>> welcome, everyone. i want to turn over to senator tester if you want to make a statement as well. and i understand senator mccain is trying t try to debate couldp in transportation. is he going to come in at all?

thanks to our colleagues and witnesses for working with the staff to enable us to put this hearing together fairly quickly. the purpose as you know is to examine 1691 the border patrol act of 2014 introduced by senator tester and mccain and this bill would make the badly needed reforms to the system of the border patrol for discourtesy too complicated and difficult to manage. i want to talk about what is happening currently along the borders over the past few years have seen a surge in the unauthorized migration from central america which is nearing record highs and an unprecedented number of people operating at the border are unaccompanied children. some are as young as ten years of age. they appropriately require that the children be treated differently than other migrants.

they must be transferred department of health and human services and there are strict rules about their care. he announced he was creating a task force and devoting additional resources to coordinate the care. since i became chairman of the committees on making months ago i visited the southern border of mexico and arizona and texas on a number of occasions that i've seen firsthand the crowded positions in mexico, guatemala el salvador and i hope to spend some time in honduras. i've come to understand what happens along the borders is only a symptom of the problem it's not the underlying cause. today we'll focus on how we can address the symptoms by increasing enforcement. the tester mccain bill we are examining will save taxpayers money and increase the ability to patrol and secure our borders. one estimate shows the bill

would add the equivalent of 1400 agents to the border. given the challenges we face which have only been underscored by recent event the recent eveno say moving this bill would seem on the surface to be a no-brainer and i support moving forward with the bill as soon as possible. we need to do all we can to treat the symptoms. we can't stop there. it's critical that we understand why all these people are willing to risk everything to come here in the first place in the struggle to mexico to get here. based on what i've seen in the matrix it causes a lack of economic opportunity and in the security situationthesecurity sl salvador, guatemala and honduras the bad guys go south and a lot of them end up in those three central american countries creating not just mischief that may have. one year ago they passed a bipartisan comprehensive immigration reform measure that addresses many of the causes of

undocumented immigration. while it is in perfect it is a significant improvement over the status quo and provides the nation with an important opportunity to fix the system and grow the economy by almost $1 trillion but in order for this to become law we need our colleagues in the house to act and we need to do a better job of helping the central american countries improve the prospects for people hoping them provided the jobs and secure safe and secure communities and a future so they stay in their own country instead of trying to get two hours. the roundtable experts from the multilateral banks as well as the private institutions to discuss how we continue to improve the prospects of the young people and not so young people and i would urge and invite all of our colleagues to join us.

thanks to senator tester and senator mccain. they held an important hearing inmates on january and i'm the one that asked for this hearing because there are two points i would make. one my goal isn't to take anything away from the border patrol agents and we have about 900 or so but are no longer authorized for. the goal should be adequate to pay for the risks and the effort that they put in. but i'm really concerned about what we are doing in terms of setting up a system that could become governmentwide coming at the question i ask as an accountant and a former business manager is if in fact we need to

have about $28,000 or $29,000 above the gs 12, why wouldn't we just changed the base pay? why wouldn't we just pay the system rather than have this overtime system? the other questions that i have associated with what we are doing is things change. what we are doing is talking about putting a payment system in the statute that guarantees a certain amount of overtime every paper cup that's not a part of the contractual obligations. this is a statute. so i'm a little concerned about that as well because if in fact the border becomes more difficult requiring greater risk

and expertise we are going to be somewhat limited about how we have done this. so i'm looking forward to asking the questions to get settled in my mind how do we settle at the level of which they have been compensated and make sure they are secure in the future. i don't want to take 25% if anybody's pay a way. there are a lot of patience yes we are including all of those in this that shouldn't have the payment. in other words, the job shouldn't require. the characteristics of the mix are important as well. i want to get answers to

critical questions today. i have a statement that is written for the record. and again, i want to fix this. i'm not trying to stop it from getting fixed. my understanding is a limited number of people no longer have it as a comparison to the total workforce and i want to make sure that we fixed it right and we fixed it in a way that the house is going to solve the problem, so i appreciate senator tester's acquiescence and pledge my support to get the problem solved when i get my questions answered. >> senator tester. >> ranking member coburn, i think that maybe i could answer your questions now but it may be better left to the expert panels to answer the questions about things changing because i think you're right, things do change and that's why we are here today because things have changed.

we introduced this legislation a little over a year ago and we did have a hearing in january we worked with the border patrol union and national security and others to make the bill even stronger. it is cosponsored by heitkamp and the companion bill is in the house by the representative and a host of others, both democrats and republicans. the bill is supported by the cbp into the border patrol union that represents 16,500 agents in the field. it saves money and it creates more stability for the border agents and their family and increases manpower along the borders of the security is

increased and they are better equipped to do the jobs that are so important to all of us. the reform of the border patrol system is long-overdue. the operation is from 40 years ago quite different from the criminal operations that we see on the border today. things have changed. we've waited long enough and we need to move forward on this bill. in the end, i appreciate the opportunity to have a full committee on this bill. as i look at this bill that increases enforcement. it allows the borders to be as secure as they possibly can to meet the dangers of terrorism, drugs and illegal immigration

that is so common on both northern and southern border. i appreciate the opportunity to hear from the witnesses and be able to ask some questions about this important issue. >> let me take another minute to welcome the witnesses with brief introductions. the deputy chief patrol and the capacity responsible for the daily operation of the border patrol that assists in the planning. it was one of the contributors

to the unification customs and border protection and creation of the department of homeland security. is that true? he serves as the president of the council representing more than 17,000 border patrol agents and support staff. he spent much of his career on the southwest border in central california and tucson arizona sectors and in the past he's been stationed as an officer at one of the busiest. into a an t. 02 he was an instructor at the border patrol academy. >> the next witness, the deputy assistant commissioner of the office of internal affairs for

the u.s. customs border protection since 2012. he just became a witness this morning due to some leadership changes announced by the commission are today. thanks for joining us. we very much appreciate the witness has given extensive knowledge of the issue that we are going to discuss today. he joined the customs service in 1986. is that right? he's been with the office of internal affairs since 2007. thank you again for joining us on such short notice. the final witness is the director of policy affair affait the u.s. office of special counsel. prior to joining the office he was on the staff with the house committee on oversight and government reform and we thank you for your service and all of

you for your service and testimony today. if you want to give us your testimony in roughly five minutes that would be fine. and then we will start some questions. thank you all for joining us. why don't you go first. >> thank you for the opportunity to appear before you for the need for reform. this is a matter of concern to the department, dhs to u.s. customs border patrol. we welcome the opportunity to work with you finding solutions at an affordable cost. the dhs and border patrol require paying the person now and properly managing the system. the application of the uncontrollable overtimes stretches back many years but existing authority no longer meet the needs of the modern border patrol.

the senate 1691 k. reform act would replace with a system that controls costs, fairly compensates irregular necessary work and maximizes the agent capability for the law-enforcement border security responsibilities. if enacted it would ensure the workforce is scheduled to continue work and meet the mission requirements beyond his or her shift while providing predictable rotations around the clock. agents would receive compensation for any work over eight hours per day and remain eligible for other scheduled overtime and the emergencies of her were special missions require. in addition to increasing the patrol capacity by over 2.5 million hours the act would reduce overall cost. it would eliminate fair labor standards act a if the compensation for most agent assignments that total $105 million in 2013. based on the cost estimates

briefed, the pra would save 38 to 67 million annually. they have a business practice that requires the agents rotating into and out of the headquarters assignment in the training environment. this maintains up to date field experience in those positions. prepares leaders in the advanced like other federal law-enforcement agencies the bill contemplates pay for employeeemployees to cycle throh those assignments and back to the field area to the cost to train the skills is considerable into scheduling overtime is much more cost effective in getting the equipment number of hours. cdp moves around the country to maximize the impact and is committed to continuing to do so and also provides thresholds and management controls which would ensure cost savings. without relief, legislative effect in this post over and the morale is likely to take a downward turn. we commend the commitment for the border patrol agents and

proposing legislation that would provide the flexibility to administer a credible cost sufficient compensation system that would meet the needs of the border patrol. we look forward to continuing to work with congress on this endeavor. >> i look forward to this opportunity and answering all of your questions. >> you are recognized. please proceed. >> chairman carper, ranking member coburn on behalf of the 16,500 border agents i represent i would like to thank you for having this hearing to discuss s. 1691. i would especially like to thank senator tester and if senator mccain were here i would like to thank him for introducing this important legislation. instead of reading the statement, i've given it to you last thursday. i would like to speak with you and i'm looking forward to answering your questions and

getting prepared statements you already have but there are a couple of things that i would like, key issues i would like to point out. the first issue is we are no longer dealing with mom and pop smuggling organizations. we are dealing with sophisticated criminal cartel that control of the traffic that is happening that comes into the united states and goes into mexico and they also can troll the activity on the northern border into the coastal border. approximately a year ago all of the agents were notified that they are were hours that would be cut from 100 plus down to approximately 95. since that time, we have seen almost an immediate increase across the border. not only are we seeing an increase in the sector. we knew about that tidal wave that is currently happening, but

we've seen an increase in the corridors like el paso texas on the san diego california these were considered operationally controlled areas. when we cut the hours by nearly 15% of the also seen senator tester. we've seen an increase in arrests since the hours were cut by 50%. that is a huge increase and we've also seen an increase on the postal worker in miami florida by almost 30% on the coastal border. they know when we are vulnerable and due to the hours that are cut we are vulnerable 50% in montana. that's huge. the second point i would like to

address is the retention and as senator mccain's neck of the woods the busiest station in the sector is historically one of the busiest in the nation id leave it currently seizes more drugs than any other station in the nation. we have seen a 5% of the workforce leads in the last year due to the number of hours that have been cut and the pay reductions that were experienc experienced. we also have another 15% at this station alone who have pending applications for other agencies. we cannot afford to lose 20% in the station that is so important to the tucson sector. but that is what is happening under the economic climate. the last point i would like to make and i would like to read this statement. four years ago when i came into the border, i'm sorry, back in

1997 that recruitment that i was offered was 25% administrative overtime for the rest of my career and that is what we were told we were going to get. we no longer have that and there's two reasons, budgetary and legal issues. we approached the congress four years ago and we tried to get the powers to amend the law to allow us to continue to do what we need to do to control the border unfortunately because it is inexpensive system we couldn't get any attraction. because of that we have worked diligently to come up with a plan that will satisfy all participant parties and the taxpayers are huge cost savings to secure the border into the

agents and we would have a constant paycheck that we would know what it is year-to-year. $6,400 per year. we were again unsuccessful. we are sacrificing a lot. but in the end it would prove to be the doom for the border security and the public and the agency whom i represent. it is very rare that the congress has the opportunity to consider a piece of legislation that saves money and enhances the agency's capability and that is exactly what this does. i look forward to answering questions. it is a privilege to appear before you today to discuss the ongoing review of the customs border patrol agents over time compensation systems

specifically those by the border patrol. properly paying the border security personnel and appropriately managing to pay systems are central to the mission. specifically the primary system in the border patrol stretches back many years and establishes more than 40 years ago it is a payment mechanism that allows fothe compensation of certain employees for irregular but necessary over time. approximately 77% of the pay goes to the employees including more than 20,000 border patrol agents. to be eligible and employee must be in the position of which the hours cannot be controlled administratively and which require substantial amounts of irregular or occasional overtime work.

while many front-line officers and agents across the agent are often through the use misuse of the funds are not tolerated. allegations of misconduct that are raised by employees are typically provided to be handled by the component affairs offices and/or the office of inspector general in conjunction with components of the human resource office. they found to have engaged in the misconduct the subject disciplinary action. the office of internal affairs conducted a series of investigative inquiries regarding the improper use by specific entities. internal affairs, field offices in washington, d.c. that houston texas, san diego california and seattle washington conducted the investigations at specific border patrol headquarters,

training and peace and the commission situation room. although the office of the special counsel received complaints that overtime hours compensated were not being worked, the allegations are proven to constitute criminal or administrative violations our investigations did not substantiate any allegations that employees had received the compensation for hours that were not worked. the investigations did however substantiate aspects and questioned whether it was the appropriate mechanism for specific overtime compensation. in short, the investigations determined that work was conducted and importantly even where it wasn't the proper mechanism, they have an had an obligation and employees have an entitlement to be appropriately

compensated for the overtime hours worked. the dhs and cbp have taken steps to address the situation. january 27 secretary thompson issued a memorandum to take immediate action to suspend certain categories and employees on an interim basis. as a result approximately 600 headquarters and personal mouth and full-time trainers and employees. after additional review on may 23 of the deputy secretary within 30 days to address the compliance issues. they would also work with the management of directories to dio develop the departmentwide directive formalizing these efforts and reforms. the directive would include requirements for independent audits of the records and mandates the disciplinary

measures for those who violate the policies in the future. until such a time we can address all of the come client issues, cbp, leadership has to record additional measures such as a comprehensive position review of the eligibility to eliminate the use where the available evidence suggests that use is impermissible. churning carper, ranking member, senator tester to do for the opportunity to testify today. i look forward to answering your questions. please proceed.

