden of debt on their shoulders, we want to give them a fair shot and every person

deserves a fair shot at college and a reasonable interest rate when the interest rates are so far down. our fair shot agenda shows that we are for average families and we can't get any of our public and colleagues without sinking in with people to understand that. and so i want to thank all of my colleagues who worked so hard on this. elizabeth has been the leader here and a guiding force and al franken has had some very good ideas and is one of our sponsors. so is tom harkin who is head of the committee. and we are united. we pay for it by saying the people who make over a million dollars should pay the same tax rate as are secretaries. so this is actually eight that

reducing bill. they agree with the concept that people shouldn't pay exorbitant interest rates and if they want to pay for it in a different way, we welcome them to step forward. but make no mistake about it, this is a huge issue in america and we are going to come back to this issue again. people on college campuses are talking about it. and we are going to make this happen. maybe not next week, but we will make this happen because it's only fair and it's only right and the vast majority of americans, they are on our side. >> as you heard today, more americans than ever are being crunched under this burden of student loan debt that is hurting borrowers and our families in economies and people are looking to congress to do something about this.

yesterday i held a hearing on this issue on the budget committee and we had a young woman there by the name of britney said that since she was in the second grade, she wanted to be a teacher more than anything. but to make that impossible and go to college, she had to rely on student loans. today she is dealing with the overbearing burden of paying down the debt. after graduating she said that those crushing student loans have been the driving force of her decisions and will continue to be for the next 25 years. decisions like buying a home was saving for retirement. she was there to ask congress to act and to help people like her so that americans have a fair shot at pursuing their dreams. and that is exactly what senator warren and other senate democrats are trying to do. the refinancing act would simply let borrowers refinance your

student loans and put wal-mart in turn more money into borrowers pocket. and this includes starting a new business and making the kinds of purchases that willet. and this includes starting a new business and making the kinds of purchases that will help boost our economy today. this bill is fiscally responsible. it is fully paid for by asking the wealthiest americans to pay their fair share. so the question today is will republicans choose to protect loopholes for millionaires and billionaires, or will they choose to help ease the burden for student debt. will they side with people like britney or block the chance for her to lower the interest rates on term loan? will republicans work with us to help families and the economy or will they put politics first. i really hope that they choose the bipartisan path on this just like they did last year with the bipartisan certainty act. they are asking us to help them out with increasing debt on families that they are having to pay for year after year, making

them make choices that hurt their families and it's time for us to be on their side. >> i was in las vegas and southern nevada. the students represent and they are afraid. we talk about 34 million people having student debt. these men and women leave that they do deserve a fair shot. and that is what this is all about. we want to make sure that student debt is reduced and not increased and that every university around the country, we are talking about is even more, which means that they would have to borrow more money and it's vitally important to the stability of our great country.

>> my understanding of the bill [inaudible] >> he will have a better answer of that. >> the cbo has now scored it and they have told us what the cost will be people who are eligible refinanced down to 3.86% for undergraduate loans. exactly the numbers that we agree to and they have determined the cost of that and the revenue that will come in and that there will be billions of dollars more that can come in that we need to spend and this will be an additional amount is to pay down the deficit. >> the cbo has a number out there. we don't have an exact number, but we do know that it's many

billions of dollars. >> you have any intention to try to take this on? >> yes, and my colleague has been stellar in this. he has talked about this at least once a week. so any time that he makes progress on this, it's important to us. ..

he has tried to escape a couple of times and the conditions he lived under during this period of time were deplorable. the president of the united states has granted the chief of the united states natori had a decision to make make any have an opportunity to bring home an american soldier and he brought them home and i'm glad he did. >> well was your impression of his health? >> dana i don't know. i'm not going to, i don't know. we do know that his health is not good that's obvious but i mean that's not -- let's assume he was in vibrant health and he was faking all of this. he is an american soldier who

has been in captivity for five years. the war is winding down. let's bring them home. we did and if there are privation -- when he gets in a condition that they can stabilize his mental and physical situation they will determine what if anything more should be done. >> do you think the white house could've done a better job in moving it through congress? >> listen i know and everyone here a timeline was very brief here. this has nothing to do with the briefing -- the classified briefing. we all know the president had a short period of time to make a decision. he made a decision to bring them home and i'm glad he did because in my opinion based on nothing in the classified briefing, in my opinion every day that he was there was a day closer to his dying.

