families that are dirt poor, and they don't have the opportunities that others do it seems to my it's common sense, we should have sometime ends or whatever you call it, so it equalizes the playing field of the financial ability if those student athletes are contributing to the financial well-being of that university. so too with health insurance. that all to be common sense. if a player is hurt and that's a career-ending injury, the best of medical care ought to be given to that player and for it to last for some period of time in the future. and of course, consuggestions just add a whole other dimension

to this thing. i thought it was very interesting in another committee that i have the privilege of chairing, we did a hearing on concussions, and -- including professional athletes they would not recommend to their children that they play football. so times are changing. the ncaa has got to get with the times. so whatever this committee hearing has done to enible you as a reformer to get those schools the votes that you need to do a lot of these things that we're talking about, the family travel why should they have to sneak around in the shadows in

order to get money to be able to buy a ticket to come to the game and where to stay in a hotel and so forth? i mean, it just -- it defies common sense. mr. rolle, you want to make any final comment? >> sure. one thing that i'd like to say is that when you think about the collarship discussion, a lot of players i was on teams with, it was kind of like it was us versus them. we didn't feel like the ncaa was protecting our best interests, was looking out for us, one to see us succeed and thrive and flourish. it was almost as if we had to do everything we could to promote ourselves and better ourselves against this big machine that was dictating and ordering the steps we took. maybe that's not true. maybe it's just a miscommunication, maybe the

information wasn't getting disseminated well enough, but that's the way we felt. another thing that's why bothersome today, going back to the economic struggles a lot of my teammates come from poor areas in florida, and come as the first person in their family to be a college student. they don't have a lot of other money to lead back on, so that leaves them open to unsavely things, these are agencies, nfl runners who would knock on our dorm doors, and say, i can take you out to a nightclub, i can buy you a meal, i can give you a suit to wear, i can take you and your girlfriend out to eat and they accept it, because they don't have much else, then they become ineligible, and they have no future because they have a black mark or just don't play anymore, so think end up back in liberty city or polk county, and

it's frustrating and discouraging. i saw it often. >> that is the exact example that we need to use. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator nelson. i apologize. you could have run for the senate ten years ago. >> i don't want to be disrespectful to senator blumenthal who i think was here before me earlier. no? >> i will ask my questions now only because i have to preside, and if you would yield for five minutes, i would really appreciate it. >> i've already been put in my place once. i will yield. >> yeah, but you're bigger than i am. so -- [ laughter ] >> let me thank you, mr.

chairman, for having this hearing, which very sincerely i think is a very important one or a significant for the future of academic institutions. i want to thank all of the folks who have come to enlighten us and thank you to senator nelson. and i want to begin by saying, for what it's worth, i think the law here is heading in a very unfortunate direction. as dr. emmert and i have discussed, i think the law is heading in the direction of regardi regarding athletes at university more and more employees that is because of the growing asymmetry and energy, time, sweat, blood injury that is involved. that is classically the reason why labor law protections have

applied to individuals who on potentially are victims of exploitation. or construction sites. so i think the challenge is to dim minutic and truly -- and therefore the laws will move to and i say that with regret, because i too, as dr. emmert has articulated well value the student athlete model rather than the employee/employer model, but the more the reality is that athletes in effect

function as employees, the more the law will recognize that fact. my opinion is worth what you're paying for it. i'm just a country lawyer from connecticut, but i sincerely believe that that's the direction of the law. i want to first ask you, astonished and deeply troubled by the revelation that athletic departments on many campuses investigate -- i would like your commitment that you will work to change that practice as soon as possible and as effectively as possible. >> you have my commitment. i obviously want to understand the data more. i simply read a summary. i'm not sure what the facts are on those campuses. as i said earlier, the data that senator mccaskill's staff

brought forward was shocking to meivities i am shocked and outraged by you apparent practice on many campuses with the effect of revictimizing survivors who may be in effect victims. . i want to focus for the moment on health insurance. you know, individual colleges and the ncaa made billions on the talents of these young men and women, and i want to ask you, couldn't they offer health insurance for athlete for a certain amount of time after they leave college? that seems imminently fair. so i would ask for your commitment that you will work towards providing for health insurance for these needs and injuries that may extend beyond their playing years on campus or

even professional settings, and i'd like to know what more -- assuming you are committed to that charge, what more you can do to encourage schools to provide this kind of coverage for its student athletes? >> yes, sir. well, today the coverage that exists right now is provided either by the campus itself or by the student athlete's family, depending upon university policies at most of the high resource schools, they provide the insurance so the student doesn't have to. we need to do several things. wen, in my opinion, we need to make sure there aren't co-payment requirements of a young man or woman, especially from a low income family, and suddenly they have an injury with a $2,000 or $5,000 co-payment, since it was a sports-related injury, so we need to make sure we don't have

many of those circumstances out there. we have right now at the ncaa level catastrophic insurance, so if there is long-term disability issues. if there are injuries that require treatment over the course of a lifetime, there is a policy in place. we have some individual that have been on the policy for 20 or more years. we have taken a number of steps to make sure -- that policy doesn't kick in until you have $90,000 worth of bills. we need to make sure that, to your point -- i'm saying yes, i guess, senator, you have my commitment. there are complexities in all of this we need to work through, but i agree with you that no one should have to pay for an injury they suffered as a student athlete. >> thank you. i welcome and accept your yes to both the sexual assault and the insurance questions. i would ask further for your

commitment to work with us on sensible legislation that will impose a higher level of responsibility in both areas. thank you. >> certainly. >> thank you, mr. chair. >> go ahead. thank you, mr. chairman. first of all, i'm grateful, we talked about this in my first days as the united states senator, this was an issue you wanted to cover, and you saw my excitement for doing that. a lot of that stems from i was back in the '90s an ncaa division i football player. i want to first say, it's very important for me to say, i probably wouldn't be here right now if it wasn't for that experience. i am deeply grateful. i joke all the time i got into stanford because of a 4.0, and 16 yards receiving yards in my high school year. and had lifetime experiences frankly that i could never, ever replace. it opened up extraordinary doors for me. so we could have a hearing that

could go on for hours if not days about all the good things that are happening with the ncaa, so please forgive me if i'm not giving that appropriate light. what concerns me and what you and i have talked about chairperson for quite some time are the egregious challenges we have. i want to publicly thank dr. emmert, he was gracious not only to come here, which he did not have to do, but took special time to come see me as a former athlete to sit down and hear my concerns. i was taken aback that you agreed with me across the board. let me just reiterate those for the record and make sure we are in agreement. so number one, you agree the big problem that athletes don't get scholarships to get a b.a.? >> yes. >> that is a big problem that we have, athletes that pour their lives, 40, 50 hours a week, and then end up having gone through their eligibility, but don't have a b.a. that is a problem? >> yes. >> you agree it's a problem that

we have athletes, often very poor coming onto college campuses restricted from working, they can't shovel driveways for extra pending money, can't meet the needs of travel, can't buy toiletries, clothesing, if they're restricted from working, you know that's a problem we have to address? >> a minor correction, not banned from working. they can in fact work, and in many cases do, but the biggest challenge is they simply haven't the time. >> so in other words they can't work because of whatever reason, you know that's the problem that the scholarship does not cover the full costs at the same time they're being expected, whether by law or not, to work 40, 50, 60 hours a week. >> completely agree. >> that's a problem. >> you agree it's a problem with the health coverage is inadequate and that we have people, many of whom i know and you know, who have blown-out knees, and even though they have graduated now, they're having to go into the pockets for co-pays

and the like to deal with medical injuries that were occurred, really the root was the challenges they had when they were a athlete? >> i agree the insurance today is much better than most people think, but there's certainly areas that need to be closed. >> and it's costing some athletes thousands into their lifetimes. >> yes. >> you agree there's a real problem still with time, that as the two@lease at the end of the table, it's not just the practice time, guys, how many hours would you get your ankles taped, treatments? an hour? two hours? sometimes three hours, depending on how bad the injuries? we have athletes putting in upwards of 60, 70 hours a week, that's a problem? >> a huge problem. >> you agree that there is a -- at least an issue that hag to be dealt with to improve with the issue of sexual assault, it has to be improved in the way we investigate? >> yes, and i think the way we educate young men and women, and the way we educate people on campuses to handle those issues.