i'm pleased to have the opportunity in the ongoing work to address widespread misuse of overtime payments to the dhs employees. i want to acknowledge the overtime team many of whom are sitting behind me. it's over $37 million in the misuse of the tent to the co-pay. the special counsel october 312013 communication to congress and the president outlined long-standing concerns about the misuse of administrative overtime. this is an issue first addressed in 2007. the communication in october, 2013 pounds into significant debate on the legitimacy and the philadelphia of the payments and in particular within the cbp. encouraging this type of

discussion with the goal of rooting out waste an the waste d achieving meaningful reform is at the heart of the mission. as it is stated in the october 31 with abusive overtime pay is a violation of public trust and waste of government funds. it's incumbent to take effective steps to curb that he views the lakers the sex abus abuse and tt are working overtime. since october of 2013 and particularly in response to the subcommittee hearing in januar january 2014 the dhs has taken steps to place better controls. this includes decertifying some of the physicians were employees shouldn't be collecting the payments. while it's taken many years and more needs to be done we are encouraged by the steps that they are now taking. in addition we are also pleased

congress is hoping to find ways to solve this long-standing problem including through legislative reform. while we do not have a position on the border patrol payment act of 2014 the update today will provide some context for the committee as it considers the legislation. in particular i want to compare and contrast recent reports that were prepared and set th sent tl and factual framework for the discussion. these were a response to whistleblower disclosures and the forfeiture office in san diego california into the cbp station in laredo texas. of the whistleblowers in these cases and 14 others that came separately from locations all around the country have basically the identical disclosures that border patrol agents or enforcement officers claimed two hours each day but the extra two hours were unlawful because they don't meet

the requirements. the reports again prepared substantiated the core allegations. the report confirmed that the agents in the locations just extend the regular ships by two hours every day routinely and that is in violation of the rules require unpredictable or irregular law enforcement or compelling reasons to stay on duty. in addition to the across-the-board substantiation of the misuse, there are key differences in the report that are worth going through and these are based on the duties of the agents in the location. i want to start by addressing the border patrol agents in texas. the report noted that the agents claimed in order to complete the post ship work necessary to travel back and forth from the border assignment to the stati station. the agents that were interviewed

indicated it cannot be completed in eight hours. the border patrol managers insisted on the report that in bullying ten hour shifts is the most cost-effective approach to secure the border even if that means misusing it as it is currently used. if congress considers proposals to address the misuse they may want to consider the argument in support of the shift and the demands on the agents like laredo texas. the reports on san diego california and the similar report addressing the abuse at the training facility in georgia presents different issues and they illustrate how broadly the misuse extends in the cbp. for example the report states some border patrol agents in san diego work as pair illegals. the border patrol agents assigned to duties to work a scheduled ten hour shift and claimed two hours daily just like on the field.

the agents in the parallel section of the same duties in the section referred to as the civilians. for example a pair of legal age and send out notices on the properties edito addressed correspondence and do other tasks for the efforts but they are basically in an office setting. the non- border patrol agents with the same duties are not eligible and do not worked ten hour shifts yet they sit side-by-side with thosside bysig for ten hour shift. so again if the congress considers the reform act may want to consider whether and to what extent the reform should cover border patrol agents assigned to paralegal or other roles where the non- border patrol agents have the same duties that are not eligible. the same issue is present with instructors at the georgia training academy in the detail in my written statement. i hope this information is

helpful to the duration and i would be pleased to answer your questions. thank you very much for having me. >> thanks to all of you this will be broadcast on c-span so people will change this around the country later tonight or tomorrow. who among these witnesses actually explained this so that if someone watching on television, somebody who is maybe not even here on this committee somebody may be stumbled into the room will understand what is the problem that we are trying to fix and don't use acronyms to use just regular language and explained what is the problem that we are trying to fix? >> we are trying to get ourselves in a situation where they are sufficiently ready and

capable and authorized in whatever format to engage in the post activities so all of the agents are scheduled for eight hours a day and if you are on a factory floor and your boss came in at the end and said i need you to stay someone isn't coming in for the next shift they would ask you to perform the same activity for the subsequent eight hours and in most factory settings, that would be doubletime, that would be considered overtime. we do things at the end of that prepared the rest of the team there seems to be an exchange of information to the government calls that overtime. it's more complex as it relates to the administrative overtime because the statute allows for

individual agents to assess what mission requirements are in front of them and innocence self deployed against the work in front of them. it's a good thing it was established because it allowed the agents to collect the work even though it might have been over. it allows people not to watch the clock if there is work in front of them that is necessary they can do that. but the legislation proposes to continue that practice but it covers all of the work post shift so whether it is chasing a group or arresting people or preserving the chain of custody for the evidence or informing the shift for the things that are in an administrative setting that prepared the next team to be more capable in the shift and it's important to recognize that in the setting and what's contemplated in the legislation to compensation for the first

hour of the shift and for the tenth hour in this configuration would be the same rate of pay. >> what concerns have been raised and you can answer this if you want. but the concerns about abuse can help these abused or reworded people that haven't been rewarded in this manner. could someone talk to that for us next speak to that? and you might be the best person to do so. talk to us about those concerns. what has the department tried to do about this on their own and then talk to us about the legislation. what are the concerns? >> the witnesses will be in a better position to discuss the changed circumstances and why it is this overtime authority is being misused but in general

decades ago when they were first developed the idea was that the border was big into there were not a whole lot of agents and so if somebody needed to stay after hours to arrest somebody or follow a lead than they were able to do that and they didn't have to report back to headquarters and call their boss and ask can i stay on the job. now the situation is changed into there are more agents and the border hasn't grown but technology has been developed quite a bit grade so the way the border is being guarded has changed significantly and i'm way out of my way talking about law enforcement issues but now it is much more regular and routine and predictable in the way that the agents are being told to fulfill their duties and so the legal and statutory framework that allows for the overtime compensation says that it has to be unpredictable but when you look at the reports that have come in from across

the country basically the way that it's being used is the opposite of how it was intended. it's routine, it's two hours a day and in contrast to the rules that require air regular unpredictable and you can't control if you can't manage it and so there is a legal problem in the way that it's being used and then we've had a secondary allegations that were addressed by the testimony that said people are staying on the clock just to fulfill those hours so they can work a ten hour day that they are not doing any work into those allegations to date have not been substantiated that basically people are goofing off, they are surfing the internet giving the extra two hours and not doing any law enforcement work and that's been a concern, one that we haven't been able to pin down but that's a secondary concern that's going

on here. >> the next question is what candidate would do to make sure that we have the border patrol officers fairly to make sure we have the resources that we need what candidate would do, what have they tried to do to address these issues? >> i think previously paul mentioned the memo of january 27 which suspended the specific categories. prior to that and since then, the department and others have looked at a position review to try to discriminate which of the job categories specifically in the border patrol are still eligible given the rubric and which ones are not and so that suspension went forward january 28 for those discrete categories and the physician review with additional training

has been authorized and deployed to the field. we need to put ourselves any place on the subsequent memo from the deputy secretary ourselves in any place to bettr document the actual and correct use even in the field where it's understood that the biggest user but there are other problems in the way that we've been documenting the use. and in the other categories that are referenced in the allegations and the findings of the investigations there has been an overall generalization of how it's been authorized to we've gotten any place that was used in the environment. it's about the work that's being

done as regular or otherwise. so the work is still there in each of the environment both in the field and at the administrative and training regimens. how would the legislation that the senators tester and mccain crafted, how would it address the concerns to the folks that work on the border patrol and taxpayers and are there any other consequences that flow from the legislation and the idea we are told that this is a legislation that was saved. that is a lot of money into thet the same time effectively put another 10,000 to 1200 border

patrol agents on the board. that is an attractive combination so want to find out how that works. you were in fact told that he would have a guaranteed overtime it was back in 1997 and i don't remember what the specific announcement that was on the website was we send recruiters out to different college campuses into different areas and is at that time we were told we would earn 25%. >> i understand that' that the expectation. i'm not critical of i just want

to get it in the record. >> you said you need t that youo reform the post shift activities. what about jobs that don't have post shift activities? >> we are talking about where the suspensions are now in the training environment. people regularly have assignments that carry them over an eight hour shift has to be a downward of their shift. i will give you some specific examples. over the weekend i was on several conference calls dealing with a situation in which we were moving individual unprocessed illegal aliens from south texas mainly el paso and

specifically tucson. so arranging for the flight that was being coordinated not just a bite me and my team but arranging for the flights and arranging for the destination location show that it was prepared and sufficiently staffed by the border patrol agency and others in the agency and then giving the specific instructions to the rio grande valley sector -- >> i understand the fact. your testimony is all of the departments, all the management, all the training facilities need time in the management or the training facility is going to have at least two hours of overtime. >> i think they regularly exceed the shift they are a signed for the purpose of preparing for the classroom or this work that we did. we were managing other incidences at the same time that require cross sector

coordination. >> what about the military. they are doing this stuff all the time. >> to me it is incomprehensible that somebody in the training fofacility needs to be working n extra two hours a day. that either says we have poor management or structured the force right. so it may require a different structure but what i am saying is the academy curriculum is an eight hour day instructors need time to prepare for the intake of the students. >> how long have they been instructors? is it an individual -- we sign up hundreds of people at the academy and if they stay for rotations of three to five or longer.

the portability comment was about having people who have sufficiently spent time they struggle on a day-to-day basis is good and desirable and necessary to develop those people. people are successful in that environment and they make the best staff officers. when we push the requirement of downrange they are sending and receiving the information and have sufficient experience to know what it means that is the business model for us even the administration assistance would need to have two extra hours and even the janitors in the

training facility. >> when you ask people about the administrative office is getting two extra hours a day and all of them have jobs and i would rather go back to the labor portion of this and pay them or increase the number so that we adequately reflect. i find it hard to swallow that everyone networks that management at the border patrol and everyone in the training facilities that the border patrol have a need to have 20% more, 25% more time to get their job done and that says we are not staffed correctly or we are managed in properly.

>> at the headquarters that i manage we have a light footprint is about 200 officer corps people. >> but if you bring somebody in to train or you wouldn't have trained so make the point you have to have two extra hours at the end of the day to prepare for tomorrow in the training anyway it just doesn't make sense. my question is the assumptions of which we are doing this don't pass muster for common sense. your testimony is everybody needs an extra two hours a day to get the job done and that's whether they are on the border or not. and i'm not sure that even with your statement that you can justify it. how many allegations have your office received?

>> 16 at 16 different locations. >> when did they allege that it wasn't just being mis- buil thit it was actually not being worked by some agents like surfing the internet or hanging out? >> some variation was made in those cases. >> they cannot substantiate allegations that they were billing and it didn't actually work. >> i will withdraw the question. they involve the cases where they are working alongside the officers or other civilians who are not entitled to overtime p pay. didn't they have the same jobs as those that were not agents?

>> that's why i think the framework that has been put forth has been helpful in this conversation. i can go into more detail in the training facility for example the border patrol agency testified they were in the instructor position so they needed ten hours a day to get the work done and then sorry for the acronym but if the customs and border protection officers who are not eligible that are in the same instructor position they said that they routinely testify that they could get the work done within eight hours. >> has the management ever tried to stop the agents from working past eight hours a day? >> i'm not aware of any. >> describe for me your investigation of the referrals in terms of those people who

were not working how big you could go about the investigation to substantiate. >> the office of internal affairs you conducted six separate investigations regarding allegations of misuse by the cbp employees, and each of those investigations are internal affairs agent collected all the relevant documentary evidence that was available. we conducted interviews with all of the relevant employees and interviewed complaints and air were identified and interviewed all of the available witnesses and employees who were allegedly to be missed using the compensation system. we documented of those steps in

at least one case conducted surveillance out in the field. >> described that. >> they were in the field watching employees. >> were the employees aware? >> no, they were watching to see what tim time they reported ther work and what time they left work and then comparing those activities with the hours that were documented. once they are complete all of the investigative activities are fully documented. the investigative reports went through a series of management reviews within the office of internal affairs booth at the field office level as well as the headquarters. once our internal affairs managers were satisfied that the investigations were adequate and complete, the investigative reports were subject to a second

level of review at the office of the chief counsel and once that level of review was complete, bug reports were forwarded through the leadership to the office of the special counsel. >> but they were aware in general but it was a hot topic. ..