>> you why were you the only one that got a heads up the day before? >> i'm not sure i was only one. it was a whole big deal made of nothing. weather was friday or saturday what difference does it make? >> or colleague who called on the administration to release declassified files on the prisoner that were released. >> that's a decision they will have to make. that's not for us to make and also in answer to everyone's question here the president did this in consultation as commander in chief with his highest military advisers and there's not a single one that i'm aware of that disagreed with his decision. >> general motors industry reports there was no cover-up and they fired -- make people. [inaudible]

do you believe the department of justice will bring charges against the people that were fired and will be held accountable? >> they were fired. do you want to put them in jail now? i don't know. let's determine if it was illegal before we start throwing them in jail. >> do you think senator sanders and senator mccain will be able to come to a compromise? >> i've spoken to senator sanders a couple of times a day and senator mccain is working with him. it's my understanding senator schumer has talked to both of them last night into day and i'm very confident and hopeful that they would work something out on a bipartisan basis. i have gone over the outline of what they are planning on doing and i hope that sticks because it sounded pretty good to me. [inaudible] >> lets wait and see what they come up with. we are a long ways from what they want to do to what they are going to do. i will wait and see what they

have to say this afternoon. thanks everybody. [inaudible conversations] next on c-span2 the senate or in relations committee looks at the political situation in ukraine following the last month's elections. on capitol hill a bipartisan agreement was reached in the senate on it built to try to address some of the problems that the va medical facilities. we will have that later.

now a foreign relations committee hearing on the political and security situation in ukraine following the recent presidential elections in the country. witnesses include a former u.s. ambassador to ukraine plus former congresswoman jane harman who now heads up the wilson center. senator bob menendez of new jersey chairs the committee.

>> good morning. the hearing on the senate foreign relations committee will come to order. i want to welcome our panel is and thank them for taking the time to share their perspectives with the committee on developments in the ukraine which appear only slightly less honest than they did in the act i have this crisis and now we are in the beginning of act ii a successful election of a president by the ukrainian people and internationally certified election which is a major victory for ukraine struggle for freedom. past elections and in ukraine have exhibited stark divisions between east and west significantly president-elect pershing company one districts from one end of ukraine to the other. seems clear the events of the past year and russia's violation of their sovereignty unified ukrainians as never before. while it is clear that president pershing company has a mandate the challenges he confronts her daunting.

he must rebuild the craning government and economy weakened by the previous president's corruption while countering putin and they east. to consolidate ukraine's democracy and economy and help ukraine withstand the maligned tactics of its neighbor to the east. resident printing continued to direct events in ukraine seeking to undermine the new government and prevent discord with the clear goal of seeking a long-term ability to control and direct ukraine's politics and policies. as at a point that seems to have renewed poignancy today. to counter the 18th century mind-set i welcome president obama's announcement this week of a european reassurance initiative that will increase our presence across europe and

build the capacity of our friends such as georgia muldova in ukraine so they can work alongside the united states and nato as well as provide for their own defense. in my view there are three things that are crucial for ukraine's future. president poroshenko must build the ukrainian government that is capable transparent accountable and strong enough to meet foreign and domestic challenges. second the ukrainian government will have to accommodate citizens in the east while gaining control from foreign directed forces elsewhere. and in third the ukrainian economy must be resurrected including decreasing energy dependence on russia but at the russia but at the end of the day the creation of a viable successful ukraine capable of preserving its sovereignty is an unfinished legacy of the cold war and will take time. it is a necessary goal that requires the commitment and cooperation of congress the executive branch and allies

working together and with that let me turn to senator corchran. >> mr. chairman thank you and thanks to our expert witnesses here. i know they will be helpful to us and i know especially the last one who just came in well-dressed and looking sharp. i do want to congratulate the people of ukraine for the election that just occurred. i know we have a lot of observers there including jane harman who just walked in and many people and many of our colleagues. poroshenko who many of us have had the opportunity to meet over the course of time i think is the person today. there are tremendous issues to overcome and ukraine forgetting the external effects that russia is having on the country a tremendous corruption issues energy issues democracy issues

human rights issues all kinds of issues for any leader to have difficulty undertaking not to speak of the external issues i just mentioned. there's no question that russia played a role in the eastern ukraine. there's no question that they continue to play a role in eastern ukraine and obviously it looks like they are back and forth between trying to negotiate with this new government and create alliances there at the same time continuing to destabilize the country in other ways. so i look forward to what our witnesses have to say relative to what our policy should be going ahead. i thought there was an announcement today where cameron and our president announced the need for new sanctions in russia i look forward to hearing what the witnesses have to say about that. i know numbers of us have joined together pushing for that kind of thing but the fact is we have

tremendous challenges there. i know just having come from eastern europe stability in that region concerned with security is paramount right now. i have seen russia doing what it has done so the fact is we not only have the issue of ukraine to contend with and again i know you were going to like this in that regard but also the need to show tremendous strength and perseverance relative to eastern europe in general so very important issue of great geopolitigeopoliti cal significance. thank you all for being here and i look forward to our questions. >> thank you senator corker. let me introduce our panelists. the honorable jane harman director and ceo of the woodrow wilson international center for scholars and a former colleague of mine in the house. we welcome her back to the committee. we also have former ambassador to ukraine stephen pifer who is now at the brookings institution. our third panels is assistant deputy national security adviser