>> right. this we didn't cover, so it might not be a simple yes or no, but in terms of the due process, when a young man like mr. ram say, not even know had had to get a lawyer, not even getting help, there are breakdowns in process that are not clear. could you say that process could be improved? >> it certainly could, especially on most campuses, yes. >> i guess i just turn to you, mr. chairman not having to go through more rounds of deeper questioning, to just say clearly, this is my problem. this was a challenge for when i was an athlete, some 20 years ago, and athletes after athletes are going through and facing what i consider the exploitation of athletes? let me be very clear. it is exploitation when you have an athlete working 60, 70 hours a week, yet still not able to afford the basic necessities.

not just having your parents fly back and forth, but being put in horrible situations, where they see their jersey with their name on it being sold, making thousands and thousands of dollars, but they can't even afford to get the basic necessities of life. and if they try to sell their jersey for 50 bucks, they get penalize. that's exploitation of an athlete. to me it's exploitation when you give your body -- yes on the end, hound linemen do you know today that played with you that have gone through four, five, six surgeries for their knees? a lot. and if they're going into their own pocket after given up their knees to make mills onfor the university, and then the universities aren't even compensating them appropriately, that's an exploitation of a college athlete that has to be addressed. if we have guys like was testified by the two gentlemen on the end, who i know this,

because we spernt hours -- we did the math, my teams, because so many players feel an assault on your dignity, that you're putting 70, 80 hours a week, giving up internships, you know more about your playbook. playbook. i can still tell you, stonebreaker. i can tell you more about them because that's what i was studying at night that you spend all of that effort and then, your university is not in any what, ensuring that you get a degree at the end in something like engineering or political science. that they're not honoring the fact that when you're working fulltime you can't finish your degree in four or five years. when they could lord over you the removal of your scholarship because it still happens. athletes are still exploited. they blow out their knee and if they somehow don't meet the mandates of a coach, they lose their scholarship and they don't

get their degree. to me, this is plain and simple, the dark side of the ncaa where athletes are being exploited. and this is why i love the -- occasionally, and you use these words, dr. emrid, you use this as a cattle prod. i wrote it down. i have to move quickly in the ncaa when there's money and reputation on the table. for example, you mentioned his name, shabaz napier says on the highest victory he says on national tv what we know athletes and what coaches know, is the truth. that some guys don't have the money to buy shaving cream. to eat at night. but he says it on national tv and within seven days because the shame and embarrassment, within seven days the rules

changed and guys can actually eat. >> but i'd like to -- >> hold on, i'm already over my time, sir. let me give you another example. cam newton was through the same problems you were at the same time. his eligibility was being challenged, mr. ramsey. a guy that brings millions of dollars into a university and his adjudication happened quickly. yours did not. you're not a named athletes. so it didn't. so what i want to say in conclusion, mr. chairperson, and really, why i love the tail of respect branches here because similar books of my life about the civil rights movement. when there's a class of individuals who are being exploited and there's millions and millions of dollars being brought in and guys can't even afford health care, cannot afford to finish their degrees, then we have a problem. and i respect dr. emrid and said

we'll add that but where is the urgency that this has been going on for decades in america? i don't trust like the supreme court, when they said we're going to integrate schools they said do it with what? with what kind of speed? all deliberate speed and it took them a long time to get around to doing the right thing by people. these aren't just people. these are young people in theites of america. and we can't afford to wait for all deliberate speed. there's got to be some level of accountability for fast action on things that the head of the ncaa says is a problem. that next season when football season starts, there's going to be kids suffering from the same list of unfair things that somehow, some day, is going to be addressed. so i think we need another hearing with the real rulemakers. college presidents lined up here and ask them how fast they'll address the exploitation of college athletes. mr. chairman, thank you.

>> dr. emrid, respond? >> i have a sacred obligation to senator espn. >> thank with you, mr. chairman. i appreciate it. let me just say up front on the issue of athletic departments investigating sexual assault allegations. that is ridiculous. you've got to get in and fix that right away. i'm a proud graduate of the penn state university. and it's obviously, we're -- it was so troubling and disappointing to see what happened at my university. i love the university but the athletic department is nowhere you happenedle these kinds of allegations so you got to fix that. walk out this door and fix that. what i'm troubled about when i hear the testimony today and i just need to understand, senator blumenthal asked about the change to an employer/employee model. we talked about compensation, potentially for athletes today. i don't want to see any athletes

mistreated. i want them to be able to have a quality of life that's important as they serve and get the education and be able to be an athlete the student athlete model. but as i think about for example, what the nlrb did in its ruling, i knnoknow know it applies to private universities but i think about the compensation model, what does this do in terms of the schools where we're not talking about the top athletes that may go on, that are the nrevenue-again rating sports? what will that do to women's athletics? if we start down the road of a compensation model what h happen in the schools in terms of the schools that -- or the sports that aren't at the top where those athletes? you can sell the jerseys and make money, but are still very important to student life? and when i think about title 9 in women and the opportunities

women have gotten because of title 9, if you're on scam puts and this suddenly becomes an employer/employee type of model, what is that do for women's sports if they're not revenue-again rating and how do we sustain them if this model changes? that's a big question but i'd like you to comment on it because the last thing i want to see is for -- i want to make sure that our @leaathletes are treated well and certainly, what you've done is really inspiring to see what you've done. and thank you, mr. ramsey, as well, for your inspiration and being here. but there's a whole category of athletes that were not quite at your level but are participating in college sports and it's been an opportunity for them to getten education and for women, as well. that are at your level but don't always generate the same amount of revenue and i want to make

sure that women still have the opportunity that they've had because of title 9. so if you could comment on that i'd appreciate it. >> i would love to comment on that. i think it's not a zero sum game. if some athletes are profit athletes who have a higher market value than the cost of their grand and aid, then we should treat them differently than athletes who are not profit athletes. it's not either/or or they must be. if they're employees, as the nlrb found, we should treat them as employees. that does not mean that college athletics or athletes and other sports, women or -- it doesn't -- >> can i tell you -- >> it's not an either/or -- >> doctor, my university said if the unionation rule was applied, university of new hampshire, they feellike this will diminish the athletic program and it will diminish it for women and

nonrevenue-aga nonrevenue-generating sports. i understand what you're saying but that's not what i'm hearing from other universities. >> i would say that probably a university president by the name of chicken little, might have been the first one to say that. because the sky will not, in fact, fall. by denying profit athletes just compensation in the market, does not preclude colleges and universities from supporting intercollegiate athletics as an educational opportunity. if they're employees they should have all the rights of employees. title 9 does not apply in an employee setting. >> i would like to see what mr. bradshaw has to say about what i just said as well. thank you. >> we probably don't have time but i'd certainly like to hear that model that works. i believe it's going to be devastating to all those student athletes including women who don't produce revenue.