>> okay. i'm way over time. senator tester. >> it's perfectly all right. i will just start out talking about the benefits of the bill and we will get into some meet here to second. i think all of us can agree that this is an antiquated system set up 40 years ago that doesn't doesn't meet their needs today. i think the border patrol has come to us asking for reforms. i think it's appropriate that we listen to their work that they are doing in the field. i went through border station several times but i have never packed a gun on the northern border and face what you guys have face putting your lot lives on the line every day but yet coming to us in support of the pay cut and we will get into

that in a second. i would just say one thing this bill does and it does many things is it gives stability to the hours they need a net stability and ours is very important when you have folks watching when the ship goes off. at any rate, i would ask you deputy chief boat till leo does the cbp support this legislation? >> yes, sir. >> how about you mr. jeb? is your organization supportive? >> yes sir. speak for both do you believe this legislation increase the border patrol's operational capacity and its effectiveness? >> ill will. >> i don't believe it will. i know it well. >> okay.

will it help or hurt recruitment and retention of border patrol agents? >> i think it will help. >> it will help. >> does it provide more certainty for agents and their families? both of you. >> agreed, it does. >> absolutely. >> and we are probably going to get into cost savings than a minute it does your group and your your agency believe that this saves money? >> it does. the key provision of illuminating fosc for overtime work as the workforce is now entitled would save us considerably. >> okay. i want to talk about training for just a little bit. who do you use for training? >> there is a variety of assignments at the academy that some of the instructors are in

fact fort patrol agents that teach operational aspects of the work in the academy setting. >> okay and you said these are eight hour sessions? >> the curriculum is eight hours plus lunch etc.. >> okay. one thing that i would really like to point out is that if i'm on the northern border and somebody asks me to become a trainer and by the way i applaud the fact that you guys are using mortar patrol agents to train with. there is no way i'm going to take your reduction in paid to come here and i think furthermore if in fact, if in fact you are using agents that solves a problem that i have. with a lot of agencies that actually have people in training positions that don't know what's going on out in the field and you are using folks who know what's going on in the field to

train the folks that are going to be out in the field. is that correct? >> we use lawyers to teach the law. we use pt instructor to teach physical tanks. we use border patrol agents who have driven in the field and know how to operate vehicles etc. and the whole range of operational technics top agents as well. >> senator may i? >> i taught at the academy. i've never gone to the academy phi would lose 25% of my pay. >> okay. we are currently in this day and age using -- we didn't bring us up to use unmanned aircraft and drones to secure our borders and we have been successful in this technology to fight against terrorism. the question is that with this age of technology why do we need more? >> senator the technology is fantastic but the technology does not arrest anybody. when i'm dealing with groups of illegal aliens i am dealing with

anywhere between 20 to 40 persons and those drones cannot put hands on those individuals to arrest them. normally when i'm dealing with this groups it's me and one other person. so the drones do a phenomenal job of spotting the groups but now i have to get to the groups and i have to actually arrest them. those drones can't do that. that's why we have to have the manpower to a -- manpower to effectuate the arrest. >> i believe in your testimony you said that the research bore out that five or 10 hour shifts and correct me if i'm wrong, five to 10 hour shifts are optimum. >> we received a report a very helpful report from oia discussing the san diego sector and -- i'm sorry laredo in texas.

in the rate of the managers and system may provide extensive discussion on the costs and benefits of doing a 10 hour shift versus an eight hour shift. i think that's a legitimate area for congress to consider. with the report confirms is the 10 hour shift is currently being compensated with aul and that's not lawful. we need to figure out if 10 hours is the best way. >> the reason it's not lawful is because it was set up for conditions that were -- correct? at the would have been set up and we were going to mag a predictable and use aul and whatever you want that would have been fine but the fact is unpredictability. >> that is why we wanted the flat bed because it's worth understanding from cb p. witnesses why 10 hours is the most cost-effective approach to securing the border. >> okay. mr. jeb when discussing pay reform and we are discussing this bill we are talking about how much money it's going to save.

why would your folks be in favor of that? >> because the alternative is worse. what we found is again mr. miles has testified that what we are doing is not actual auo. mr. hamrick has testified that the hours that are being worked whether improperly compensated. if it was properly compensated he would be paid more money than what auo pays. if i could keep amending the auo laws i would do that but unfortunately we have this budgetary constraint where nobody is willing to consider time and a half overtime system and therefore we are asking you for this. >> we are going to have several rounds. my time is up.

>> i was about halfway through my questioning and i want to yield to dr. coburn and come back to where i left off. the question then ask questions we talked about this a little bit but i want to talk about some more. of course i would start with you mr. miles and come up from for my rights and my left raid what concerns have been raised -- let's go back. what concerns were raised about the original policies? what concerns have been raised and how does this legislation address those concerns? use your mic. >> three separate concerns. one that a ou is unlawful because it's being used routinely and two a lot of whistleblowers were concerned that auo is being used in an office setting or administrative setting by managers in those types of settings and three which we have discussed in some detail is that aop --

auo is from people that are doing various things. the legislation would clearly address the first issue on whether or not the hours that are being worked they can be scheduled in advance it would provide a legal framework for compensating the individuals who are working those hours. >> mr. hamrick the same question please. >> i would echo mr. miles. the legislation will allow cbp to properly compensate employees for their overtime work which they are entitled to while alleviating the issues that we are currently experiencing with the limitations of auo and what type of overtime hours can be worked under auo and how those can be paid. >> okay.

mr. vitiello -- mr. judd. >> simply this would make what we do legal and i don't know how better to say it creates. >> i agree there are specific mission requirements that in a system like what is contemplated in the legislation would allow for us to do and then and avoid some of the transactions that occur if you are on a fee-for-service issue. he would change what the expectations are of managers and individual agents and they would always be watching the clock versus what we cannot publish now which is to continue the work until the end of the shift. >> okay. i'm just going to lay out an example. senator coburn and myself and senator tester of being senators let's say we are border patrol officers and we will say that

dr. coburn is in california at the border there and the tucson sector and mr. tester is in south texas. there is not much going on on the northern california border and i am in a part of the border where we have maybe 20 people trekking across the border and trying to catch up and am working well beyond my shift. i may be working an extra four hours waiting for someone to come and relieve me. mr. tester is going the other way and to maybe across the border trying to apprehend somebody slipping across the border and he uses an extra two or three hours. most people who are familiar with overtime issues know that

people working in similar jobs have to work as long every day. common sense and my dad used to say just use common sense. i think someone using common sense here would say someone is working -- officer coburn here has worked an extra four hours to track down 20 people or i am and he is not or whatever. what do we pay those people along those lines? i think i know the answer but i'd like to hear you say it anyway. >> if you will i would like to take that question. if you are border portrait of agency you may not like where you live but you love your job. will we have seen since we have cut the number of hours we have seen that these criminal cartels are exploiting the holes we have created. just because you are in a patrol function and you might not be arresting somebody doesn't mean that you're not performing in an

essential job. what you are doing is to turning a so if you were out there patrolling the border just because you're not putting hands on somebody who is committing a crime you are letting them know that your presences there and you are ready to put hand on them if need be. when i say put hands on them i'm talking in a legal and lawful way. but we are ready and prepared to deal with the threat that will present itself. >> let me hear from others please. >> at a simple example in san diego before you are done with an assignment even if there isn't anything specifically specter are going on and we want someone to relieve you so there needs to be a compensation mechanism that allows for that relief. i can use the three shift model to expand the deployment versus some kind of four or five shift model where there's an overlap for relief.

auo is not and we have called on the administration for using it as relief. it's not specifically for that. in the tracking example in the radio or elsewhere that's pretty straightforward. that is what auo is designed for but in the construct when you had 85.5 hours and you get to 85.5 hour threshold we will pay you more for those extra hours. that is what flsa compositicompositi on allows for so it would be more expensive in than the same is true for our tv. it's not just a 25%. it gets you up to 25% you get beyond that 85.5 hours to get closer to time and have modeled versus what is contemplated in the legislation which is straight pay for the first 10 hours. >> mr. miles mr. hamrick would you take this please? >> i think the only thing we would want to add to the conversation is the fourth and

fifth example. the instructor at the training facility and the paralegal in san diego and i think mr. judd makes a good argument that you can't get a border patrol agent to go to glen cove georgia if it's not going to get a promised ninth and tenth hour but that's really a cost-benefit analysis that we don't feel comfortable making a just wanted to flag that issue. that put it out there as far as whether in all three of your examples plus the additional two administrative office training settings whether that's something that should be institutionalized. >> couldn't we say we want to have someone with experience in the field to introduce him or her to be an instructor? what is wrong with that? >> i think that would work in a general sense. the tools don't exist for us to do that. >> therefore yield to dr. coburn

just very briefly and the unintended consequences that would flow from the legislation that senator mccain and i have worked on police? >> we have looked at this every way imaginable. this is a four year process that we are seeing and i think that we have attacked this the best we possibly can. i just don't see any unintended consequences. >> others please? >> i would just say we have learned from the mistakes and the problems with auo. this legislation borrows from existing structures. the rest of federal law enforcement at the headquarters setting use the model which is 25% compensation for those formats so we look at that. it resonates a bit in this but this is a better scenario for cbp and the border patrol because it contemplates not been available as in some of the other statutes.

>> mr. hamrick and mr. miles and that i will yield. >> i have nothing to add sir. >> mr. miles? >> we have tried to flag the issues that all of you are considering as you debate and discuss this bill so i don't want to go on to those again. >> where i come up like to talk about and dr. coburn may have raised this issue but the issue of the capitalization cost and how it works now and how would change. >> chief vitiello but you support the agents getting 90% until an audit is done that says you need to go above that? >> think what is contemplated in the legislation is for us to have a baseline requirement in a relocation at least 90% of core workforce to be at the level 1 which is maximum capability. we think that's important for stability and projection of cost.

>> you mentioned the availability by the fbi and secret service and some of these law enforcement agencies but aren't they required to be available on a 24-hour basis to get that availability pay? >> they are required but the difference between that statue to my understanding is in what is contemplated as this compels a 10 hour day. >> okay. >> i wanted to put something in the record. in 2013 we had 2391 border patrol in 2005 with 11,264. 1189, 1,189,000 and 2005 -- and 2013. technology has helped us a great deal but we have double the border patrol. and yet our arrests are down. part of that is because we don't have the ingress due to the

economic condition that we went under. the other thing i want to enter into the record is the border patrol agency costs. this is a comparison of auo versus flsa and the bill is put forward. it does document some savings that will be there. i will come back again to you chief. until we can no just from a commonsense standpoint who really needs within your organization i agree that 90% numbers a good number john. i have a problem getting above that in some of these other areas where it would not seem fair to people who work in other areas of the federal government and that we have to compensate people who are not doing things that are required extra time that they get paid.

you're written answers to our committee said that you would support that and i was trying to get you to answer that question now. >> i think it's appropriate given your description of the growth of their last several years that the border patrol and the department take time to refine how we use the hours that are available. i prefer maximum cape ability in every location and i also we are building a system by which we can show you and others how many hours are spent at each location and not only that but discrete category support here they think that's important and we are happy to be a part of a demonstration to this body and others that says here are the 21,000 agents where they spend their time hour-by-hour. that's a refinement we are pursuing. we think is important given the growth we have had and the increasing capability. we totally agree that the environment is change but is still a dynamic lace in overtime we would like to be in a position that says here is where all those hours were and i think

would be easy for us to substantiate maximum capability. >> does that tie in with the study that you are doing now in terms of auo? you are trying to get it better management handled by metrics and locations and by area. does that tie in with what the secretary has asked this terminus -- as far as in auo determination in the study you are doing now? >> they are independent in the sense that one is starting in mind to reform the situation we are in hand to the extent that we can improve the auo condition we will do that. the determination process will support our effort to refine and demonstrate to you the capabilities being used and how they are being used but it will also inform the secretary's work in the task he has given us to reform this issue going forward. we'll be it was to quantify and justify the hours as they are being used. >> all right.

i just have a couple of other pieces of paper i would like to put in the record and i have no other questions. >> senator tester. >> thank you mr. chairman. a couple of questions for mr. miles real quick. we have two special counsel reports that outline the use and your office has republished to reports one in october of this last year. do you think dhs has provided adequate regressed during the five years the agency is known about the problem? >> i think our october letter outlined a lot of concerns. the pace of the dhs was making reforms and for example in 2007 in 2008 they committed to issue new departmentwide directive to address the auo issue and in the

2013 communication act we noted the directive was still lacking however in the last since you held your hearing on auo they have taken and lot of redacted steps and a lot of visit making a difference. >> i want to talk a little bit about a suggestion that senator coburn brought up in his opening remarks. you guys can add to it. we talked about changing the base pay and not doing what we are doing in this bill that just changing the base pay. my take on that is that we do need to address the extra hours on the border that would not address and we do need to address the overtime issue. that was not address. and we need to provide stability in the schedule because the previous two was not addressed.

would either judd or vitiello want to add to that at all? >> in essence we are in fact changing the base pay. the overtime hours although it's beyond eight hours is still being paid straight time so it has since you are just changing the base pay. what you are doing is you are guaranteeing, you are putting a guarantee in there that this is what we are going to make which is what we don't currently have. so you are changing the base pay. this will become part of the base package. >> mr. vitiello? >> the current system supports a regular work and what's contemplated in the legislation better supports a regular work but it also gives us management controls that i don't have now. it gives us greater accountability with regard to where people are in relation to their base pay and then the extra hours that they are putting in each day.