james jeffrey and next is marketing the president of the international republican institute and former ambassador to tanzania and a member of the house of representatives and someone who is no stranger to the committee ken wollack of the national democratic institute. let me welcome you all to the committee. i would advise you that all of your full statements of included in the record. without objection would ask you to summarize in five minutes or so and we will proceed in the order in which i introduced you so jane you are first. >> thank you mr. chairman and thank you ranking member corker. both of you are dear friends of mine and former colleagues and also friends of the wilson center and i appreciate being invited. everyone on the line appear as a close friend and i was very proud to be a member of the andy aidala gration ukraine a week and a half ago.

it's the eighth election i have observed in di and awry i do this brilliantly and it matters to have them in countries and to have teams with them who can get around and in that connection on the day before the election in ukraine my small group headed by former secretary of state madeline albright met all the leading candidates including petro poroshenko who impressed me as a man capable of leading his country and it was impressive to see his enormous victory. wouldn't a lot of members of the senate like a victory of 55 to 56% in a crowded field avoiding a runoff? at any rate let me make some brief comments. this is ukraine's third chance to get it right. ukraine got it wrong after the wall came down and after the orange resolution -- revolution. a series of governments were corrupt and not competent. this is chance three and it will

either work or opie three strikes and you're out. i don't think ukraine look at a chance like this again. the second the west obviously needs to help ukraine and president obama and mounts some aid and the imf and e.u. are poised to help ukraine has to help ukraine. this is the chance for ukrainians to take responsibility for their future and i do think that many ukrainians with whom we have spoken get that. i think there are five things the president poroshenko who could be president saturday needs to do. one is to go to east ukraine and tell the folks there -- he says he's going to do this but he favors some form of decentralization that is consistent with one ukraine and he wants them to serve in his government. the current acting president was in east ukraine the other day and i thought that was a good move. second include the crowd that demonstrated so bravely over six

months in the new government. some of them on to serve. some of the current government members were in the my.. this has to be a different movie from egypt. the people who are brave and courageous and wanted to change their country have to be included in the government. third and forced the anticorruption laws. there are some on the books and if they need to be stronger make them stronger. certainly is true that poroshenko himself as an oligarch as are most of the folks in senior leadership positions in ukraine but this is his chance to show that he is going to lead his country not just pad his bank account. for the assemble an a+ economic team from inside and outside the country so the tough steps can be taken to qualify for imf and e.u. loans and fifth welcome ukrainian diaspora back. there are very many smart and wealthy ukrainians that can help a country and then comes the

tough issue issue and you mentioned the senator corker, what to do about the russians and the unrest in the eastern part of ukraine. i think it is time for a united voice of all the europeans president obama and others to call on president putin to stop most of this violence. i'm assuming there are crazies you can't stop but we all know that chechens and others are crossing the russian border in trucks with arms and those folks have to come home. the border has to be policed. the flow of arms has to be stops and putin should tell the separatist to lay down their arms but we do need more sanctions. i would say that the sanctions against the banking industry and the economic industry and the energy -- backed the economic and banking sector have to be imposed and i know europe is reluctant but chancellor merkel seems to be open to this and president obama should press big-time to have the sanctions in place if

president putin does not respond in a short period of time to this demand to stop the violence in eastern ukraine. thank you. >> mr. chairman senator corker distinguished members of the committee thank you for the opportunity to talk to you today about ukraine, the ukrainian russian crisis and mr. chairman i have a statement for the record which i will now summarize. ukrainians went to the polls in large numbers on may 25 and election that international standards. petro poroshenko won a resounding victory. the president-elect now faces significant challenges. he must find a way to manage eastern ukraine. he must oversee implementation of the economic reforms in ukraine's program at the international monetary fund. he must address the questions of decentralization of power. mr. poroshenko faces the major challenge in dealing with russia

unfortunately by all appearances vladimir putin remains opposed to the desire to draw closer to the european union. he continues the policy that moscow has pursued since its illegal occupation of crimea. russia seeks to destabilize the ukrainian government. there's no evidence that moscow has used its influence with the armed separatist and ukraine's east to urge them to de-escalate the crisis through to the contrary resch appears to support and encourage them. numerous reports indicate that arms supplies and fighters flow from russia and ukraine. russia has legitimate interest in ukraine to be sure that these interest in not mean it should resort to force seized territory or support separatism. u.s. policy response appears to have three factors. first it administrations bolstered the legitimacy of the government and targeted assistant to help create reform. one area we had washington should do more as military