who aren't seen as -- athletes or student who is create that revenue. i would like to see that model work because as we all know that's going to mean those that can afford to pay for that, will. and those that can't won't. >> thank you. >> again, if i could reiterate and i appreciate the question and i'm trying to articulate it as clearly as i can. if the athletes are, in fact, employees, then we have a moral obligation and an obligation under the law, to treat them as such. if they're not, it does not preclude them from participating. title 9 does not have to be held hostage by this because we're only talking about 5% of the knl have a distinction. some are employees and some won't? some are student athletes and

some aren't? >> they already are employees. so by being opened and honest about what we're using and exploiting these athletes for, honesty is a very good thing. >> so as a woman athlete, if i'm not a revenue-generating athlete i'm not eligible for the employee/employer athlete? >> they already have that. >> that bholt they ares me. >> we refer to them at nooufr athletes and revenue sports and olympic sports. that's fine. it does not mean that if we compensate athletes according to the market, that everyone else has to go away. that is not what has to occur at all. so if the universities find that that opportunity is very important, they will still support it. they will still support it. i see no way that women's

athletics or olympic athletics is going to go away. it's not going to happen. it just isn't. mr. chairman? >> dr. emrid, as i listened to kelly's questions about the cost structure and the likely impact of creating some unions or some employees and some not employees, they ultimately, the cost structure itself would have impact in universities and have impact in athletic programs. i just wonder how significant that impact would be. and let me say this before you answer the question so you can think about your answer. to mr. suddall, good to have you here from columbia, south carolina, i would be remiss if you went to the right place, the gamecocks, ilike that a lot, being a south carolina fan myself. my story is very different than

cory's story and these road scholars on the end who have done very well academically and i'm proud to see your success off the field as well as on the field. i'll say my story, i think, really plays an important part of why i'm asking the questions about the cost structure. i'm a kid that grew up in a single-parent household. had it not been for football i wouldn't have been able to go to college football at all. i played come football for a year and i earned a christian leadership 'scholarship and i realize that the responsibilities and the burden of before and after and the labs and the challenges i face and made a decision to go a different route but the fact of the matter is had it not been for the scholarship opportunity i would not be sitting here today because i wouldn't have had the opportunity to even start my education so when i think about -- and i went to a small school, presbyterian college, so when i think about the cost structure of this conversation on athletes that are not in those top tier

schools, there's a significant unintended consequence i think we're looking at that kelly really brought to the surface that's hard to deny and, perhaps, even harder to figure out how to fix it. >> well, i happen to agree with you. i think that the implications of converting student athlete model to an employee/employer model would utterly transform college sports into something that doesn't begin to look like what it looks like today. the impact on the -- with all due respect i agree with the interpretation of all this. if you simply look at the definition of an employee as has been provided by one nlrb add

minim administrator. if they work more as a student athlete than they are as in their academic work, then they're working. if they are subject to the oversight of a coach then they have a boss. i'm not a labor lawyer but that's in summary, the definition of a student athlete. that would apply to every student athlete that has a scholarship. men, woman, it doesn't matter. a woman soccer player. the difference between a woman's basketball player and a men's basketball player isn't that the men's basketball player works harder it is president that through more or less talented. the difference is there's more people in the stand. that's it, in terms 06 their time commitment and their competitiveness, everything. one plays in front of a lot of people and one doesn't. the difference between a volleyball play or and a soccer player is exactly the same. the only difference is whether

they're playing on tv or whether they're not. >> yes, sir. >> so that completes the relationship. title 9 has nothing to do with employee/employer relationships aso that has nothing to do with a student athlete that is no longer an employee. it would be an irrelevant si for college sports. >> mr. bradshaw, a know you played sports i couple of years go. it says four or five years ago, not 45. but my question is -- as you've had a lot of experience and you looked at this opportunity as well as the challenges that come with the opportunity from multiple angles, what kind of progress have you seen over the last three decades or so as we wrestled with some of the challenges that are going to be future challenges and certainly our present challenges, sometimes we miss the progress that we've made along the way. >> certainly, all of us think we can do better.

no question about it. we spend most of our time talking about how we can be better and not patting ourselves on the back. i would say as a former assistant coach back in the day, and head coach and student athlete, that it's night and day. the changes, the quality of physicians, the trainers, i mean, we didn't know what a dietician was when we were student athletes or a head coach. the changes are enormous. they're compelling. and i think one of the things i would recommend is that you get some student athletes to talk to. there's a -- there's a balance. obviously there's outliers. there's some horrible stories that have happened and none of those is too many, whether it's assault or date rape or whatever it might be, that i would love to see a panel of student athletes come in and talk about everything. a balanced panel of that. it's been significant across the line. and i'm retired now. i can talk about it very

objectively and be concerned about a college president or a faculty or a board of trustees. it's really an incredible profession we're in. and the changes that the ncaa is trying to make and again, mark's got to deal with votes. he's got to deal with the institutions. the college presidents. the board of trustees that pressure the college presidents. i think you got something when you want to bring the presidents in here. i think that would be a good move and something that could help everyone. but the changes that have happened, they are just eoh by leaps and bounds, particularly in the last decade. >> final question, mr. chairman? do i have time for a final question? >> sure. >> my gamecocker, bob southhall. as you look at the opportunity for collective bargaining and its impact on the academic environment realizing that most institutions or all institutions, primary objective is to cultivate an environment that's conducive for academic

achievement. how do you see the impact of the collective bargaining opportunity, though i have grave concerns with it personally on colleo college campus us and its environment? >> i don't see that it would have any affect. >> good enough. thank you, sir. >> okay thank you. i want to make a -- and coach, i know the question you want to ask and dr. emrid has answered most of the questions and i know you feel a duty to ask the question. there's not going to be a second round. i'll make a closing statement. and then at 5:15 we'll be through this very long hearing. i want to say this. i have two impressions. one is superficial and the other, i think, is worrisome of this hearing. and i want each of you to either

agree or not agree with me as kind of your closing statements. that on one level this has been an opened conversation. we've brought up all kinds of issues. and those issues have been discussed. to a small degree or a large degree. but my real feeling from this hearing is that we haven't accomplished much. and that people have laid down their sort of protective -- i'm not talking about you two gentlemen. but that there's been a sort of a self-protection mode. either for one's self or on behalf of others. your point about getting the board of trustees and that would be kind of interesting. because they have a big influence over college presidents.

but all i know is coming out of this hearing, i don't think i've learned anything particularly new except some anecdotes is that i haven't been hearing for 50 years. which is how long i've been in this business. and that the answers, you know, of course, there's progress. of course there's progress on concussions and of course there's progress in other thing. but is it in any way concommitant and effect of progress in what we should have been doing, all of us, including this committee and this congress, by not exercising our oversight rights? the head of the ncaa at one point said, one of the first things i did was to make sure that -- and i forget the example -- but this was a statement -- i got something

done. i i don't believe that. i don't believe that. i think the system is rigged so that you are separated from the possibilities of getting something done except as you testify or, you know, you probably couldn't write articles. you probably would get blow-back on that. i don't think you have the power and i think it's i had constructed for that purpose. i'm cynical. i'm cynical about it. it's too easy to complain in senate hearings or any other forum, what progress has been made or of course, there's always progress that's been made but does it keep up with what needs to be done? and the answer is, absolutely not. and this country is now so soaked in the culture espn and

other station and watching football and baseball, world soccer, all the rest of it. i mean, it's -- i think it's -- my own view is it's undermining our values. i'll tell you one thing for sure. i think it's undermining our commitment to education. and dr. southall, i think that you're talking about the different ways of jiggering the students who are not athletes, actually doing the better job academically. than those who respect to. it was said by the head of the ncaa that that was true and it was in his testimony. i don't believe that. i just don't believe it. now, i may be wrong but -- and then the different formulas you use. it was very interesting to me