>> mr. hamrick do you believe and i don't want to put words in your mouth but do you think part of the problem with aou is just bad management? >> no senator tester. i believe that the biggest issue is the challenge in identifying what overtime hours are legally compensated through auo and what overtime hours are not. i once was in auo earner myself many years ago before the leap law came into effect and in nearly 28 years in federal law enforcement i have learned more about leap or auo in the past 12 months than i ever knew as in

auo. it's a complicated base system that is difficult to navigate. >> would you agree this simplified beppe system? >> yes sir. >> want to talk about retrenchment of equipment for just a second. i should have brought a picture of my farm. i live 75 or 80 miles south of the northern border. what impact do you think -- you already said that this would help with bertrand -- retention and recruitment mr. mr. judd and senator coburn has already said he doesn't want to reduce pay and i believe both of you. the question becomes i'm very concerned about retention and recruitment and mr. judd give me

your take on how this will be accepted versus completely redoing the system and not giving the kind of addicted billy that i think this bill does. >> senator is very simple. back in 1997 when i pursued a career with a the border patrol i was in the process of two local law enforcement agencies. these local law enforcement agencies were in very desirable locations in which to live. the only reason that i took the border patrol job was because with the auo it was more money. i moved to a frankly a less desirable location to live but i did that because i was making more money and over the long-term and with retirement it would have been better for me. if you get rid of this 25% you will not be able to recruit quality individuals into this

job. >> i appreciate that. i would just like to make one real quick statement that deals with making the floor the cap that senator coburn had talked about. and i would just say we really depend on customs and border patrol and the folks in the field to determine what their needs are the same way we depend upon the military to tell us what their needs are and we act. we are hearing from the agency and we are hearing from the folks that are working on the ground that 90% is a reasonable floor. and i think it would need -- i think would be dangerous to use it as the cap because these are the guys that are out there and they know the impacts that are happening everyday.

they know they intrusion's on the border that quite frankly i don't care about and most of the folks that live close to -- closer to the border than i do don't hear about. i don't speak for senator mccain and it's too bad he isn't here. if they are wanting an audit to be done and that audit showed that 90% floor was to hide or not high enough that might be a way to go but i think to put it as a ceiling, put it as a ceiling would be dangerous. i yield yield. >> i just have a couple of other questions for mr. hamrick. osc has referred -- that's my understanding. is that right? >> my office has said six investigainvestiga tions that

were referred to us by the osc. >> there were 10 total referrals, right? >> that's the number. where are the other four cases and who is investigating those? >> because there was an allegation of auo misuse against the office of internal affairs we are no longer -- our agents are no longer conducting those investigations and they are referred to the ig inspector general. >> thank you. >> i want to go back in time a couple of years to 2012. i know the problem with the administration is not a new one. fiscal 2012 budget request included a legislative proposal that attempted to address this problem by putting border patrol into a system as you know known

as the law enforcement availability pay or leap. as i understand it proposals generally applies to criminal investigations such as the f. the eyes such as the drug enforcement agency were secret service agent. he gives him a 25% increase in their base salary based on the expectation that they will be available to work as needed. that was a proposal in the 2012 congress failed to act. let me ask if i could mr. vitiello in mr. judd could you explain to us what happened in 2012 with this legislative proposal and if you would please explain why the tester mccain bill is an improvement of the 2012 legislative proposal to put border patrol on leap and the fbi's secret service?

mr. vitiello. >> the agency advocated for conversion of leap in the sense that it did offer the same kind of savings contemplated here. but there were several voices of stakeholders that were not enamored with the way leap is used and for our work. >> who might those stakeholders be? >> the national border patrol counsel among others. seated to my left. >> what were their reservations? >> well like what is contemplated here there would not be renumeration going forward and they were concerned and i will let brian speak for himself but the concerns we heard was there wasn't a threshold to bandage against or two and they were concerned that people like me would use that. what is contemplated in the management right to assign folks to keep them below or at the

threshold. what is here is much improved from that experience. this borrows a lot from leap in the sense that it solidifies the macrobudget picture that allows us to forecast going forward without using flsa is a predictable cost in the future. >> mr. judd do you agree with this message? >> i absolutely agree that it was the national border patrol counsel that was adamantly opposed to leap. the simple reason we are opposed to leap is this whole nation that all you have to do is be available to be paid someone needs to go back and read the law and i think you need to investigate other agencies. the law states you must maintain certain number of hours that you have to be scheduled. the problem with leap is you can schedule me for 10 hours but if i work over 10 hours that day it's free.

there is no mechanism to force them to let me go after ten-hour so in other words in a real-world sense if i'm in a certain area on the border and a relief that is going to relieve me for today calls in sick the agency can call me up and say hey your relief just called in sick. we didn't schedule this to happen. we need you to work a double shift and by the way the double shift is now going to be free. we needed a mechanism to ensure that the agency was not going to work us beyond 10 hours per day and work us for free and that is what this legislation does. this gives us what we call back and protections to ensure that we get compensated for the work that we did. >> okay thanks. i have another question. if i can get a couple more and use my time and i will yield back to you senator tester if you would like to take more time. a question on operational tempo

if i could and i think i will address these couple of questions in this regard to you mr. vitiello. i understand one of the most widespread misuses of administratively uncontrollable overtime of the border patrol has been to pay for the extra time it takes employees to transition from one ship to another and this has allowed the border patrol to use three ships that many locations rather than for, eight hour shifts. in fact the office of special counsel in his written testimony and this is a quote "that i think, managers insist employing three ships as a more cost-effective approach to securing the border even if administratively uncontrollable overtime may not properly be used for routine activities and that's a quote. a couple of questions if i could.

mr. vitiello that would ask you to explain why the border troll uses three ships and set of four is a more cost-effective approach to securing the border? >> i agree with the managers in san diego who pointed this out in the interviews. in an ideal setting 24 by seven, seven day a week work load along the border you would have to transition between shifts however it's better to have three with the overhead the managers and supervisors versus four or five to predict and schedule that overlap. it's better to have a three shift model and when you have a three shift model the shifts have to transfer information to each other before one starts and people have to be relieved. under the current system a you owe the rubric doesn't allow for relief to be paid for using a you owe so whatever system going forward will have three ships and set of four. you have the better capability that way but you still need to

figure out how to transfer that knowledge and that means time. >> you address this in part but i'm going to ask it anyway. what will the impact on your operations and her ability to secure the border be if you were forced to move to three ships across the border as a result of not being able to use controllable overtime for ship changes. >> you which is get more agency the same amount of work. it's advantageous to the organization as it relates to protecting costs and future stability that you have have three ships instead of four. it's more cost-effective. you have to hire more agents to get the same level of employment across a 24-hour. map. >> finally mr. vitiello how will the tester mccain bill we are considering today that her ability to apply additional agents to the border each day? >> what is contemplated here is that would allow for using this

model to compensate people -- people for that really. there are lots of missions that occur after the shift is over. developing trends to inform the next days and shift deployment. we want agents to record and transfer that at the end of the ships of the next shift is more capable so as they deploy the next day they are smarter about where they place their assets and how supervisors move people from one side of one area to another. so you need to have that transfer knowledge he and that overlap not for only the physical presence but for the information and rapid response is required based on the information that they develop well in their shift. >> thanks so much. senator tester. >> thank you mr. chairman. i want to thank each one of the witnesses today for your testimony and your straightforward answers. i would just like to say it is seldom in the u.s. senate that

we get a bill that makes a situation simpler, that the agencies want, that people that are employed by the agencies want that saves money that increases efficiency that increases predictability and we don't throw it out of here as quick as we can. we have a problem. i think all for the witnesses have pointed out what the problem is and i think that if the senate does what it does so very well and that is taka to death than delay it to death we won't get this problem solved. the ultimate thing that will happen if we don't get this problem solved is our borders will be less secure. we will be looking around pointing our fingers at you guys saying why didn't you do this are why didn't you do that when in fact it's our obligation to

make sure you have the tools to do your job to protect the border in a way that you know how it needs to be protected. with that mr. chairman i would say that we are in the first or second week in june. if we don't get this bill out of committee and if things go upside down on our border we can reconvene this committee of homeland security and talk about how we have screwed up. with that mr. chairman i will ask you when welfare via markup on this bill? >> m. going to confer with dr. coburn and later this week. >> later this week we ought to have a markup on this bill. >> i will confer with dr. coburn and maybe you can be part of that conversation. >> let me make it very very

clear, this is not something we should screw around with. we have got people out here that are probably watching us on c-span right now wanting to know what we are going to do. we have got folks who work for cbp that like their job and are proud of their job and if we don't set certainty down for these folks they are going to go to work somewhere else. we need to fix fix it so it cane audited so we know what we are doing in these folks have predictability. now we can put off until the end of the month to keep in mind the longer we put this off we have to get it off the senate floor. we have to see if the house can get it done and then we get it implemented. we have 11 weeks left. >> senator tester i think you know if this bill saves as much money as we are told they might be available to serve as an offset.

believe me i understand the need >> mr. chairman i will tell you that this bill doesn't save one thin dime if its revenue-neutral we have to do it. >> i hope it saves more than a few thin dimes. and i thank you very much for all the work that you and the staff have done. i wish you could could've been here. we will put our heads together and talk this week and if we can do it early this week we will do it early this week. >> i think tomorrow afternoon is good. >> i'm getting your address. [laughter] all right this might be my last question. it deals with the surge that we have seen in an authorized migration from central america particularly the record numbers of unaccompanied minors that have come and the effect they're

having on on the border patrol's ability to carry on parts of its mission. specific we noted that the surge we are seeing and i think this is a quote compromising dhs capabilities for other border activity. who is this question for? mr. vitiello. i'm going to ask you to please expand on this for us if you will. what exactly has the impact of this current surge in an authorized migration been on the border patrol to carry out its mission? we will start out with that and then i'll ask a second question. >> is a relates to the conditions in the rio grande valley we are facing a situation

where the facilities that are available for the eight stations that are in the valley are insufficiently large enough to accommodate the number of people who we find ourselves arresting. so given the timeframe that we need to book people and and to treat juveniles via the statute to turn them over to hhs before the 72 hour clock runs out we were insufficiently prepared to do that given the space that's available there. that is why the secretary immediately designated it as a floor event and myself a coordinator for the dhs responds in the liaison with the interagency and the president since has designated as a humanitarian event input administrator fugate into the federal ministry deferral to drive more resources. as we started to the valley to do it fema calls wrap around services for facilities in the

valley and then to make the system work more efficiency to have more placement for these children and what it means to the operations down there is that we were using enforcement resources in order to do this care and to make these facilities as safe and useful as possible and to provide the right setting for the people who are in custody. that help us down rates considerably and has changed considerably since may and early june and since the present designation as the administrative fugate coordination has gotten better. we are concerned that the text you speak of is the draft that my staff prepared for me. we have not sent to the interagency coordinating group but it was a concern that has been existing in the valley for a while and we have moved forward to improve those conditions since the time of that writing. >> i'm going to follow up with this. i understand that due to

budgetary constraints in the past couple of years the border patrol has had to reduce the amount of hours worked by its agents to reduce overtime costs. what impact has this had on border patrol's capacity to deal with the surge in migration as well as other threats in the border region and i think you have addressed this is at least in part. i want to take another shot at it and ask mr. vitiello a few which are his thoughts. >> we looked at 13 and 14 budget picture before sequestration recognize there was savings. they some are merging awareness and understanding of the challenge we had with the auo rubric and we decided we could take some risk in reducing hours and ordered to drive savings from those accounts. we decided in 13 to do that as an experiment to see how well they could monitor what is by

statute uncontrollable. i i think we did a fair job of that. the sequester plans made that ultimately more difficult. in 14 we have tried for more savings but what that means a shrinking hours of aging deployment so you go from if the three shift model to a four shift model or more and then you are pulling hours out of the workforce in order not to make fosc payment so you are reducing capability. we think the risks we are taking are adequate and substantial but manageable and in the situation is a relates to we recognize that can be the way forward. the work set that is down there in and other places we can't continue to do that. we have reduce those costs to meet the targets and 13 attempted do the same in 14 but there are certain locations where that's not --. >> any thoughts on this? >> absolutely.

for those that are watching on c-span2 keep this in layman's terms what we are seeing with the surge coming over in rgb is polling agents out of the field. they are no longer patrolling the border. they're having to deal with this huge influx of miners that are coming in and they are having to process them. they're having to watch them. they're having to feed them and do all these different things instead of being out in patrolling the border. not only is that happening in rgb but because they don't have the facilities to manage the influx of crossings they are now sending them to places like el paso the tucson sector and what that is doing is pulling resources out of the border patrol agents out of a field that would normally be patrolling the border and they are now having to do the same things. they're having to process these illegal aliens and there have been to watch them and feed them and take care of all of their needs while they are in our custody and what it is doing is it's draining to the breaking point the number of agents were

able to deploy into the field. it's hurting us. >> all right, thanks. how will the tester mccain bill address these issues? >> specifically the hours passed that the flsa renumeration is not part of the compensation package going forward so straight time for the assigned 10 hours through the shift would give us more capability. it's in essence giving us nearly 1500 agents more capability along the borders with current staffing levels so it allows us to flex in that overlap. it allows us to have a core capability across the four so we don't have to shrink hours in order to reduce payments in the budget picture. >> in essence you will be paying me the same amount of money to work 10 hours is what you are currently paying me to work 9.3 hours and that is where the additional 1000, 1200 agents

comes in. because you are paying the flsa right now i'm only able to work 9.3 hours because we have this overtime budget and we can't exceed this overtime budget. the senator mccain and senator tester bill will allow me to work 10 hours for the exact same amount of pay as i would work at 9.3 or 9.25 hours. >> the last question i have is a relates to something dr. coburn said to me early in the hearing and it dealt with the calculation of pension benefits for those that work under this prearrangement and he suggested it was saved or he thought it would save money in the near term. in the long term it may cost money because of additional pension. can someone speak to that and impact all of you are welcome to address that if you would like. esther miles do you have anything you would like to say on that front? >> no sir. >> mr. hamrick?