assistance. ukrainian military needs help to strengthen its defensive capabilities. they could use basic equipment proposition to provide body armor goggles and communications equipment is welcome if overdue. the united states should also offer counterinsurgency advice and intelligence support. it's also appropriate to consider providing light antiarmor weapons and gear system since the ukrainian military at u.s. and nato request eliminated many stocks of manpads. the second u.s. policy seemed to reassure allies in the balkans and central european regions who are more nervous about moscow's intention. the u.s. and nato military forces at the plate with the object is a reassuring allies of nato's commitment to their defense and underscoring that moscow prevent tuesday the president proposed a 1 billion-dollar program to increase the u.s. military presence in central europe. congress should approve

expedited funding for that. a third policy is thought to penalize russia russia with the goal of affecting a change in ukraine. washington has ratcheted down bilateral relations g7 and g8 mr. putin met in brussels instead of sochi. the sanctions today although modest appear to have an impact. projections of russian gdp growth in 2014 have been reduced and bloomberg reports that no russian company has been able to sell foreign currency bonds since march. sanctions however in the best part of failed in their primary purpose. russia has not simply altered its course in ukraine. more robust sanctions are justified and should be applied. these could include expanding russian targeted use for financial sanctions applying sanctions on the financial sector of russia beginning with the sanctions of at least one major russian financial institutions as opposed to smaller pocket banks and

blocking western companies from new investments to develop oil and gas deals. in considering sanctions washington should be smart. where possible make sense to use a scalpel rather than a sledgehammer. the government should avoid measures that are counterproductive. washington should also encourage ukraine to pull together a package for seven countries. these could provide a basis for stabilizing ukraine. but the question is whether the kremlin with a prepared to support any settlement. mr. chairman senator corker and members of the committee degrading crisis will likely continue for some time. the challenges facing ukraine or stabilization will not prove easy that we should never ukraine has rich economic potential and talented people. many ukrainians seem to recognize they have a precious second chance to turn the country around after the missed opportunity of the armed revolution. u.s. policy should be aimed at maximizing prospects and at this time ukraine will succeed. this will be important for people of ukraine in a stable and secure europe.

also the best moscow's policy would be to see ukraine looking more and more like poland a normal democratic rule of law and increasingly prosperous european state. thank you for your attention. >> thank you very much mr. chairman senator corker and members of the committee. very much appreciate being here today. russian aggression against ukraine is the most serious challenge in the international order since 9/11. as such this crisis requires action at three levels. the first of the many steps that have been taken and are being taken to deal with the phenomenon itself. as the acting national security adviser with president bush during the 2008 invasion of georgia i believe the administration under somewhat

similar circumstances had done all in all a good job dealing with the russian incursion to crimea and now eastern ukraine. it is not challenging russia militarily on the ground that i think that's a wise decision given the stakes and the difficulty of applying u.s. troops. on the other hand it has used economic sanctions and every diplomatic tool possible and in particular brought along a recalcitrant europe and this will be a problem going forward as well but the these administrations trying its best on that. thanks to both these efforts by the international community and more importantly as my colleagues have noted the will of the ukrainian people represented in the elections and the willingness of people even in eastern ukraine to support a unified and sovereign ukraine the russians have had to change their tactics some what. less direct military aggression

more indirect forces but nonetheless is my colleague steve pifer just said the strategy that putin is following remains the same to destabilize ukraine and ensure it can never be a sovereign country able to choose its own future which i believe would be with the west and defend itself against falling under russians way. best of the second level we need to look at additional steps. the administration has announced a number of good moves this week the senate and the draft preventing russian aggression bill has come up with others. i have my own and i will touch on a few. first of all i would second ambassador pifer. we need to provide not just mres although they are needed but weapons and advisory teams to help the ukrainian steel with this insurgency in the east. we have much experience in stability operations. they need to know how to use

military force while reaching out to the population. secondly we need to as the president said very rapidly deploy significant heavy that is armor heavy pre-precision stops in rotational forces along the borders of nato's east. again the president is moving full this is for additional money. we have the equipment and we can deploy the troops. we should also ensure that this is nato issue and nato provides troops as we did several times during the cold war. we have mentioned economics work for you in that court and and president poroshenko will have to do a lot of work himself because a lot of money has gone into ukraine without much result. finally as mentioned in your draft bill we need to do more to wean europe from russian gas and

russian financial investments and other pressures. there are ways to do this they would have immediate and more importantly long-term effects. the long-term issue that i'd want to go on is the third order of magnitude we have. again what we have seen in the mock last months is an extraordinary development in the history of europe in the history of the post-cold war. i reject the notion that russia was pushed into this by nato's expansion east. i was involved at a certain level on those decisions 20 years ago and while perhaps i could have been differently the point is as nato moved east it also stood down the vast majority of its conventional forces. russia did not do the same. the u.s. the use e.u. the international committee to try for 20 years with tens of billions of dollars to integrate russia into the international