and something lied ike to know more about. to me it's been, in essence, an important hearing but not one that points to progress. and because i think everybody is going to leave this hearing and they're going to go right back. i'm not. i don't think senator booker is and i don't think a bunch of others are. go back to doing what they do. we got that one out of the way. nothing -- no harm there. nosh did themselves any great damage. nobody did themselves any great damage. congress doesn't usually follow through. congress doesn't get that much done. that happens to be true the last three or four years and then there's always the question of getting people from, you know, either trustees or heads of colleges and universities from states and then members here that are co-related to that might not want to have that happen. the world works in ways that protects itself. but this is a particularly ugly

one. the question of rape and having -- i mean, i voted not to allow the department of defense to settle rape questions. i think that's ridiculous. it passed, what i didn't want to pass passed by a margin, but not a great margin so, yes, that's progress. but what we wanted to do is get there. and i don't have a feeling that that we're on that path. yank this hearing symbolizes that we might be. but the substance is that we probably won't be. react to that. anybody who wants to and then i'll close the hearing. >> mr. branch, i think you had some -- >> well, senator, that's a -- i

think that some differences have been -- and they're big differences in talking about the way things work and how to reform and the whole underlying structure. frankly, i think some differences have been diminished. i agree wholeheartedly with one thing dachlt emrid said a lot of these economic restrictions and the ncaa rules if they were vacated as or abolished or somehow, vacated for athletes as they were for coaches, it wouldn't make a particle of difference for 90% of athletes. and a small -- an athlete or a recruit at a small division 3 school would be able to ask for better health coverage or a salary and the university, the little school would be free to laugh at them and say, we don't do it. go somewhere else. just like if the picky lo player said, i want to march in the

band. the schools with free to bargain that way but it would make an enormous difference in precisely these 65 schools we're talking about where there was gigantic money if an athlete can bargain for better health care coverage and more time to study for a longer scholarship, it would change things. right now the model is that the schools do that solely at their dispennation. the coaches in these schools want to give money out of their own pocket to the players like a tip, because they know they don't have enough money to eat. so a model that recognizes that these athletes are trying to manage two very demanding careers at once, that are in separate is spheres is a step forward but to me right now the least hopeful thing i heard today is we're looking to these same 65 schools that are the most commercialized as the engine of reform and the ncaa, i don't see it.

they might give higher compensation and more tips, but they're the ones that created most of these problems in the first place. i don't think the big schools are going to do anything other than be driven more and more by the market and athletics and quite frankly, those schools exploit their athletes both as players and as students, because i go around to all these big schooling and the athletes tell me they're pushed into -- they're pushed into certain majors that are easy. sthar they're not allowed to take certain courses. the sad thing to me, i think that some differences are outlined and may be diminished. but i don't think see the big 65 schools as an engine for much reform in the future because their record doesn't show that. >> any other comments? mr. chairman?

>> i'd ask before, i know -- >> i know you want dr. emrid to reply to everything he says? >> i think he deserve es the opportunity to do that when someone takes an extra 2350i6 minutes and senator booker had every right and he was passionate about what he said but he leveled some accusations at the ncaa. i think at least, they deserve to be able to respond to that. >> he'll have ample chance to do that. i've been bent over backwards, annoyed some of my members to give you a particular break because you come from indiana where ncaa is headquartered and i've done that. >> i don't think you gave me a particular break. i was the first one here and that's the normal procedure. yet, i had my -- >> if you hadn't been you made it very clear to me on the floor you wanted to be able to be the first one to ask the questions and i said, it was okay. it was senator thune -- so i'm not going to bend on that. this is the closing statement and mr. emrid is free to answer

in any form he wants. he can write every member of the congress committee a letter. anybody else want to say anything? >> i've spent the last 15 years of my professional career examining intercollegiate athletics. after this hearing today, i, like yourself, am very disheartened because i'm not sure that we collectively, are willing to take a cold, hard objective look informed by research and informed by data at the collegiate model of athleti athletics. >> all right. that being said, i want to thank everybody for this. this has been a long and interesting hearing. everything is the first step as neil armstrong said and we got a

lot of steps to make and as others pointed out, the world is changing. you know, it's like that jackie robinson 42 movie. and the player comes in and he says -- i want to be traded. and then a couple of weeks later he comes back and says, i don't want to be traded. what about -- you willing to play with robinson? he said, the world is changing and i can change, too. now, i think there's an element of that in all of this progress, has its own sort of duties and i think there's been progress. my question is, in that for my entire adult life i've been hearing about this and stlees still so many of the problems are there and it call into question, i think, the way decisions are made and carried through within the upper ranks of the football and basketball community. and that's on my mind and i'm

chairman so i'm going to say that and i'm also going to say that that's the last thing i'll say and this hearing is adjourned. [inaudible conversations] >> that was today's hearing, available on our website, c-span.org. we have been asking for your thoughts on whether you think college athletes should be paid. taking a look at a few of your tweets, no, they should consider college sports and for the nfl. david tweets, with the individual colleges and universities decide whether not to pay. and on the facebook, no, they receive scholarships and have their education paid for while i work as a pizza delivery driver for 35 plus hours a week just to try and pay for my glasses. madeleine rights, yes, they are

moneymakers for the school. don't they receive a full ride to attend colleges? they give free room and board plus meals. so they should not get paid. however, if they get injured the universities should pay for all medical bills and expenses. you can break-in and share your thoughts. one. >> coming up on c-span2, a senate hearing looks at the russia-ukraine conflict and u.s. foreign policy options in the region. then this ceremony, posthumously awarded the congressional gold medal for his humanitarian efforts during world war ii. >> forty years ago the watergate scandal led to the only

resignation of an american president. throughout this month and early august american history tv revisits 1974 and the final weeks of the nixon administration this weekend here the supreme court oral argument, united states versus nixon as the watergate special prosecutor contests the president's claim of executive privilege over is will of his recordings. >> may be right in how he reads the constitution, but he may also be wrong. and if he is wrong and always there to tell him so? there is no one. then the president, of course, is free to pursue his course of misinterpretations. what then becomes of our constitutional governments? >> watergate 40 years later some then added:00 eastern of american history tv.

>> family members of iraqi in afghanistan war veterans tell the stories about mental health issues of health care system for returning veterans. live coverage tomorrow morning in the house veterans' affairs committee starting at 915 eastern on c-span2. then later in the day homeland security secretary j johnson and health secretary bill well testify about the administration's pledge to request for the influx of unaccompanied immigrant children crossing the u.s. border. live coverage at 2:30 p.m. eastern. >> assistant secretary of state victoria nuland says the u.s. should impose more sanctions against russia. her comments came during a senate foreign relations committee hearing on the russia-ukraine conflict. new jersey senator bob menendez chairs this 2-hour hearing.

>> this hearing will come to order. we have two distinguished panel today to help us look more closely at developments in the ukraine. we are pleased to have on our first panel the assistant secretaries from stage to much treasury, and defense to brief us on the situation on the ground. our second panel, two former national security advisers to provide insights into the broader geopolitical implications of the actions in ukraine. in the past week ukraine appears to have mobilized around its new president. the ukrainian armed forces have been actively closing their border with russia and pushing back separatists. at the same time president putin instigating the conflict continues to breed uncertainty as to whether the corner has, in

fact, been turned. in my view president putin is entirely capable of trying to divide ukraine one day and then the international community of buying pressure and draw from the scene long enough to avoid the international community scrutiny while effectively continuing his aggression to achieve his intended goals. in june i wrote to president obama to deter putin from further destabilizing the ukraine. i fully appreciate the importance of acting in concert with our european allies to ensure that sanctions have their intended effort. but at the same time we should not hesitate to act unilaterally to support an independent ukraine and counter malign russian interference for delays that threaten these goals were strategic objectives. in the long run a stable and secure regional server national

interest and enhance of its entities for u.s. and european businesses. in my view unless putin is confronted was strong disincentives he will continue to ensure that the ukrainian government will not be able to stabilize the situation and he will position itself to fill the power vacuum when the government can't fill the need. what steps and measures must putin take to demonstrate his commitment to resolving the conflict, and at what point would you call his bluff and proceed with additional sanctions? employees to have such distinguished panelists before the committee. with that let me turn to the ranking member of. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for calling a hearing. i welcome our witnesses. we have an outstanding group of people. i know this is almost becoming a cliche, but you know, russia

seems to be a master at escalating and the escalating, acts of duplicity let's keep the western world of balance. now look forward to hearing from our witnesses today what phase they think we're and relative to russia. i know that we have some people here that are very committed public service that i respect but sometimes i am embarrassed for the hugh p. reed as you possibly talk about sanctions and yet candidly we never see them put in place. i do hope you will enlighten us today as to where we might be in that regard. media outlets of talked about it the round of sanctions. i hope he will eliminate those and talk to us a little bit about what needs to occur from russia's standpoint to either call to have it put in place and not.