>> no sir. see why not? >> i have nothing to add sir. >> that's absolutely incorrect. our pension right now is based upon 20% auo plus our base pay. this would keep everything exactly the same. this wouldn't change anything. it wouldn't cost more and it wouldn't cost less. the pension would be the same. >> it is in the change as it relates to the auo payments or other statutes that are out there likely. >> that think we are going to wrap it up here. we are about start some votes in the senate and i think with that i want to thank each of you for coming today and thanks for making time to be with us on short notice and one of you very short notice. we appreciate your testimony. we appreciate you answering our questions. the hearing record will remain open first 15 days until june 24 at 5:00 p.m. for statements and

questions for the record. i would urge my colleagues if you have any additional questions to submit them well before june 24 so that we can get prompt answers to those questions. with that having been said it's been a good hearing and appreciative of the time that has been invested by her >> good morning.

this hearing of the senate foreign relations committee will come to order. i want to welcome our panelists and thank them for taking time, for sharing their perspective on developments in the ukraine, which appear only slightly less

ominous than they did in act one of this crisis. now we are in the beginning of successfulthe election of a president by the ukrainian people, in internationally certified elections, which is a victory for ukrainian's struggle for freedom. divisions between east and west, significantly president petro poroshenko won districts from one end of ukraine to the other. it seems clear that with russia's violation of sovereignty, it unified ukrainians better than before. the challenges president poroshenko has are daunting. he must rebuild an economy weakened by the previous presidents corruption. while countering prudent in the east. we are committed to working with , tonew government

consolidate ukraine's democracy and economy. and withstand possible attacks from these. president putin seeks to undermine the new government and east, discord with the seeking a long-term ability to control and direct ukraine's politics and policies. catherine the great said, "i have no way to defend my borders extent -- except to extend them." that has renewed poignancy today. obama'se president announcement this week of a european reassurance initiatives that will increase our presence across europe and build the capacity of our friends such as georgia, moldova, ukraine, so they can better 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 the rest of citizens in the east while gaining control from foreign directed forces elsewhere. third, the ukrainian economy must be resurrected, including decreasing energy in dependency on russia. at the end of the day, the creation of a viable, successful ukraine capable of resuming its sovereignty is an unfinished legacy of the cold war and will take time. it is a necessary goal that requires the commitment and operation of the congress, the executive branch, and our allies working together. corkerturn to senator for his remarks. >> mr. chairman, thank you. thanks to our expert witnesses here who will be helpful to us. 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. ,e had a lot of observers there including jane harman, who just walked in, and many people, many of our colleagues. poroshenko, who many of us had the opportunity to meet over the course of time, is the person today. there are tremendous issues to forcome, and ukraine getting the external effect that russia has over the country. there are tremendous corruption issues, energy issues, democracy and 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 is no question that russia played a role in eastern

ukraine. there is no question that they continue to play a role in eastern ukraine. obviously it looks like they are back and forth between trying to negotiate with this new government and create alliances there and at the same time continuing to destabilize the country in other ways. i look forward to what our witnesses have to say relative to what our policy should be going ahead. i know 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. numbers of us have joined together pushing for that kind of thing. but the fact is we have tremendous challenges there. just having come from eastern europe, the stability in that region, the concern for security is paramount right now. they have seen russia doing what it has done, so the fact is we have not only the issue of ukraine to contend with -- and

again, i know there is a likeness in that regard -- but they need to show tremendous strength and perseverance relative to eastern europe in general. a very important issue of great geopolitical significance. thank you all for being here, and i look forward to questions. >> let me introduce our panelists. harman, able jane former colleague of mine in the house. we welcome her back to the committee. we also have former ambassador pfeiffer, whoven is now with the brookings institution. our third panelist is former assistant to the panelist -- to nowpresident james jeffrey, the distinguished visiting fellow of the washington institute. next is mark green, former ambassador to canton neah and member of the house of

representatives. someone who is no stranger to the committee. let me welcome you all to the committee. i will advise you that all of your full statement will be included in the record. without objection, we ask you to summarize in about five minutes or so, and we will proceed in the order in which i introduced you. you are first. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and thank you, ranking member corker. both of you are dear friends of mine and former colleagues. also friends of the wilson center, and i appreciate being invited. everyone on the lineup is a close friend, and i was very proud to be a member of the ndi delegation in ukraine a week and a half ago. it is the eighth election i have observed. it matters to have them in countries and to have teams with them who can get around. in that connection on the day before the election in ukraine,

my small group headed by former secretary of state madeleine albright met all the leading candidates, including petro poroshenko, who impressed me as a man capable of leading his country. it was impressive to see his in norma's victory that his enormous -- his in norma's victory. wouldn't a lot of us like to see that kind of victory, 55% to 60%, avoiding a runoff. third chancene's to get it right. ukraine got it wrong after the orange revolution. a series of governments were andect and. -- were corrupt not competent. this is chance three, and it will either work or he will be three strikes and you are out. i don't think ukraine will get a chance like this again. second point -- the west obviously needs to help ukraine, and president obama announced that ukraine and -- ukraine has

to help ukraine. this is the transfer ukrainians to take responsibility for their future. many ukrainians get that. i think there are five things that president poroshenko needs to do. ukraine and east tell the folks there. he says he is going to do this. he favors some form of decentralization that is ukraine and he wants them to serve in his government. the current acting president turchynov was in east ukraine year the day, and i thought that was a good move. the crowd that demonstrated in newone so bravely in the government, some of them want to serve, some of the current government members, this has to be a different movie from egypt. the people who were brave and courageous and wanted to change

their country have to be included in the government. third, and force the anticorruption laws. there are some on the books and if they need to be stronger make them stronger. it is true that poroshenko is himself 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 had his bank account. -- not just pad his bank account. need to be taken to qualify for imf and eu loans. and fifth, welcome the ukrainian diaspora back. there are many who can help their country. then comes the tough issue, and you mentioned this, 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 europeans,the president obama, and others, on

president prudent to stop this violence. i assume there are some crazies he cannot stop. given arms.ng the border has to be policed, the flow of arms has to be stopped, and vladimir putin should tell the separatists to lay down their arms. second, we do need more sanctions. i would say that these sanctions against the banking industry and the economic industry -- and the energy -- the economic sector and the banking sector have to -- iposed, and i know rudy know europe is reluctant, but chancellor merkel has to be a board with this. thank you. mr. chairman, senator corker,

distinct members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to talk to you today about the ukraine and russia crisis and the u.s. policy response. i have a written statement for the record, which i will summarize. ukrainians went to the polls in large numbers on may 25, in an election that met international democratic standards. petro poroshenko won and historic victory. he 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 with the international monetary fund. he must address the budget of decentralization of power. mr. poroshenko also faces a major challenge is dealing with russia. unfortunately, by all appearances, vladimir putin remains i opposed to their desie to draw closer to the european union.

russia seeks to destabilize the ukrainian government. there is no evidence that moscow has used its influence with the armed separatists in ukraine's east urge them to de-escalate the crisis. to the contrary, russia appears to support and encourage them. indicate thatts arms and fighters and supplies flow. the interests do not mean it should resort to force, sees ukrainian territory, or support separatism. the u.s. policy response appears to have three vectors -- targeted assistance to help ukrainian reform. where washington should do more is military assistance. the ukrainian military needs help in strengthening its capabilities. using basic equipment such as tents. the decision for body armor and night vision goggles is welcome if it is overdue.

it is also appropriate to consider providing light anti-armor weapons and manned portable air defense systems particularly since ukrainian military illuminated many of its stocks. aimed tod factor is reassure nato allies in the baltic and european regions who are more nervous about moscow's intentions after seizing crimea. military forces have deployed with the objectives of reassuring allies of nato's commitment to their defense and they have underscored that commitment to moscow. on tuesday the president oppose a $1 billion program to increase the u.s. military presence in central europe. congress should approve expedited funding for that. the third sector has sought to penalize russia with the goal of effecting a change in moscow's course on ukraine. leaders, the u.s. -- theent has worked

sanctions to date, although modest, appear to have an impact. projections of russian gdp growth for 2014 have been reduced, and bloomberg reports no russian company has been able to sell foreign currency bonds since march. sanctions have failed thus far in their primary political purpose. russia has not significantly .ltered its course on ukraine these could include expanding the list of russians targeted for financial sanctions. beginning with the sanctioning of at least one major russian financial institution as opposed to smaller pocket banks and blocking new investments to develop oil and gas lines. ,ashington should be smart where possible it makes to zen's -- it makes sense to use a

scalpel instead of a sledgehammer. a package should be pulled together for a settlement of internal divisions, dividing a basis for stabilizing ukraine. the big question is whether the kremlin would be prepared to support any settlement. mr. chairman, senator corker, members of the committee, the ukrainian crisis will likely continue for some time. stabilization will not come easy, but we should remember -- mainaine has ukrainians recognize they have a precious second chance to turn their country around after the missed opportunity beyond its revolution. u.s. policy should aim to maximize the prospects that this time ukraine will succeed. this will be important for the people of ukraine and for a more sustainable and secure europe. seeow policy will be to ukraine look more like poland, a normal democratic rule of law and european state.

much, mr.ou very chairman, senator corker, members of the committee. i very much appreciate being here today. the russian aggression against ukraine is the most serious challenge to the international order since 9/11. such, this crisis requires action at three levels. the first of the immediate steps that have been taken and are being taken to do with the phenomenon itself -- as the acting national security advisor with president bush wearing the 2008 invasion of georgia, i believe the administration under similar circumstances had done all in all a good job dealing with the russian encourage and into crimea -- russian incursion into crimea and now eastern ukraine. not engaging russia on the ground is a wise decision given

the stakes of employing ash of deploying u.s. troops. on the other hand it has used economic sanctions, and every diplomatic tool possible, and in particular brought along an initially recalcitrant europe. this will be a problem going forward as well. but the administration is trying its best on that. efforts byoth these 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 somewhat -- less direct military aggression, more indirect forces, but nonetheless , as steve pfeiffer -- as steve pifer just said, the strategy remains the same, to ensure that ukraine can never be a sovereign

country able to choose its own future, which is i believe what west -- and at the second level we need to look at additional steps. the administration has announced a number of good moves this week ofthe senate in the draft preventing the russian aggression bill has come up with others. i will have my own and i will touch on a few. first of all, i would second ambassador pifer -- we would advise weapons and advisory teams to help the ukrainians do insurgency in the east. we have much experience in insurgency operations. they need to know how to use military force while reaching out to the population. verydly, we need to rapidly deploy significant, heavy -- that is, armor heavy -- rotationion stocks and

of forces along the borders of nato's east. the president is moving forward on this. we should not wait for additional money. we have the equipment and we should deploy the troops. we should also ensure this becomes a nato mission and that nato provides troops along with as we did several times during the cold war. we have mentioned economic support for ukraine. that is important. president poroshenko will have to do a lot of work himself because a lot of money has gone into ukraine without much result. as mentioned in your draft hill, we need to do more to wean gas and fromussian russian financial investments and other pressures that are stable to use thanks to its economy. there are ways to do this that would have immediate and long-term effects. the long-term issue i want to dwell on for a little bit because that is the third order

of magnitude we have here. seen in thewe have last months is the next ordinary development in the history of europe, certainly 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 on those decisions 20 years ago, and while perhaps that could have been done differently, while nato moved east, it stood down the vast majority of its conventional forces. russia did not do the same. eu, the, the international community tried 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 trying to expand using 18th-century models. we have to consider the stock -- the stark likelihood of not just russia but possible he china as