community in every way possible. the result is a russia that is trying to expand using 18th century models. at this point we have to consider the stark likelihood of not just a russia but possibly at china as well closely tied to russia motivated to challenge both the international order in america's guarantor of that system. we need to start thinking as a country's about lions and the global community about the implications of this. if we wish to avoid a geostrategic shift as dramatic as 1989 only in the other direction maintaining the integrity of this international order including if needed by force must be among all right alleges. thank you very much senators. >> thank you mr. chairman chairman menendez senator corker and members of the committee. i appreciate this opportunity to testify in recent elements in

ukraine. i will summarize my written testimony and try not to repeat what others have said. our mission is to encourage democracy in places where its absence helps democracy become more effective words in danger and share best practices where democracy is flourishing. given that mission it's only natural that ukraine has been an essential part of our programming for more than 20 years. in addition to our primary office in kiev we have offered offices in modesto and until recently and crimea. iri has monitored elections and monitored elections in a panic ukraine's history including the most recent election on may 25. our high-level mission was led by senator ayotte my colleague ann led by congressman peter rostand cochair of the house democracy project. we visited 100 polling places like kiev and odessa in preparation for the elections. we trained more than 5000 observers of political parties.

in the view of our observation team these elections were free and fair and met international standards. of course what makes their compos mentis so remarkable is a wide range of challenges they face while administering these elections. in many ways these challenges remain and the urgent attention and perhaps the health of the west. as others have noted one very obvious challenge they faced in recent months russian sponsored violence in the south and east. separate is use high-grade cutting-edge tactics and equipment and widespread cases of violent groups taking over radio stations establishing checkpoints and in 1k shutting down an airport. well equipped vans in military style forces sought to shut down the election of parts of the country and in a few places they succeeded. another challenge that wasn't as important that i don't think has received enough attention is the flight -- played and tragedy of the

qatar's. the history of the suffering of the people is well-known. they were only able to return to their ancestral homeland at the end of the soviet union. they now make up nearly 15% of the crimean population. they avoid caught it the illegal referendum rejected its results in the community has repeatedly pledged his continued support for a united and sovereign ukraine. obviously there are courage might not have the approval of moscow. since the beginning of our work in ukraine we have sought to assist the democratic aspirations of the tartar people. we worked with him closely to build communication exchanges and to try to link them up with particularly young people from western europe and other parts of ukraine. fortunately -- unfortunately we are unable to continue that program and we

would very much like to return and find ways to help this population. in any case in light of the russian annexation of the soviet history we should all be very watchful of how they are able to live and work and hopefully prosper in the face of russian rule. in some ways the most serious challenge ukraine is facing i would argue is the overwhelming force of russian propaganda projected into that country combined with the lack of ukrainian media and social media in certain areas. it is hard for any nation to build a sense of national purpose and unity when there's a lack of indigenous media. it is nearly impossible when that void is filled with hostile foreign born propaganda bent on destabilizing communities and government bodies. we should work to help foster independent truly ukraine centric media that can retouch every part of that country. more and more people especially young people now get their news

and information through social media platforms. again there's a lack of social media platforms with ukraine centered in parts of that country and i do believe that we can help boost social media platforms that will help create a sense of unity and identity. one of the most subtle challenges the ukraine will face as a weakened i.t. infrastructure. government's i.s been compromised by a foreign-sponsored viruses. on the day of the election, the iri delegation learned that russia had aimed a major cyber attack aimed at bringing down the election commission's main database. , the electionsd would have failed and perhaps given ukraine's opponents further pretense for aggression and destabilizing activities. in this day and age, effective i.t. is absolutely necessary for effective democracy and

governance. it is too easy to focus on the challenges in ukraine. we should also focus on the hopeful signs. as my colleague jane harman has noted, president elect poroshenko has already taken significant steps going forward. he has indicated he will retain the current prime minister and some other members of the current government and has stated his top priorities are to maintain the unity of the country by reaching out to eastern regions, tackling corruption, and creating jobs. mr. chairman, recent events in ukraine make clear both the challenges and possibilities that lie ahead. the fact that ukrainians in the span of a few short months were able to remove from office the corrupt, the powerful leader, and turn around and conduct a national elections that met international standards is remarkable. the fact that all of this was a compost in the face of the threats and violence is histicto the fact that all of this was accomplished in the face of

threats and violence is historic to be clear as my former colleague jane harman said ukrainians not their friends in the west are responsible for shaping their country's future. they have a unique history and a rich culture that is all their own and they want to chart a path that meets their own needs and aspirations not anyone else's. in one of ukrainian staff probably said to us recently we went to find europe and instead we found ukraine. this is a great moment for ukraine and potentially a great moment for democracy. thank you mr. chairman. >> mr. wollack. >> mr. chairman senator corker members of the committee thank you for this opportunity to comment on recent developments in the ukraine. with support from usaid as well as the national endowment for democracy and the department stayed in the government of sweden and canada and the eye is conducted programs in ukraine