but again, i really feel like the sanctions, threats of been a hollow. candidly some of the same characteristics of the red line we talked about in syria. i certainly hope that changes in. my final point to my worry that where we're going with russia relative to the ukraine is what a national security adviser in eastern europe said to me recently. he fears the policy is taking us to a place where we will of a better peace with russia. in essence we sweep under the rug the actions that have taken place and continue to take place , actions that have taken place. we basically get back to business as usual that is where we may be heading which over time can lead to some more major consequences in eastern europe

and the world. i think the witnesses for being here and look for to testimony. >> thank you. we welcome back assistant secretary of state european eurasia affairs, the assistant secretary of treasury and the assistant secretary of defense for international security affairs. let me remind our panelists set your false statements will be included in the record. try and summarized in five minutes so that we can enter into a dialogue.

the third page. we are ready to impose more costs including targeting specific sector specific sanctions very soon if russia does not decidedly change course. it seems like we have heard that maybe you can quantify that. with that we recognize it. >> thank you, chairman, ranking member, members of this committee, and thank you for the opportunity to speak with you again to take. as you said, longer statement will be submitted for the record. in previous testimony, four pillars of u.s. policy, support for ukraine but diplomatic efforts to try to de escalate the crisis, imposing further costs including targeted central sanctions on russia and separatists who are fermenting violence and unrest. number four car reassurance of front-line nato allies.

today in my statement i will focus on the first to. the secretary will talk about our security support. assistant secretary will talk about sanctions policy. of course we will all answer your questions. if the voters from across ukraine took to the polls on may 25th and elected a president with 54 percent of the vote. just weeks and days earlier many doubted that the elections would even take place. the determination and courage of millions of ukrainians to choose their own future that made it possible. against this backdrop the united states is supporting ukraine in this hour of its need. we stepped up our security assistance.

however, the more lasting into debt to separatism of the medium term is for ukraine to succeed as a democratic free-market state and said beef up the corruption, dependents, and external pressure that have thwarted ukrainian aspirations for decades. since the onset of this crisis with this congress to support we have provided a billion dollar loan guarantees specifically targeted to soften the impact of economic reforms and the country's most vulnerable speeds ..

but let me just give you some highlights. in the area of economic reform and growth, we will complement world bank and imf programs by strengthening working to help strengthen the ukrainian banking sector making the business climate more competitive and attractive to investors in helping ukraine diversify its export markets. our anticorruption support will help support the government's new three-year program and bolster its ability to deter, detect investigate and prosecute corruption wherever it festers and support civil society and media business and government as they work together to root it

out. in the energy area will help the government to restructure the sector and to deploy new technologies to increase energy yields and efficiency and to assist ukraine in developing national plans for sustainable use of natural resources. finally we law help the government implement the constitutional reform and broad decentralization of power at the local and regional level that has been central to president poroshenko's peace plan in rebuilding national immunity. as we support ukraine economically as you know we have also worked in lockstep with the ukrainian government and our european allies and partners to try to de-escalate the tensions with russia and with russian separatist or repeated rounds of diplomacy which we have talked about here. in successive settings we have supported the craning government offers to address those concerns that are legitimate of eastern ukrainians and russians speakers by political means and to offer an offering to separatists and

their russian backers. these efforts have culminated most recently in president poroshenko's broad reaching peace plan which he presented and it's not really just which offers amnesty to separatist to lay down their arms political dialogue or a decentralization of power ensured virtually all of the things that the separatists and their backers in moscow have said that are need needed. president poroshenko as you know also initiated on june 27 they tend a unilateral cease-fire to try to provide space for dialogue with separatists but as you also know this cease-fire was met with 10 days of violence, bloodshed and separatist land grabs as russia simultaneously allowed tanks and heavy artillery and fighters to blow across the border. on june 27 comic e.u. leaders again called on russia to end all support for separatist, to control the border to use its influence with separatists to

return to border checkpoints to ukrainian authorities that they had taken to release hostages and to launch substantial negotiations on the peace plan. these are the same criteria that the u.s. is continuing to use to measure russia's willingness to de-escalate tension in the ukraine. as president, has said we will judge russia by his russia by factions not biased towards. the u.s. and europe have imposed repeated rounds of sanctions to increase the cost russia pays for its choices and as you quoted mr. chairman lee are ready to impose more costs including targeted centric specific sanctions if russia does not decisively change course and break its support for separatist. as russia's economy teeters on the brink of recession in part from the cost of its intervention in ukraine and the impact of sanctions as noted in the latest i am report released a week ago russians need to ask

themselves what their government's policy has really delivered for them or for the people of ukraine other than economic hardship, violence kidnapping and death. today in towns recently retaken by craning forces from the separatists the ukrainian government is delivering humanitarian aid and restoring services. they are also working to restore the ukrainian people in their government's ability to provide a better future. ukraine's success or failure in its struggle for peace reconciliation and human dignity will impact the future of the entire region and with it the prospect for achieving america's twenty-year check if of a europe whole free and at peace. we therefore continue to have profound national interest in supporting the people of ukraine in their quest for more stable democratic and prosperous future and in this effort we deeply appreciate congress is continued

bipartisan support and look forward to your questions. >> secretary glaser. >> thank you chairman menendez ranking member corchran listing which members of this committee for inviting me to speak about the evisceration response to russia's occupation the annexation of crimea and is continued provocative actions elsewhere in eastern ukraine. in my remarks today i will discuss their continuing efforts to impose additional costs on those who seek to destabilize eastern ukraine and maintain the occupation of crimea. i'll describe the impact our actions have had on those targeted as well as the faltering russian economy. i will discuss the support within the international community have provided to ukraine for its economic recovery. president upon this issue three executive orders granting treasury authority to target is responsible for ongoing unrest in eastern ukraine. we now should buy brown submissions under those executive orders responded to the actions of russia and russian -- designating a total

of 52 individuals including four banks. in so doing we sought to have the greatest impact on the actions that threaten the sovereignty and territorial integrity of ukraine mainly separatist leaders members of the circle and the entities to support them and russian officials. actions have been complemented by designations announced by other countries including the e.u. canada and australia. most recently on june 20 treasury designated seven individuals attempted to establish illegal governments in ukraine who assisted in arming separatist kurds. united states is working with ukrainian authorities to identify and disrupt financing for those separatists. as parcel bomb has stated repeatedly the united states remains prepared to impose additional sanctions should circumstances warrant. currently we have developed a number of options including actions involving a broad range of sectors. of course such preparation of