russia,osely tied with motivated to challenge both the international order and american's guarantor of that system. we need to start thinking as a country, as an alliance, and as a global community about the implications of this. if we wish to avoid a strategic shift as dramatic as 1989 but in the other direction, while maintaining the integrity of this international order, including if needed by force, must be in our vital interests. thank you very much, senators. >> thank you, mr. chairman, corker, menendez, mr. members of the committee. i will summarize my written testimony and try not to repeat what others have said. is to help democracy become more effective where it is in danger, and cheer best practices where democracy is flourishing. given that mission, it is only

natural that ukraine has been at the central part of our programming for more than 20 years. in addition to our primary office, we have offices in odessa and until recently in crimea. all national elections in independent ukraine's history, including the most recent on may 25. our high-level mission was in ayottewas led by senator , your colleague. we visited more than 100 polling places him at places like marquees and odessa. we trained more than 5000 observers from political parties . in the view of our observation team, these elections were free and fair and that international standards. of course, what makes there a couple shipments so remarkable is the wide range of challenge that they face while administering these elections. in many ways, the challenges

remain and need urgent attention. and perhaps the help of the west. as others have noted, one very obvious challenge they face in recent months, russian sponsored violence in the south and east. separatists use high-grade cutting edge tactics and equipment. there are widespread instances of these groups overtaking radio stations, and in one case shutting down an airport. bands of military side of forces sought to shut down the country, and in few places they succeeded. another challenge that was and is important but i don't think has received enough attention, is the plight and tragedy of the crimean qatar's -- the crimean tartar's. they were only able to return to their ancestral homeland at the

end of the soviet union. they make up 15% of the crimean population. its results and the community has repeatedly alleged its continued support for a united and sovereign ukraine. obviously their courage might not have the approval of moscow. since the beginning of our work in ukraine, we have sought to resist the democratic aspirations of the people. we have forked with them closely to build key medication exchanges and try to link them up with particularly young people from western europe and other parts of the ukraine. unfortunately we are unable to continue that programming in occupied crimea and we would very much like to return and find ways to help this population. all be cases, we should very watchful of how the

tatars can live and work and hopefully prosper in the face of russian rule. the overwhelming force of russian propaganda is 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 is a lack of indigenous media. it is nearly impossible when that void is filled with hostile, foreign-born again that bent on destabilizing communities and government bodies. foster independent ukraine centered media that should reach out to a report of the country. more and more especially young people get their news and information through social media platforms. again, there is a lack of social media platforms that are ukraine centered in that parts of the country, and i believe that we a social media platform that will help create a

sense of unity and identity. one of the most subtle and yet serious challenges that ukraine has faced and will continue to i.t.is a weakened infrastructure. recent reports suggest that much of the government's i.t. has 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 historic. to be clear, as my former colleague jane harman has said, the ukrainians -- not their friends in the west -- responsible for shaping their country's future. they have a unique history and a rich culture that is all their

own. they want to chart a path that meets their own needs and aspirations, not anyone else's. it was 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. inc. you, mr. chairman. -- thank you, mr. chairman. corker,hairman, senator members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to comment on recent developments in ukraine. ndi has conducted democracy assistance programs in ukraine for the past two decades. most recently, we feel that an international server delegation for the election, which was led by ndi chairman madeleine albright and former spanish foreign minister ana palacios.

have janertunate to harman as part of the leadership. ukraine has turned a corner onto a decisively democratic path. at the same time the country is facing a set of challenges, some new and some long-standing. most dressing is the external threat from russia, which has illegal -- most pressing is the external threat from russia, which has illegally occupied crimea. it amounts to an undeclared war against ukrainian sovereignty. on the domestic front, the challenges are no less daunting. confidence in political institutions is low. where there have been overwhelming support in the east and the west, of the country for ukrainian unity, there are divisions over the distribution of governmental power. external forces are working andrd exploiting politicizing these divisions through a campaign of

disinformation. wereuro demonstrations sparked by anger over the yellow coat which government's refusal to sign the european union treaty, but they were sustained for three months by a more basic demand for dignity. they introduced a count ability -- accountability to citizens. however, the researcher bhushan -- the redistribution of power will only be sustainable if people are engaged in politics. the country now has the opportunity to translate the energy of this watershed moment into a sustainable democratic trajectory. hopefullyakes future -- future ones hopefully unnecessary. the may 25 presidential election -- by every measure, ukraine passed the test. mostwas perhaps the important election in ukraine's independent history. where they were allowed to cast

ballots in the vast majority of the country, ukrainian voices came through loud and clear, voting for sovereignty and democracy, not the celebratory fanfare but with sober determination. ,n elections in 60 countries rarely has ndi heard such positive almond terry about the process from political contestants and monitors alike. after president-elect's poroshenko inauguration this weekend, the government will track thisorporate is that incorporate the interest of ukrainians from all regions of the country. he and other leaders will need to focus as much on process as on policy outcomes. delivering on citizens expectations will be impossible without encouraging meaningful public participation or a b on 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 current -- the number one priority through canadians throughout the country. .nd judicial reform civil society organizations are helping to shape an ambitious agenda. i draw your attention to the reanimation package of reforms, an impressive civil society initiative to improve it election laws, procurement practices, education policy, and access to public information along with other issues. by listening to and consulting with citizens and communicating in clear terms how short-term sacrifices will lead to longer-term improvements, government leaders can help smooth the path to results. from political parties, the

challenge will be to build support from the grassroots up and face policies and strategies on citizens concerns. this will require parties to embrace new ways of organizing. an movement shows that citizens can wield considerable lyrical power, but by their very nature -- considerable political power. -- challenging the energy of euro maidan into the ofs exciting business performance is the external. the experts need to be -- the efforts need to be disseminated more widely across the country. it will be important for ensuring a natural dialogue on the rights of all ukrainians to be deepened. this process would benefit from broader and more active participation from civil society. the impact of past u.s. assistance to ukraine is more

visible now than before great theof government -- sustained support from the u.s. helps democratic groups get established, expand, accumulate skills, and survived through political hardships. also in the new political environment, partners of u.s. assistance projects can be found among the most active 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. 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. 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 am wrong -- that that time is already here. heard,ong in what i have or is that basically what you are saying? your microphone to say yes or no, i am happy to hear it. >> yes, the time is here,

senator. >> the russians are thoroughly involved in what is going on in eastern ukraine, and they have the power to stop that. >> and yes, our asymmetric strengths against russia is our economic power. their economy even before the sanctions was in bad shape and it has gotten worse. by doing this quickly -- although it will be some short-term pain for europe in particular, it will be medium and long-term gain for europe and for us. we have an energy sector that could export a substantial amount of energy to europe. chairman, the position of western leaders previously was that if russia interfered in the conduct of the elections, the more sanctions would be coming. i think it is clear that they number ofct, take a steps to interfere with those elections, so i would argue the time has come most definitely. a cyber attack.

how do we know that to be the case? >> that was brought to us by the u.s. ambassador and has been reported, although not as widely reported as i think it deserves. but while they were able to fight it off, it laid bare what a number of people have been suggesting, and that is that so much of the infrastructure system, which was operated by russian supported government been infiltrated and weakened. >> and had it been successful, they could have undermined the veracity of the election and therefore pursue their goals. so your point is well taken. let me ask you this. 'sat do you think of europe experiences is prudent -- is pu tin's calculus? int will affect his calculus

the way that it affects changes in russia's and his leadership? >> i would argue that the possibility of more intense western sanctions could affect his calculus. if you look at the russian economy, it was in difficulty already in 2013, but the sanctions and threat of more robust sanctions have increased the problems for the russian economy. many russian economists say that vladimir putin has this implicit social contact with the russian people in which he says you are not going to have much in the way of political freedom, but in return you are going to get economic security, a growing economy, and high living standards. mr. putin delivered spectacularly on that between 2000 and 2000 eight. last year some economists were saying even projected growth at would not be enough to

increase the bargain. so we should increase pressure. that it will play a different way, that mr. putin macy's on the sanctions and use that as an excuse to blame the on the may seize sanctions and use that as an excuse to blame the west. the west should do it because of the degree she is nature of russian actions. say that it is the economy, stupid. bitetime, as sanctions further -- and i do think there should be some sectoral --ctions done very carefully people in russia will have a lower standard of living. hasnderstand that mr. putin

employed the pottery barn 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

sum it up briefly, 21st century values -- economic development, people power, and such -- triumphs over aggression, over nationalism, and over name t -- over 18th and 19th century values. i am not sure that is true, and i really do not think it is true with mr. putin because he is very clear in his goals with the russian people are at his desire -- and it seems to have a lot or support -- a lot of support -- is to increase the old russian imperial power 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 we respond against it. he is facing the eu and the united states, with a $2 trillion economy. we have $30 trillion. we have six times the

population, two or three times the number of forces under arms, better equipped. why is he doing this with seemingly some success? because we are divided, we are not sure what the threat is, and in particular we are reluctant. the u.s. to some degree and the europeans even more, to meet force with force. that is why it is important to take military moves well strengthening the economic and political sanctions and strictures against him because he does not believe we are going to stand up for our values, where is he has proven -- >> so you would be supportive of military support with nato? >> absolutely. he has the equipment to do this tomorrow. >> i want to make one point about russia's role in the election. we should not lose sight of the fact that 70% of the electorate was disenfranchised, either

because the occupation of crimea or the russian backed .eparatists i the question remains with the fighting still going on in these two blocks, where the russian goal is to make ukraine actions toe -- the try to destabilize the country before, during, and after the elections continues. -- whatinal question can poroshenko do in eastern ukraine? some of you have talked about the centralization of government. i would like to hear what that means to you because the russians wanted a federated system so they could take ukraine apart. i assume you do not mean that. oftections for the use russian language, inclusion of more easterners and 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 do not want to dominate this at this end of the table, but i listed five things. i think the border with russia is absolutely crucial. from all of the information 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 we think mostly they are chechens or russian nationals. --sing that borders that closing the border to that traffic is critical. the russians have the capacity to do that. having an international call on them specifically to do that right now would at least expose the role they are playing. i think we are all united in understanding what that role is. it is tragic that some

ukrainians who wanted to vote were prevented from doing that, as kenneth wallack just said. 70% -- 17% of the country could not vote, and there are the folks in crimea, which we feel is unoccupied part of ukraine, most of them could not vote either. >> mr. chairman, i would make the comment that i think mr. poroshenko has said he wants to make his first trip as president to donetsk. he might find a receptive audience there. populationy of the in eastern ukraine is ethnic ukrainian. they may use russian as their language, but they are ethnic ukrainian. the polls show that while many people in eastern ukraine were uncomfortable with the change of power and keeping it to the end of february and that they acted the -- they regarded the acting government as illegitimate, 70% wanted to stay in ukraine and not join russia. criticizedajorities

the seizures of the building by the separatists. there is an audience he can appeal to. the centralization of power to some extent makes sense. because the ukrainian government right now is over centralize. for example, making the regional governors elected as opposed to appointed by the president, would be a positive step. also, mr. poroshenko has said there would be some status for the russian language. this seems to be a very touchy issue in eastern ukraine, and there are things that i think he can do that would in fact begin to make the majority of that population in eastern ukraine feel more comfortable. undercutting the support for the separatists being brought back by russia. green, last word. >> mr. chairman, first off, with respect to the polling, iri has done a great deal of polling.

every part of the country, and even in those areas of the far east, which may have wanted more , they view themselves as ukrainian, did not see discrimination and very much wanted to remain part of ukraine. argue that was the president elect needs to do is to take a look at what vladimir putin did in the lead up to these elections. w seeds ofto so stations,t down radio and destabilize. what mr. poroshenko needs to do that canld media communicate non-moscow messages, given accurate picture, divide challenge -- divide channels for all ukrainians to get together on social media platforms, to communicate with each other, exchange ideas. finally, i would argue that a significant exchange program which creates east-west,

north-south understanding to build a new generation of leaders that think of themselves as entirely as ukrainians is regionally vitally important. based on what we have seen from president putin, that is what he fears. senator corker? >> thank you, mr. chairman. i think it is good to note that we have people on both sides of the aisle that are pretty uniform in their thinking about both ukraine and russia. i think we have a lot of that on our committee. it seems to me -- and it was we have ant -- that country that has underperformed, with huge challenges within the country. then you have this other issue that is of major geopolitical significance to the world.