for the past two decades. as recently we fielded international delegations for the election which was led by india chairman madeline albright and former spanish foreign minister and we were fortunate to have jane harman is part of the leadership of that delegation. ukraine has turned a corner onto a decided governed path. in the same time the countries face an extraordinary set of challenges some new and some long-standing. most pressing is the external threat from russia which has illegally occupy crimea. russian separatist operations amount to an undeclared war against ukrainian sovereignty. on the domestic front the challenges are no less daunting. economies in crisis. corruption by all measures has been rampant in public confidence in and political institutions as low. where there has been overwhelming support in both the

east and the west of the country for ukrainian unity there are divisions over the distribution of governmental powers. external forces are working to exploit and politicize these divisions through a campaign of disinformation. demonstrations were sparked by anger over the yanukovych governments abrupt refusal to sign a european union treaty but they were sustained for three months by a more basic demand for dignity. they introduced accountability to citizens as a requirement of governance. however the redistribution of power from elites to citizens will be sustainable only of civic and political leaders find post my don ways to keep people engaged in politics. the country now has the opportunity to translate the energy of this watershed moment into a sustainable democratic trajectory one that make's

future my don's hopefully unnecessary. the first test of ukraine's ability to navigate this transition was the may 25 presidential election and by every measure ukraine pass that test. this was perhaps the most important election in ukraine's independent history. where they were allowed to cast ballots the vast majority of the country ukrainian voices came through loud and clear. they voted for sovereignty and democracy and they did so not with celebratory fanfare but sober determination. in observing elections in more than 60 countries including previous polls in ukraine rarely has andy i heard such positive commentary from political contestants a nonpartisan alike. after president-elect poroshenko's election the government will need a consultant of government practices that incorporate the interest of ukrainians from all regions of the country. he and other leaders will need

to as much on process as on policy outcomes. delivering on citizens expectations will be impossible without encouraging meaningful public participation. beyond the urgent need for economic reforms and the diversification of trade and energy supplies these expectations include constitutional changes including decentralization serious anticorruption measures the number one priority for you kerry needs throughout the country and judicial reform. since february the government and the parliament parliament have enacted an impressive set of reforms and civil society organizations are helping to shape an ambitious agenda. i try your attention to the reanimation package of reforms and impressive civil society initiative to improve election laws per curiam practices education policy and access to public information among other issues.

i listening to and consulting with citizens in communicating and terms how short-term sacrifices will lead to longer-term improvements government leaders can help smooth the path to results. for political parties to challenge will be to build work from the grassroots up and base policies and strategies on citizens concerns. this will acquire hearties to embrace new ways of organizing. the euro my don movement showed citizens can wield considerable political power but by their very nature street protests are in college. sustain popular participation requires leadership and structures. channeling the energy of the euro my don into the day into the day-to-day and less exciting business of reforming governance is the next hurdle. these efforts need to be disseminated more widely throughout the country. it will be important for the

national dialogue on ensuring rights of representation free cranes to accelerate and deepen. this process which is now underway would benefit from broader and more active participation from civil society. the impact of past u.s. assistance ukraine is more visible now than ever before. years of corrupt and inept governance mass much of ukraine's promise. but that sustained support from the u.s. nonetheless helps democratic groups get established expand accumulate skills and survived their political hardships. also in the new political environment partners of u.s. assistance projects can be found among the most apt reformers in the government parliament political parties and civil society. ukraine now needs help in all of its priority reform areas. ukrainian political and civic leaders have been unanimous in requesting such support. there are major financial needs to be sure. in addition ukrainians are eager for technical assistance

peer-to-peer contacts and linkages to international counterparts. just as ukraine's problems will not be solved overnight international engagement needs to expand and aim for the long-term. thank you very much. >> thank you all for your testimony and before i start a round of questioning let me recognize that the ukrainian ambassador is here and we welcome you mr. ambassador to this hearing. the g7 statement says we stand ready to intensify targeted sanctions and to consider significant restrictive measures to impose further costs on russia should events so require. but as i listened to what i think was a majority of you it would seem to me that the collective view here and correct me if i'm wrong is that time is

already here. am i wrong in what i have heard or is that basically what you are saying? if you open up your mic to say yes or no i'd be happy to hear. >> yes the time is your senator. >> the russians are thoroughly involved in was going on in eastern ukraine and they have the power to stop that if they wish. >> yes or asymmetric strength against russia is our economic power. their economy even before the individual sanctions was in bad shape and it's gotten worse. it will be in particular a long-term problem for us in the energy your could export a substantial amount of energy to europe. >> mr. chairman the position of western leaders previously was that if russia interfered in the