close consultation with our partners to maximize the impact of the russian economy. for the past two weeks alone i personally traveled to france germany and the u.k. to advance preparations. as secretary lew lew is set at the moment comes for me to take additional steps we will be prepared to do so. our measures in the future and the threat of future measures have exacerbated pre-existing vulnerabilities of the russian economy weakened by years of establishment peer mf growth projections are currently close to zero. the uncertainty created by a combination of russia's conduct in ukraine and the ongoing threat of sanctions is lead to challenges for russia's outlook is economic policymakers. president putin himself has said western sanctions imposed on russia have had a real impact on domestic businesses including limiting access to funding for russian companies. as recently as this week russian deputy conceded that western sanctions are having an impact

on the economy. he went on to say that poe the effect of sanctions has intensified because of imposition coinciding with the fall of the russian economy. indeed we have witnessed more than $50 billion this year and the imf and the russian central bank projecting outflows reaching $100 million for the full year. increased risk premiums have caused a spike in borrowing costs shutting many russian companies are the external debt markets. while russian politicians project confidence in the face of sanctions the governments actions show otherwise. russian central bank is raised rates twice this year and spent $30 billion in foreign exchanges since march to stabilize the ruble and heavy capital outflows in the first quarter. despite these interventions of the russian role is depreciated by 5% since the beginning of the year. president putin said last month the government of russia made to intervene with budget funds to support russia's banks. as a robust salt of sanctions the russian government has

openly discussed diverting government funds. recently president putin stated that russia needs to look into re-capitalizing gazprom by the amount of a cost to build infrastructure in the far east. taken as a whole these measures indicate the russian government is focused on short-term crisis fighting in its actions are costing russia the investment needed to reverse downward economic trends. in addition to our measures to isolate the russian economy the united states government is working with the international community to spur ukrainian government returning the country's economy to solid footing. we are working with imf world bank and others to ensure ukraine as the subordinates over the coming months as outlined in greater detail in my written test money. by combining efforts to impose financial costs are threatening peace and security in ukraine with measures to encourage the economic recovery that government is working too good to be the development of a strong unified and prosperous ukraine. furthermore we are prepared to take additional strong measures to impose severe costs on russia

in defense of ukraine sovereignty and her true integrity. chairman menendez i'd be happy to answer any questions. >> thank you secretary. >> mr. chairman ranking member corchran members of the committee thank you for inviting me here today to discuss the ongoing crisis in ukraine and how the department of defense is working to help ukraine addresses security needs. we remain deeply concerned that security situation ukraine's east for the russian military rains actively in facilitating the movement of forces equipment and finances across the border. additionally russian regular forces and russian backed local separatist remain active inside eastern ukraine and both are supported by russian financing. these actions are not consistent with russia's pledge to stabilize the situation and seek a negotiated outcome. it is an r. and just have ukraine that is stable and secure. across the spectrum ukrainian leaders have made clear they want our help and we are committed to assisting them what is the message president obama

vice president biden secretaries kerry and hagel have made clear in their meetings with your craning counterparts in the past month. on security we are working to spur ukraine on three lines of effort. first continue to support ukraine's urgent supply needs needs. personal phone has approved 33 million security system since the beginning of the crisis. this is an order of magnitude beyond our systems in previous years to ukraine and more than four times a week provided to you claim last year. this assistance is starting to flow. we have to delivered 2000 sets of body armor first aid kits tactical radios and 5000 uniforms. soon we will send night vision devices thermal amateurs robots kevlar helmets and additional radios. we are actively pursuing additional sources of assistance which we will apply to ukraine's less pressing needs. second beyond the immediate supply needs the military needs support or enhance training and exercises. is president obama made clear after his meeting with president

poroshenko last month we are discussing additional steps to help train and professionalize ukraine's military. to aid the separate u.s. european command has established a senior steering committee with ukrainian counterparts to identify areas where we can improve our bilateral military cooperation conducts assessments and identify requirements we can address the training and development in those meetings are underway in kenya this week. third and perhaps most importantly will work with ukraine on reforming and in some cases rebuilding his defense institutions. while i was thinking of last month meeting with the crime in the end security officials the defense minister said the biggest obstacle to reform is the military might is oriented toward the old soviet way of doing things and they request or assistance in performing a lesser education education. it is a u.s. defense advisers would help ukrainians develop a sustainable reform program. to get this started a five-member team is in kiev a

few weeks ago and met with various officials. additionally embedded u.s. civilian advisers with ukrainian defense ministry can help the government build a national security strategy that provides a cohesive vision for the ukrainian military border guards national guard and other security institutions. another area in need of reform will be in the defense industry. ukraine is endowed with advanced offense -- defense of the showcase that employs 40,000 people which is in danger of collapse due to the current reliance on the russian market. given russia's aggressive actions in crimea demand scandals were the craning as understandably stop military sales to russia. to reverse the downward trend in the ukrainian defense industry the u.s. advisers can help develop long-term plans to attract other markets develop long-term investment plans and shift away from reliance on russia. mr. chairman members of this

committee the u.s. cannot achieve success in these three area security assistance by itself. we need others to join us for example badeaux allies have experience or on challenging defense reforms over past decades such as poland the baltic states can provide expertise on similar forms in ukraine and we need other allies to step up and help ukraine security forces to continue to reform and modernize and professionalize over the mediacom on term. we will also continue to lie on the leadership of congress especially in supporting the european reinsurance industry industry which president obama announcer was shipped to europe last month. this initiative of $1 billion will help the military to increase its defense presents and europe and cover enhance training readiness exercises and facility improvements in europe to reach allies and the initiative would also bolster her material assistance to key partners such as ukraine. i look forward to working with this committee and the commerce as a whole as we seek your

approval on this important effort. thank you and i look forward to your questions. >> thank you all. let me start with you secretary nuland. a month ago prisoner, promised more expansions to stop the violence in ukraine. in a pattern that seems increasingly familiar to all of us putin made -- suggested the appearance of russian withdrawal while engaging in other action such as having tanks crossed the border overseeing the card off to gas supplies hospital by anyone's standards and then reading from your own testimony russia has made too many commands of the diplomatic table over the past four months that have been rendered hollow by the weapons cache and fighters that continue to flow across the border to fuel the fight in eastern ukraine and that element

was also echoed by secretary chollet. i looked at what the standards were which were calling on russia to end all support for separatist whose control the border to establish a monitoring regime to use as templates for separatists to return checkpoints to craning porters to release the hostages they hold to negotiations on the implementation of president poroshenko's peace plan and i see no advance in any of those standards. so what are we waiting for? >> thank you chairman. i certainly don't disagree with your assessment that we have not seen progress in many of the areas i outlined orenstein the g7 outlined are the e.u. council outline. as i said when president poroshenko came into office he came in with his broad and deep peace plan and was committed to.

his first aspiration was to test it in concert with separatists of the first wanted to try to negotiate a cease-fire that was bilateral win after a couple of weeks of effort that failed he decided to initiate his cease-fire unilaterally. that was a testbed test that he asked the u.s. and europe twos support to see whether separatists would meet them halfway to sieg whether in fact russia would meet them halfway after the meeting at normandy brokered by chancellor merkel and president howland -- hollande. as you have noted and as i noted in my testimony that cease-fire came and went and in the process ukraine lost territory to separatists en masse border control posts in the weapons continued to flow. the europeans continue to try to bring the sides together to see

if a cease-fire can be reestablished. they have failed over the last week to do that because separatists have refused to meet in any location that is safe. so we are continuing to consult with our european allies. the president, the secretariat, all of us have been in constant day by day discussion with the europeans to assess and i think our analysis is the same, that we have not seen progress. in that context we are continuing to prepare the next round of sanctions as we have said repeatedly and as the president has said the sanctions will be more effective and they will be stronger if the u.s. and europe work together and we are working on does. >> i appreciate your answer in making that as substantive as possible to fix the question what are we waiting for? i understand all that. i understand president poroshenko tried and i think the ukrainian government has bent over backwards to try to get to