they come together at ukraine on the border. they affect much of our policy over the last 60 or 70 years that europe would be whole, democratic, and free. ifwe have two issues -- ukraine moves to the west, it creates internal issues with russia. as the russian people see a country info -- see a country involving into a different country, and a threat to their leadership there. let me just start. is there anybody on this panel that does not believe that the newly elected leadership -- which is impressive, and he is -- it was not a aate-owned enterprise, different way than a lot of the oligarchs -- is there any difference of opinion that he is

absolutely committed to making the transition that is necessary to be made within the country? does anybody feel like that is not the case? >> i hope he is committed. we will have to see what he does. you can go was committed. we thought he was the new leadership for ukraine and he turned out to be in disappointed. some people thought tymoshenko was the new leadership. i think it really matters what he does. maybe onerker, suggestion for the way you frame iss -- i think that ukraine ukraine. ukraine is not part of europe, it is not 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 europe,of connecting to but some are very interested in and have a long history of

connecting to russia. i think the best outcome for ukraine is to have a somewhat decentralized government where ukraine can be both. -- it isinly last year in our interest and i also think it is in ukraine's interest. but i do not think that if russia could only back off we could get this to change. i do not think it would be bad for ukraine also to choose, if he chooses, to have a robust russia. >> that is what the newly elected president plans to do. >> i was one of those who had a chance to meet with mr. poroshenko the day before the election. while i absolutely agree that the proof is in the pudding, he was impressive in laying out a clear agenda for what needed to be done, including constitutional reform, taking on corruption. so he certainly knows what to do. obviously i agree that we should gethere to try to help him

there. i think everybody understands the challenges that lie ahead, and they are deeply committed to these issues and they realize there is a second chance for meaningful reforms in the country. at the same time, we have to put our faith in institutions and not just individuals. the parliament will play an important role, civil society will play an important role. 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 to move things ahead. since i am running out of time, i will stop here, what i was going to pursue -- are there

anything -- is there anything that the western countries involved and care about ukraine -- is there anything other than -- i know you mentioned some military equipment and training that needs to take place. is there anything you see the west not doing that should be done now? thats to be ukraine itself makes this happen and i could not agree more. it obviously assistance from us is going to be needed, and persistence will be needed. is there anything that you see right now, if one person to respond briefly, because i want to move onto something else. is there anything you see missing right now in the complement of efforts that would be helpful to help them move along? yes, sir? think theone, i commitments on financial assistance should not be caught up in bureaucratic hurdles here. a timelye to flow in way. as my chairman talks

about, the market plan was not only about funding, it was also about active technical assistance. when we met with the government there, they welcomed large-scale infusion of human resources in the country on all the major reform issues. they looked to the united states for expertise. they looked to the diaspora community for its expertise. they looked at the europeans, particularly poland, for its expertise. poland is engage in constitutional reform issues as well. service reform, after all of these issues, having technical assistance on a large scale embedded in ministries, and governments, offices, and civil civil society -- this is all welcome. we believe that international engagement is critical at this time. onto anothere topic, and that is russia. i had an executive in my office

this morning -- i will not name the name or the company because i do not think he would like that to occur -- you have this issue, a major geopolitical issue, the day it has happened since 9/11. yet the tools that we are willing to use obviously are very different than the tools we used on 9/11. i agree, especially having just come from poland, romania, and majora, this is a geopolitical event. how we respond will reverberate for generations. you mentioned sanctions, and many of us here have push for more robust sanctions. some people would say, the executive would say that we push on one hand for globalization around the world to try to create democracy because we think that our way of doing theness calls -- causes world to be a better place. i agree with that. time, these

companies have all become intertwined. they all work through joint ventures. i could not agree more. i would like to see sectoral sanctions. we have crossed the red line and sanctions ought to be in place for what happened in eastern ukraine. how do you respond to the folks who come in and have to say do not have an impact on me that way. how do you respond to people who say what you just said? and how do you respond to the president when he talks about we do not want ourselves to be split from europe? we do not want -- we want to go with them. is that an appropriate place to be, or should we be more forward than where we are today? >> in my view, you have to stay in a closely synced with europe. a closein many respects

ally with respect to angela merkel with respect to the rest of europe and where it is. there has been some success. >> do you really see that? >> i would say compared to her population, she is tougher than most germans. this is what we have to deal with. in terms of economic issues, it is not a question of cutting russia out of the global economy. aree cannot do that, they not iran, and that is not our argument with them. the problem is they are able to use blackmailing political some of based upon their economic activities, most notably selling gas to europe, and secondarily, the way russian i spent an hour with vladimir putin in 2007 where he harped on this theme with a very

unpleasant conversation with president bush. they see this as political weapons, so you need to marketfy in the best economy tradition. there are seemingly minor things that are so important. the european union is looking to take on the monopolistic aspects of the vertically integrated russian gas industry from production to transportation to actual marketing in many countries and to break that up. those are the kinds of things that will not only send a signal but will eventually rob russia -- so much strange capability to blackmail an entity, europe, that is made times larger in economy and power in every sense. >> now my time is up and hopefully you can response to someone else. i think the biggest fear that i

by someone inssed poland last week, and that is that we end up accepting a bigger piece with russia -- a it peace with russia. we are not willing to use the same tools. so we end up in a situation where they exude extremely bad behavior, we don't do much, and peace up in this bitter where they have this nation that has broken international norms and laws, reneged on agreements. and we continue to go along in createster peace that instability in eastern europe and causes people to question the united states. mr. chairman, thank you. chairman, thank you very

much. let me thank all of our witnesses for their extraordinary work. i want to thank the iri for their participation in monitoring the ukrainian elections. senator portman and i were there on the ground, had a chance to visit polling stations and had a chance to meet with the leadership of the country. we share your observations, and i thank you very much. similarmuch have observations. in your overall concern, the international order of dealing with these types of incursions is very much in jeopardy here, and this goes well beyond the ukraine. clearly what russia did in crimea, what they are doing in east ukraine, violates international commitments and agreements, etc. we go through all of them, including osce commitments.

it is all being looked at in the china seas. i went from ukraine to vietnam. all i heard in vietnam was their concern about china in the south china seas. when i was in japan, i heard concerns about the east china seas. order,ot engage a better we will see what happened in ukraine used by major powers elsewhere to solve territorial disagreements. i just want to come on strongly in support of your comments that we need to get nato involved in ukraine because it does involve our natoity of alliance. and we need to have an enforceable code of conduct in the china seas so that we can restore some semblance of withpline in how we deal territorial disputes. i just also want to underscore

points that have been made of what we need to do in ukraine. , i agreeoman harman that the protesters in the maidan were much more fundamental than just taking sides on ethnic disputes. they want a country that responds to the needs of their people, and a country free of corruption. that is not going to be easy in ukraine. it will take a long-term commitment to get the country to perform at the level that the protesters expect and will demand. so therefore, first and foremost, is our economic programs to help so that they have a performing economy. i think we all agree on that. the point that was raised about ourging europe, along with policies, that has to be essential. i think president obama deserves great credit for being able to mobilize europe in a more cohesive fashion that we have seen with previous problems in

other places in europe. does require attention to the fundamental economics which deal also with energy, and we very much need to be aggressive in providing short-term and long-term alternatives to ukraine on their energy issues. it also involves sanctions. there is total agreement here that we need to be tougher on sanctions. and that sanctions work, and that the threat of sanctions work. but the threat only works to a certain degree if you do not deliver. russia's actions and the words that were given before the election indicate it is time for us to move forward with additional sanctions. iny have to be strategic thought out and in coordination with europe. i want to get to another point that has been talked about, and effect whether we can the balance on the border between ukraine and russia. pointed out, you

congressman harman, the people from russia who want to come into ukraine have no difficulty getting through that border. nice ifwould be president putin would do something about it. we have to be very firm about that. but resident putin does not do what he says. so i don't want to take his word that he will maintain the border for ukrainians against russia. i think the united states and europe can play a pretty constructive role in strengthening the border security issues. the russians may make it difficult for osce to get that type of technical support, but it seems to me that we can find an effective way to help ukraine deal with its own defense of its borders.

get your view as to whether that would be a priority, should be a priority, and whether that can be effectively carried out. >> well, you know i agree with you. how to do it does matter. what the process is does matter. it needs to be a ukrainian response. international organizations to help is right. the osce has an interesting position in the country. osce convene roundtables, three held by a scholar at the wilson center, and those roundtables begin to achieve something that mark green is talking about, which is a conversation in the country to unite all the parts of the country -- a really good idea, and they will continue. but osce is interesting because it is a member organization that includes russia. followinge in vienna my trip to ukraine and was told that the way the procedures work

at osce -- russia is kind of locked in for a six-month it seems to me it would be smart do whatosce mobilized to top you are talking about -- >> the mission is in their. toit is in east ukraine, and mobilize resources after the border. putin responds to strength. reasonable controls, full of armed people who may or may not be -- >> they are going to need technical assistance, more than the international community is currently providing. >> ukraine has a very

undercapitalized system. our strength against russia is our economic strength. that is where we can stop russia more effectively, and -- are our best weapon. we talk about terrorists attacking us asymmetrically. everybody here supports sanctions done intelligently and quickly could get a very rapid response. russia to not trust stop the flow into ukraine. >> i agree we can do more to assist ukraine in terms of tightening their border. in the short term it will be the gold given the length of the border come and my guess is as long as the russians are determined to get across they will find ways. in the short term, to pressure additional sanctions on russia, we have got to get russia to be part of the solution, not the problem.

oflet's remember the history brushfire battles. we also need to help the ukrainian government in that part of the country to deliver. we needed to help build capacity, help deliver basic services and really provide the links to the government that those communities are looking for that have been taken apart by the destabilization activities when putin comes in, attempts to sponsor the separatist movements. success in building governing capacity should be part of the solution. tois also important i think create that sense of linkage to the national government and the kinds of successes that reinforce for all those communities why they want to be ukrainian in the first place. >> senator, i agree with

everybody my colleagues have said, but you have laid out a military problem and it is not a military problem we are ignorant of. we see it in afghanistan where you have an insurgency supported and largely generated from across the border. it is a tricky problem. there are ways to deal with it. first of all, all of the things stated to strengthen the ukrainian government am a to strengthen the support of the people, to strengthen the economy, that then leverages into a common insurgency's tragic of stabilization that puts a minimum of force and a maximum henri conciliation and slowly moving in picking the low-hanging fruit as you do in any organized stability operation so that the area controlled by the pro-russians does not expand. at the same time you are putting

pressure through sanctions, diplomatic activities, to strengthening nato, which is something to do and does not like, watching american ground troops on his western borders, to send a signal that it is just going to get worse if you keep this up, and what are you gaining? deepening ukraine is its sovereignty, its stability, and in the long run you're not going to win this insurgency. and then there can be a time to move this forward. you need the political, economic steps, you need to reach out to the population, but it is also a military activity. >> could i comment on what you said regarding the impact of ukraine on other places. be signing the association agreement later this month. it will be holding parliamentary elections in november. and i think we have to have a very watchful on on what is .appening

what will happen following the signing of the association agreement in a very small and vulnerable country close by. >> thank you, mr. chairman. you used a business term which i frick.ow-hanging my colleagues on republican side realize we try to address it in a strategic process. i would like to quickly growth through something like that. strategic planning process describes reality. you have to bow to reality. aced on the reality, set goals. i want to lay out my assumptions on reality. first assumption, it makes no sense to russia what putin is doing. number two, as result, this is all about putin's dego.

number three, what gives him power is his oil and gas, the gas station. in his monopoly control over supply which is crazy. in business, customers should be in control, not supplier. here is another reality. talk about sanctions, a contrary view. most of the harm caused to the russian economy occurred before any sanctions were imposed, because the world recognizes what he is doing and makes no economic sense. he has done his own economic harm. sanctionsy is because are a double edged sword, mutually harmful, i do not believe the west will have the will to affect his catalyst altogether. i do not believe they are going to be imposed. maybe not a bad thing. i would rather inflict pain on

putin, make him pay a price without us having to pay a price. that sets me up with the assumption -- that is the reality situation. run that you establish goals. the number one short term goal, obvious, is ukraine must gain control over the east. anybody disagree with that? ok. we need to help them, right? so we can talk about sanctions but they will not get imposed, but we can help them secure the east. so we need to do those things. when wewo, we certainly are on the ground heard about the incredible effect of the propaganda coming from russia. we need to counter that aggressively. we can do that, can't we? short-terme the two goals. medium term, having what was so hopeful about the protest in

maidan, a coming together of the ukrainian people saying they are sick of the corruption. we need to do everything in terms of our actions. we have to tie aid or help to make sure that anticorruption laws are passed. we should do that. that is the medium term because another part of the solution is we have to have a successful government in ukraine. long term, again, understanding what gives putin power is his oil and gas monopolies. we should be taking actions today to make sure that vladimir putin understands his monopoly ,ill not be in place, not two 3, 4 years from now. here is the assumption, the reality, and you have to hear the goals we can achieve. where am i wrong? what am i missing? i will start with you, congresswoman harman. >> i agree, and none of us

mentioned russian television, but madeleine albright who headed the delegation on which i was a member, speaks russian, and she kept talking about the domination of this message from russian tv into ukraine everywhere she went. do notot and ukrainians have an effect of counter. i commend you for putting that on the table. it is a very important short-term goal. we discussed the border. everybody agrees what needs to be done on the order. medium term, my understanding is there are now as part of this package of laws that can mentioned, the reanimation package, what has been passed to date, some strong anticorruption law. the problem is it is not enforced. that should be a huge early step of the poroshenko government. on the long-term, absolutely

break up the gas monopoly. i am hoping for sectional sanctions. tom friedman, the writer for "the new york times," called it a grand bargain to buy into a package of safe to the limit of energy, safe transportation of energy, and then export of energy, a variety of energy, not russia asto replace the gas station for europe. another point, senator mark d was going to be here, but i know he has a notion that we should help ukraine become perfect. i think we rehearsed this -- >> if you are going to talk renewable energies, that would rank pretty low on the -- we have to take a look on what is most effective. markey,ing for senator which i have done for many years, his point is that crane is the least efficient user of

energy of any of the countries in that region. windows are open in the wintertime because it gets so hot. >> if we could help with efficiency, we could reduce their dependence on russia. there are steps like that we should be taking. >> i agree with most of your comments. i think there is value in sanctions because -- >> do you honestly think they are going to be imposed where -- we could impose them. it might affect his catalyst at a cost to the west. because that cost of the west, do you think they can be imposed? vladimir putin has crossed the line. .e has done what we said we have not impose them yet. thatcan see sanctions would have a serious impact on russia. i cannot tell you politically that i am sure we can bring the europeans to do that. >> that is a real problem.