conduct of the elections that more sanctions would be coming. i think it's clear that they did in fact take a number of steps to interfere with those election so i would argue that the time has come most definitely. you mentioned a cyberattack. how do we know that to be the case that was emanated from russia? >> that was brought to us by the u.s. ambassador and has been reported although not as widely reported quite frankly as i think it deserves. but while they were able to so much of the infrastructure system which was operated by russia and supported government officials has been infiltrated and has weakened and that seems a basic way. >> obviously the had they been successful they could have undermined the voracity of the

the -- and pursue their goals so your point is well taken. what do you think from your experiences? putin's calculus in terms of what will affect his calculus but what is going to affect his calculus in a way that changes russia's change of course events course of events? >> i would argue the possibility for intense western sanctions could not necessarily will affect his calculus pretty if you look at what has happened to the russian economy it was already in difficulty and 2013 at the sanctions and the threat of more robust sanctions have increased the problems for the russian economy. the question here and many economists go back and say vladimir putin has this implicit social compact with the russian people in which he says you were not going to have much in the way of political freedom but in

turn you are going to get economic security a growing economy and higher living standards than mr. putin delivers spectacularly on that between 2,002,008. last year some were saying projected growth in 2014 of 2% would not be enough for mr. mr. putin to hold up its end of the art and so we need that pressure pressure. one of my colleagues at workings concern is what will happen is mr. putin may seize on the sanctions and use that as an excuse to blame that for difficulties and sidestep his own mismanagement. i would argue even if there is the prospect of changing his calculus the web should do it because of the egregious nature of russian actions in the last couple months. let me add to that its the economy stupid overtime as sanctions bite further and i do think there should be i agree

with ambassador pifer and people in russia will have a lower standing of living. putin has not learned cowan powells pottery barn rule if you break it you own it the potteryn rule -- if you break it, you buy the payments for state workers and crimea vomit that is another hit on the russian budget. heator mccain is right when says russia's economy is a gas station, and russia is a gas station posing as a country. if that gas is turned off with respect to europe, that is a huge hit. he has made a deal with china, but i think that shows desperation, not long-term advantage. that iuld like to add very much am in favor of sanctions and i think we have seen particularly some secondary effects of them.

we should continue and strengthen them, trying to keep the europeans on board because they will keep most of the pain. nonetheless, i am a little bit concerned if we think that, to i'm a little bit concerned if we think to sum it up briefly 21st century values economic development people power over 18th and 19th century values. i am not sure that is true that i think it's truth mr. putin certainly because he is clear in his goals with the russian people. his desire that seems to have a lot of support is to re-create something like the old russian imperial power as one of the great powers over much of the area around russia today stretching into eurasia and into central europe. this is a very dangerous

strategy. you ask how can race respond against its? he is facing the e.u. and the united states with a 2 billion 2 billion -- a 2 trillion-dollar economy. we have $30 trillion. we have six times the population two or three times the number of forces under arms that are equipped. why is he doing this and why is he seemingly having success? because we are divided. we are not sure what the threat is and in particular we are reluctant to the u.s. degree and the europeans even more to meet force with force. that's why so important to take military rules while also strengthening the economic and political sanctions and strictures against him. as he doesn't believe we are going to stand up for our values >> you would be supportive of the president's billion-dollar initiative on securing nato? >> absolutely except it shouldn't be contingent upon

action. he has the authority and equipments and troops troops to start doing this tomorrow. >> i would just like to make one point about russia's role in the election. we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that 70% of the electorate was disenfranchised either because of the occupation of crimea where the russian backed separatists. the question remains what the fighting still going on in these two blocks where the russian goal is to make ukraine governable so the actions to try to destabilize the country before during and after the elections continues. >> i have a lot of questions but one final question. what can poroshenko do in eastern ukraine. some of you have talked about decentralization of government and i'd like to hear exactly what you think that means because of course the russians

wanted a federated system so they could take ukraine apart. i assume you are not meaning that. projections for the use of russian language inclusion in the government. do some of you have thoughts as to what poroshenko can do to try to consolidate the eastern part of ukraine as part of the national body politic? >> we don't want to dominate this at this end of the table but i would say five things and i think the border with russia is absolutely crucial. from all of the information that i have seen on the public record there are truckloads of people who may or may not be russian but they are coming over the russian border and they are mostly chechens are russian nationals. closing that border to that kind of traffic is critical. the ukrainians probably don't have the capacity to do that