a peaceful resolution to get the russians to ultimately go along but all the russians call for his cease-fire and to take advantage of them and they do nothing in return. what is this about the ukrainian fighter pilot turning up in russian jails? how does russia justify having a ukrainian armed force member ending up in a russian jail? how is that an example of trying to resolve the problem? >> thank you for citing a case which is clearly a violation of international law and human rights. this is a ukrainian servicemember who was taken hostage on the battlefield by separatists about a month ago and she has now turned up as you said in a russian prison clearly making obvious that link between russia and separatists. senator, we are continuing the conversation with the europeans about the right moment for sanctions as they prepare for the last meeting of european

heads before the summer break which is july 16. >> so if perchance on july 16 the european union heads don't come to a conclusion and move ahead on sanctions which is only less than a week away or so then will we have the summer laps and putin will know that there are no consequences and the united states will stay on the sidelines waiting for the europeans? is that something we could actually expect? >> chairman as i said our goal is to act in concert with europe but the president has made clear that if necessary he will act. >> let me ask you this. we see the russians creating the secession of oil deliveries of gazprom to the ukraine and i would love to hear what that looks like going into the fall if it continues which will be not too far in the distance.

we have american companies helping russia learn how to drill offshore in the arctic and exploit their shale resources. now i don't think we should necessarily create a russian shale revolution and thereby strengthen russia's energy weapon which they have shown clearly they are willing to use and threaten others in europe. where's the administration on that issue? >> chairman we have made clear to u.s. business the risks of continuing to provide high-tech investments in the current climate. we have also in the context of our sanctions work internally and with the europeans focused intensively on what we might do in the next round with regard to technology investment. you're not wrong that russia depends on outside investment in order to take its energy exports

to the next level. >> in no russia is basically an extracting country. that is the biggest driver of the economy. it seems to me if the russians have shown themselves willing to use energy as a weapon which they have. ukraine is a perfect example but the european reticence is about energy then at the end of the day why would the united states in its national interest and national security interest allow entities to ultimately help the russians further develop their energy resources of than they would have more energy to be able to use it as a weapon in? is anybody thinking about that? >> we are thinking about that chairman. this is in the category of a set of measures one could take that would only be effective in terms of the goal that you seek if they were done in concert with europe because while the u.s.

has this technology so do some key european companies as well and we would not want a a situation of defying our companies. >> i doubt that there's anyone in the world as it dances united states and the specific technologies as her relates to shale exploration. so you know it seems to me that we fight with one hand behind her back and maybe two and with a leader who has no limitations from what i can gather other than when he is based with an equivalent countervailing force cities and their military or economic. and so you know i don't get it and i don't know how much longer there are going to be those of us willing to wait before we act independently. senator corker. >> thank you mr. chairman. your questions really are

similar to the kinds of questions i want to pursue. secretary nuland you have done a good job in keeping in touch with us and i appreciate that and yes i sometimes wonder whether the foreign service officers feel like resigning when you are put out there to continue to sound tough but know that nothing is really going to happen. i'm just curious if you could to the degree you can knowing that you are in the state department and have responsibilities what really is happening here with the sanctions? the fact is everything we said we were going to put sanctions in place for relative to russian actions has occurred, every single thing. they have never responded to the

threats, the hollow threats that we put out there. what is it really, what is really driving our feckless sanctions policy right now? is that the internal debate in the administration between the economic folks that are worried about the elections this fall that they won't do anything that might blow back on us economically and the security folks were concerned about about that bitter peace that we are basically establishing now with russia? is that what's driving it or is it the fact that we know europe is never going to come to the table? what is keeping us from doing some of the things that chairman as mentioned that i've talked to you about on the font? what is keeping us from going ahead and putting sanctions in place when we know the russian military equipment on the ground in eastern ukraine, you all know that, said it publicly. they are funding separatists read what else is it that we need to see happen before we actually put sanctions in place?

>> first of all chairman just to say it is my great honor to serve in his this position at this very vital moment. >> i know it has to be very frustrating to continue to wake up in the mornings and look in the mirror and practice talking to us but know that nothing is going to happen. really, i really respect your service that i would love for you to share with me when nothing is happening. >> first ranking member corker i think it is important to go back and look at the last few months and take some appropriate look at what might have happened had we not had the rounds of sanctions we have had. >> i don't want to hear that. i read the papers and i talk to you. i want to know, tell me what the rub is within the ministries and that is keeping a continuing to

lay out red lines and make threats but not act, continuing to undermine credibility, continuing to move towards this piece i alluded to. tell me what is keeping us from taking action today? military equipment on the ground? we know they are funding separatists. we know they are playing this to specific schema escalation in de-escalation. where we opting? >> again as assisted with regard to this next round it was the desire first of president poroshenko to test his peace plan. he is now done that. we are quite clear that we have not seen the results that we are seeking from russia so we are now talking to the europeans about when it is appropriate to live together. >> when is it appropriate? >> as i said their last heads meeting of the summer is as next week on july 16 and they very much and we very much preferred to move together so we are

looking at the evidence and we are building the packages as we move forward. >> you remember you told me at the last meeting that the last meeting we were going to have at the end of june and that was when we were going to take action. i know everybody on this panel has to be incredibly frustrated and again i just wish he would explain to me what it is internally so we can understand the dynamics within the white house, within the administration that is keeping us from going ahead and putting sanctions in place when we know exactly what is happening? >> i think the primary desire at the moment is to stay tightly coordinated with europe as we move forward because the sanctions will be stronger if we move together that chairman if i might for a minute just remind that there was a moment where we had 40,000 russian troops on the border. we threaten sanctions and those troops move back. >> that is absolutely untrue. that is absolutely untrue.

they stayed on the border for weeks and weeks and weeks afterward and they kept saying they were moving away. that is absolutely not true what you just said. >> there was a moment when we had 40,000 combat units ready to move. a lot of the move back that you are not wrong that when a significant number return. there was a time we felt we wouldn't have an election in ukraine it was the solidarity between the u.s. and europe including the threat of sanctions that help preserve the space for those elections so we have when we work together with europe and a bolt time and space for ukraine too recover. we need to the extent we can continue to work with europe because that will make the policy is effective as possible. >> i am embarrassed for us.

i just wish the administration would quit saying publicly for you and others the things that are being said when we know we are not going to act. we don't act. secretary glaser you talk about the damage we have done to the economy. i just had someone look and maybe we have read the chart wrong. look it up briefly and i apologize for not having done at an hour or so ago but the russian stock market is up 22% since march. whenever i talk to people in the white house they tell me how damaging the suspense of the russian economy and i keep citing stats that point to something very different. am i correct that the russian stock market is up 22% since march or am i reading the chart wrong? >> the russian stock market is up.