what is achievable, what is possible. towe should still be trying push, because otherwise the egregious nature of what has happened, the first time since 1945 where a big country has used military force to take territory from a small country in europe. there needs to be some penalty for this. on the gas question, i think we should be doing things, including looking at exporting itrican lng, to begin make more difficult for gas -- you're now gets about 30% of its gas from russia. europe only slowly should wean itself away, and we should find ways to encourage that. jane said about working with ukraine. ukraine has huge possibilities if they get more efficient use use for gasrgy to production. in five years to seven years, to produce huge oddities of

unconventional gas within ukraine. if ukrainians make that happen, they could be in a situation by 2020, they could be importing gas not from russia, but from the west, and be in a position where they would not need gas from russia. that would be an important change in the dynamic, because ukraine's biggest economic bane right now is it depends on 6% of its gas from russia. >> i would like to continue on this line on energy because we have any a number of discussions in this committee, and while there are disagreements on the committee about things like lng exports, there are strong agreements whether it is helping reverse flows of energy that to ukraine from some of its western or northern neighbors, working with ukraine to develop its own energy capacity. out year he is interested in more exports of energy -- algeria is more interested in

exports of energy. i sense of the russian economy is it is a rust belt economy resources, and the toughest thing we could do for whatis to do just exactly senator johnson said, and breakup that monopoly. so we ought to be looking at all those opportunities, even including potential resources like algeria that would like to ship more energy to europe, so it is not just we can do, although we can do a lot, but other partners who would want to help them wean away from the monopoly is critical. i want to ask just about one topic, and that is the polling sk andthe east, donest eastern area, and you talk about that earlier, ambassador green. the polling is pretty strong that huge numbers in the east did not want to be part of russia, do not want to be severed from ukraine. the polling is also strong that they have a great this trust of the government in kiev, and some of that has been because of the

propaganda campaign from russia, but some of it was because steps like this effort to potentially strip away russian as an official language. the population of this part of ukraine speaks russian. the president needs to address this immediately. you talked about the effort by the president to go to do netsk first. what can the president due to start winning over ukrainians that kiev will not be stiff arming us but will be including us and respecting our traditions, encoding russian language. >> you hate laid out -- you have laid out some of it yourself. some of the symbols are in port and, going to the east, but also capacity building so the government is seen as being able

to deliver on some of the basic area.and wants in that i also would not separate out what we have been talking about in terms of corruption. one of the reasons why some of the far reach of the country is so angry with kiev is the economy was plundered by the previous president and all rife with corruption, and was about.t maidan there were events that sparked it in terms of backing out of the movement towards the eu, but there was also this basic and ger toward a government riddled with corruption, unable to provide basic services. couple that with linking that part of the country to kiev in terms of a national dialogue through the media, exchanges that create a youth network of reform-minded ukrainians. those may seem like long-term activities.

i would argue they are not. i would argue there are immediate steps that need to be taken. i think each one of those steps would send very important signals to that part of the problem in addition to all the other things we have been talking about. of what members of the committee have been putting forward, my view is all of the above. if we are looking for simple solutions, i am not sure they are there. we need to take a very comprehensive approach that has both the security aspects to it, to the capacity holding, to the basic infrastructure that is necessary for delivering services for creating a sense of purpose and unity and having that dialogue. let me give you six pieces of what i think a package that could be used. first of all, the government would offer to de-escalate its use of force if the armed separatists lay down their weapons. decentralization, pushing authority out to the

regions and at the local level. >> elections of governors. >> the big news about the may 25 collection is it looked at part of that legitimacy over the acting government because you now have's the money who has a strong mandate. we give the parliament also a renewed democratic legitimacy and that would be important. agreement -- and poroshenko has talked about this -- some validation of official status for russian status. fifth element would be a strong and visible anticorruption campaign. tens of thousands of people were on the streets come about they were tired of corruption everywhere. i think another part would be his foreign-policy approach. you have had people, mr. pershing go, say they do not want to get too close to nato. six years ago i testified ukraine was ready for a membership action plan, which they were. nato is just a very

controversial topic within ukraine. fore there will be some way ukraine not to say never, but to say not now in a way that i think would be useful in avoiding what could be otherwise a very controversial topic. >> how confrontational or provocative is a continued move toward eu association in eastern ukraine? there has been a political agreement, but economic pacts are supposed to be signed in june. is that provocative in eastern ukraine? >> it looks provocative, and particularlylly -- among the younger ukrainians. you should go forward with the association with the european union. the problem they have is what i believe triggered the russian activity from crimea seizure on to what you see in eastern ukraine is that the russians do not want to see ukraine do that association agreement because ukraine moving in that direction is irretrievable --

>> [indiscernible] wanty have 30 seconds, i to ask one last question. one concern i had early was the ultrance of the nationalist parties. i viewed it as a real positive that they are candidates of the two name parties that got 2.2% of the road. am i right to read that as a positive trend? >> i think is it a positive trend. they got clobbered. i think we have to allow free expression in the country. i abhor those views, but if we try to censor and bury those views we are doing egyp-- for those insty eastern ukraine as part of the bigger deal, and i would caution against early elections because there has to be enough political capacity for all of the new voices to be able to run campaigns.

we saw that in egypt again, the elections were too early, and it cannot win. >> i would add one thing. i think the russian actions in crimea have had the unintended opposite effect that a majority of provinces in eastern and southern part of the country. eagerness much more on the part, and election showed that, for ukrainian unity as a result of his actions. i think it has had a huge impact. i would add on the national dialogue, which is another -- to expand and deepen the national dialogue would be something the president could do as well. >> thank you. it is good to see some of you. i have not seen some of you in a while. i apologize for missing the oral testimony. a couple of issues, and i apologize if you have covered them. how do you believe, ms. harman, the russian and china deal on natural gas affects the ability

for us to export lng in an effective way? is, of the attraction here although it would take a while to get the infrastructure in place for it to make a real difference, price signals would have been sent immediately. to what extent is that nullified i this big russia-china deal? >> i said earlier i see it as a sign of desperation. russia was beginning to believe and i still believe it should be a reality that we, the u.s. and europe, are going to cut off their ability to sell gas to europe, so they desperately wanted another market. i do not know what the terms are effective. many people speculate they are not favorable to russia. until we know that i am not sure we can fully answer the question.

but i think there is an enormous opportunity for the u.s. energy industry to get its act together to work with the europeans and to find new markets in the medium term, including the export of lng. i understand there are regional price lng.at ric we need to be more strategic and if there are international opportunities for us to sell energy, not just lng to europe, we should explore those. >> thank you. with regard to sanctions, as we mentioned, russia has already tripped some of the measures. they passed the threshold where we said we would move forward with additional sanctions. europeans are not following. what in your view would it take for the europeans to come on board, mr. jeffrey? to russian all, over

oteri action by conventional -- russian military action by conventional forces would be the red line for the europeans to take steps forward. i do not think putin will do this. he is now using irregular forces rather than his own elite types as he used in crimea. this gets back to senator cardin's question, even this sanctions we are seeing, and long-term gas and oil and other energy decisions we are discussing here have as you mentioned, senator flake, tremendous future implications money andvement of economic decisions around the integrated world, and it is hurting russia in many ways when we are taking these steps, even if they are not bold or major, not like what we did against iran or we do not use the tools

we use after 9/11. we will not going to russia that way. have very minor steps significant consequences, and the other thing is they are hard for us and particularly for europeans to do. putin does not think we will do hard things. every time we do it harder halfway hard thing we are sending a signal to him that who knows what we are going to do tomorrow if he keeps this up, and that is a good thing. when ourador green, delegation was there just before the seizure of crimea, the acting prime minister said with regard to the ukrainian with military we have nothing that shoots flies. develop some of that capacity. what are the political invocations of using military force in the east? is ites that play, how

played, and how will it play in the future in terms of the dynamics with the russian speakers and leanings of some people? what are the military implications of action? >> first off as we have been talking about throughout this hearing it is essential that the ukrainian government show it is able to govern and actually to deliver, and a huge part of government's purpose is to deliver security along its borders. that is terrifically important. what you point to is that the infrastructure, security t.,rastructure, military, i. has been weakened, it is weakened, and it is currently no match for russians, whether -- >> military, police force, across-the-board? >> one of the things we heard from ukrainians is, look, we're

worried the russians know exactly what we're going to do before we do it because they are the ones that helped set up the i.t. infrastructure in the first place. what the west can do, the west can help and respond to requests and helped ukrainians build their capacity on all levels to be able to secure the borders, but also deliver the basic services that link those communities in those areas to the central government. right now with all the propaganda they are getting from thugs, with the armed going back and forth and destabilizing wherever they can and starting problems like tossing in molotov cocktails into polling places, it raises doubts in the minds of the communities along the borders. my view is we need to help them assuage those doubts. a big piece of it is basic capacity building, so there is some semblance of governing authority.

if i can return to something you said in your remarks, checking is key -- which i think is key, we think in the west that symbols are only long-term. i could not disagree more. what you're talking about is so important because sending signals, western support, and devotionation to not just ukraine, but to the entire region is essential. those communities that have historically weaker links to central governments, where they are being bombarded with all isse mixed signals, it important they know that the community of democracies is there and will be there. so i think it sends -- it is a long-term signal that has an immediate payoff. it is terrifically important strategically. >> thank you. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. i appreciate the discussion we are having on what our next path

should be on sanctions, having spent the last several months in pretty close consultations with me european allies, color pessimistic that they are ready to take the next step. merkel can be described as stuck in her current position regarding robust caution on sanctions. some european nations are not sitting still. they are moving the other way. senator johnson and i sent a letter to the french today asking them to halt their sale of warships to russians, the type of warships used in the invasion of crimea. i wanted to pin the five of you down on your exact recommendation for us on sanctions, as we have a good conversation about this. assuming the europeans are not willing to move with us on the

next level of sanctions and to us and use ambassador jeffrey's analogy, a move from tv sanctions to tiger sanctions, sectoral sanctions, assuming they are not ready would you recommend that the united states are separatist lay move forward unilaterally with sectoral based sanctions regardless of whether the europeans are ready to join us? and if you can give just quick answers and if you have a cabinet, and it, that would be fun. >> it's nice to see all my former colleagues on energy and commerce committee. i don't think that unilateral sanctions worked well. we have seen this movie in iran. i think moving, if europe, i would put maximum pressure on europe and hope that angela merkel can be helpful to do this. it's in their interest to do this. it will be cheaper in the long run to do this, but if europe won't go along i would move to larger individual sanctions

because getting at more of these folks does get at the energy sector. a lot of them are major players in the energy sector in russia, and it does hurt anything the sanctions that have been imposed to date not only affected have had a big bite on russia spent quick answers. i have one more question after this. >> i think we need to push and see if we can do sanctions in concert with your but if europe will not go along i would agree for individual sanctions. i would also target families. that would be a way to keep people from traveling to new york and miami from coming here. in the financial area, so much of the international is denominated in dollars. is ours to make smarter views about these questions. may be looking at sanctions one major russian bank. of the united states do that itself? i think i would have significant indications on the russian economy and i think we could have some effect, we would have to calculate what blowback might

be against the u.s. economy. >> unilateral sanctions, if we can't get concerned once with the europeans but we took to be careful. they should be designed to persuade not provoke the europeans because maintaining solidarity with these guys is still very important. >> i would agree with what you just heard. not speaking for iri, speaking only for myself, i think one of the least reported stories in recent months is what's been happening in moscow and the fact that putin has taken a number of steps to impose restriction on his own people and to shut down dialog, which means he obviously fears the effects of sanctions. my own view is that as you've heard here, that ratcheting up individual sanctions and family sanctions are important signals, and they think we should constantly be pushing our european allies and remind them of the lines that already been crossed in an effort to try