obviously the russians do. i think having an international calling specifically to do that right now would at least expose the role and i think we are all united in understanding what that role is. it's tragic that semi-craniums who want to vote will be preventing you from doing that as ken wollack just said. then there are the folks in crimea which we all view is that occupy part of ukraine. most of them couldn't vote either. >> mr. chairman i think the comment that mr. poroshenko said he wants to make his first trip as president and he may well find resilience there. it's important to keep in mind the majority population is ethnic ukrainian. they may use russian as their language but they are ukrainian. the polls show while many people in the eastern ukraine are in

contra ball with the power at the end of february and they were guarded the active group is a legitimate 70% want to stay in ukraine. they did not want to join russia. large majorities criticized and condemned the armed sieges but the separatists. they did not see the russian army come. there's an audience you can appeal to. decentralization to power in some sense makes sense. making regional governors elected as a post to appointed by the president would be a positive step. pushing authority to the regions would be a positive step in terms of more efficient and accountable governments. also mr. poroshenko is said there would be some standards for the russian language. it seems to be a touchy issue in eastern ukraine and there are things i think he can do that would in fact begin to make the majority of the population of ukraine feel more comfortable

looking out for political economic interests and the support for the separatists that are backed by the russians. >> mr. chairman first off with respect to polling iri has done a great deal of pulling. every part of the country even in the area of the far east which may have wanted more autonomy wanted to be part of ukraine viewed themselves as ukrainian didn't see discrimination very much wanted to remain part of ukraine. i would argue that what the president-elect needs to do is to take a look at what putin did in the lead-up to these elections. putin sought to sow seeds to destabilize sent agents and shut down radio stations so on and so forth. what i think poroshenko will need to do among other things is to build a media that can communicate messages give an accurate picture and provide

channels for ukrainians from all parts of the country to get together and social media platforms to communicate with each other exchange ideas and finally i would argue that a significant exchange program which creates east-west north-south understanding inside the country to build a new generation of leaders that go themselves entirely as ukrainians and not regionally i think it's vitally important. again based upon what we have seen from president putin that's very much what he fears. >> senator corchran. >> thank you mr. chairman and i think it's good to note that with people on both sides of the aisle here that are uniform in their thinking about you both ukraine and russia it's good to hear and i think we have a lot of that on our committee. so it seems to me very evident and i know we have a country

that has underperformed and the last 20 years in development huge challenges within the country. then you have this other issue that is of major geopolitical significance to the world. they come together actively on the border. they affect much of our policy over the last 60 or 70 years and europe would be whole, democratic and free so we have two really big issues and its ukraine does move to the west of increased -- creates internal issues to rush as the russian people see a country evolving in a different direction from where they are and certainly a threat to their leadership there. let me just start. is there anybody on this panel that doesn't believe that the new elected leadership which is impressive is an oligarch and agri- congressman harman at the same time it was the state-owned

enterprise. it did sort make it the i wouldn't say honest way but a different way than a lot of the oligarchs. is there any difference of opinion that is absolutely committed to making the transition that is necessary to be made within the country? is anybody feel like that is not the case? >> i hope he is committed. we thought you shan't go was committed. we thought yushchenko was the new leadership for ukraine and he turned out to be enormously disappointing. some people thought tana shank was the new solution but he turned out to be disappointing so it matters what he does. senator corker may be one suggestion for it the way you framed this. i think ukraine is ukraine. ukraine is a part of europe and isn't part of russia.

it is a country that is situated next to nato countries. many people in ukraine are very interested in and have a long history of connecting to europe but some people in ukraine are interesteinterested in and have a long history of connecting to russia. i think the best outcome for ukraine is to have a somewhat decentralize government where ukraine can be both and certainly i think it's in ukraine centrist but i don't think if russia would only back off, if we could get this to change i don't think it would be bad for ukraine also to choose if it chooses to have -- with russia. >> that is what the president plans to do. >> i was going to say i was one of those that had a chance to meet with mr. poroshenko before the election and while i absolutely agree the proof is in

the pudding he was impressive in leaving out a clear agenda on what needs to be done and taking on corruption. he certainly knows what to do and obviously i believe we should be there when requested to try to help him get there. >> i think in our meetings with the president-elect and the prime minister i think everybody understands the challenges that might happen and i think they are all deeply committed to these issues and they realize that now there's a second chance for meaningful reforms to the country. at the same time i think we have to put our faith in institutions and processes as well and not just individuals. the parliament is going to play an important role. civil society will play an important role and the question is whether all these various sectors of society can work constructively together in order to achieve the goals that we all share.

>> i too was impressed. hopefully a team will be put together and since i'm running out of time i will stop here but i was going to pursue -- is there anything that western countries that are involved in care about ukraine, is there anything other then you mentioned some military equipment and training that could take place. is there anything you see the west not doing this should be done now? assistance from us is going to be needed and persistence is going to be needed. is there anything you see right now and one person can respond very briefly because i want to move onto something else. helpfe along? yes, sir? >>