i don't know that's exactly the right number but i'm sure that's correct. >> just out of curiosity i know there are a few oligarchs that are probably having unpleasant travel experiences and maybe having assets frozen but how is this affecting business calculation when the economy is booming because i guess people around the world realize that you know our threats are hollow and we are never going to do anything. germany sees itself as a bridge between us and russia. the chairman and i were at a dinner one night where that was clearly point out that they are not going to take action. so how can you say that the sanctions we have put in place already have had any effect whatsoever on russian behavior? >> thank you for the question mr. senator. i don't think short-term gains in the russian stock market counterbalance the long-term real damage that we have done and are continuing to do to the

russian economy. that has been recognized by the russian government as i noted my testimony and recognized by a foreign governments. russian banks are having a hard time raising capital. as recognized by the russian people themselves is reflected by the $50 billion in capital funds we see already submitted to the 100 million by the end of the year. the russian government and the russian people and international investors who often recognize the russian economy has been severely damaged both by russian risk management and by our sanctions and the threat of future sanctions. i do think that we could point to the real impact we have had and i think it's a fair questi question. at what point is the start to impact russian strategic calculations and you're absolutely correct. i do think at this point as victoria has said what we have had to turn impact on russian terms of tactics but it's clear to all of us that as a strategic

matter their strategy remains the same and that is why we are working hard and true in working with their friends and partners in the g7 to make sure that when the time comes with a strong package of measures and i'm quite confident that at the time we will have a strong package of measures that will do their damage to the economy. >> mr. chairman thank you free time that it does want to close by saying that again i respect each of your service to our country and i know that each of you have to be somewhat disappointed in the actions that have not been taken. $33 million in assistance to the ukrainian military i mean i think that's nice. we still haven't done the things that they have asked us to do and i would say to secretary glaser the damage you are talking about to the russian economy we will see. i think our country acted on

such a paper tiger to the world on this and so many other fronts doing incredible long-term damage to our nation and i do hope at some point the administration will actually follow through on the things that continues to tout publicly. >> senator shaheen. >> thank you mr. chairman thank you all for being here. secretary chollet there were a number of reports or the weekend about successes of the ukrainian military and i wonder if you could talk a little bit about how substandard if we think those successes were, what we attribute those two and what response we are seeing out of russia. >> thanks senator. you're absolutely right there up in a were the last four or five days significant successes by the ukrainian military in the east major cities like do not was liberated in several key

cities that are largely surrounded by ukrainian military. we are watching that situation closely. there is probably not one single answer to why we are seeing the tide turned for the moment and i want to stress that this isn't over yet. although the trend line is good for now we need to watch this very closely. it could be that the cease-fire period about the craning military to reorient itself as you have seen president poroshenko had been very active in the planning and leadership of this. he was just yesterday just in military fatigues and a fields talking to his troops and generals. also i think you can see although there is a significant russian presence on the border that has been reduced. we are still seeing weapons appear on one side of the border and the other side of the border that are clearly russian origin but i think it's a combination of a little bit of a lessening

of support by russia but also an opportunity for the ukrainians to regroup after this quickly cascading crisis over the previous months. >> again if i can ask you to answer on why do we think russia has pulled back somewhat and what do we think their continued response will be if the ukrainian military continues to be successful? >> i do think the sanctions have helped. i think they did have an effect and they certainly changed putin's calculation on how much support he would be willing to give and how deeply you would get into this. the ukrainians have also been able to improve border security. they have said their border is sealed along the east. that has been a porous border. why was there a month ago it was described how many cases it's not even demarcated the border

between ukraine and russia so i think we have to be very mindful of what the russian response could be and that is why we are watching this so closely. it's a very dangerous situation and of course the ukrainians seem to be vigilant themselves and how they handle a situation terms of civilian casualties and surrounding the cities and they have stressed to us that they are going to be very careful about how they handle the situation. i think we have to really expect the worse in terms of russian response and that is why we are watching is so closely. >> secretary nuland can i ask you to respond to that too? assuming that the ukrainians continued to be successful in throwing the row road both of the cities that they are holding and actually enforcing them, many of whom are russian backed into russia what do you think putin's response will be and are we concerned that their success means that russia will be more aggressive than coming into

eastern ukraine? >> again senator i think it depends on how putin ultimately calculates his interests. he has other ways to create pressure and destabilization on ukraine including the energy and economic court but our hope ps the ukrainians as secretary chollet said hard in the end make it more difficult to covertly support the separatists, that the choices become more stark for rush at least on the military side. another factor that i think has contributed to the ukrainian success is that in the towns that separatists have held before they were liberated human rights abuses, looting, abuse of the civilian population have gravely turned those in the east

who may have had affinity towards russia or may have had affinity towards the separatist agenda in the beginning firmly the ukrainian military has benefited from improved intelligence from the population that wants these guys gone. so it's a matter of ukrainians continuing to deploy careful judicious tactics, to make a success and restore good livelihood and places likes slow bonds that are free and also continuing to raise the cost of military intervention by raising that border by making it clear that in the international committee we will sanction against military, more transfe transfers. >> are we seeing poroshenko being willing to address

corruption within the country and what kinds of concrete steps has he taken and has he committed to take? >> the government just last week published its three-year anticorruption plan and its six-month action plan. as you know senator they have already started to put a legislative base in place that was part of the imf conditionality. there is more legislative base required as part of their association with the european union. the key focus of this six-month action plan are preventing conflict of interest to public servants, strengthening punishment for corruption, judicial reform going after some of the most corrupt folks in the system. e-government creating transparency, those kinds of things that we are creating

significant u.s. assistance to help in the anticorruption effort as is the european union but we will have to judge them.they implemented it. it's a difficult pernicious problem throughout society as you know. >> is that an agenda that's helpful as they are taking back cities in eastern ukraine to be able to show very specific actions and are they willing to do that or do they have support through russian facilities in those countries? >> it was the number one plank on which president poroshenko ran for office. anticorruption clean government clean ukraine europe and peace were his three platforms. they have now got to prove it on all sides. in eastern ukraine number one concern is economic opportunity and the fact that it's been essentially a rust belt heavy industry economy. so as the ukrainian government takes back parts of eastern

ukraine they are reaching out to us, they are reaching out to the european union asking for support for microprojects and other things that will quickly jumpstart the economy and over the long-term diversification of that economy away from the industry and into things that will bring innovation and technology in opportunity to donetsk. >> my time is up. i thank you but i would suggest energy efficiency as they are looking at projects is one great opportunity that they should take advantage of. >> thank you. secretary nuland i think we are all -- by what we have heard in the last couple of weeks particularly the military successes and how we attribute that. i think we are all surprised the ukrainian military is showing more strength than they seem to have the four but also i think a lot of it is the fact that the elections were good, went well.

the government has legitimacy. people have supposed -- hope in the east at least with regard to further action by the russians in their calculations and their own sanctions i couldn't agree more that sanctions are more effective. i have felt that another areas of the world when they are multilateral and not unilateral and it's far more effective. we work hand in glove with yo you -- with europe. say the same situation we have today roughly persists that russia plays this game may be the ukrainian military is successful and often taking another city were pushing back a little. i just want your honest assessment of where europe is here. will they move forward in imposing tougher sanctions if we have anything approximating the status quo in ukraine? >> it is my judgment based on

hours and hours of consultation with europeans and trips across 20 of the 28 european union countries that if russia does not stop rearming separatists, does not stop the financial support that we will have european support for another round of sanctions. it may not be completely parallel to everything that we want to do but this is the process moving forward. there was no one in europe who thinks that is happening in eastern ukraine is in the e.u.'s interest or europe's interests and everybody wants to get back to a place where there are civilized relations between russia and ukraine. >> can you describe outside of sanctions what efforts are being made to push back on russia's failure to pull back i should say further than they have? aside from sanctions what

efforts is the state department under taking? >> we have also working with europe put in place an intensive campaign of diplomatic and political and to some extent economic isolation. for example as you know the u.s. has these virtually all military-to-military cooperation with russia and sees virtually all economic cooperation at the ever met level and high technology and that kind of thing. the europeans have largely match that. you will recall that we downgraded the g8 back to the g7 and headed in brussels without the russians. none of us with the exception of normandy and a couple of other things have been welcoming the senior-level russians in our capitals. we have been restricting the work we did on those things that are clearly in our global shared interest. >> mr. chollet the ukrainian military benefits from partners

of peace program of nato. how is that helping them prepare and grow into the capabilities they need? >> absolutely. it has helped them. over 20 years they have been a nato partner and operated with u.s. and nato forces in places like kosovo and iraq and afghanistan still today so there is no doubt that their partnership with nato has helped them in the course of this crisis. the fact that they partnered with nato has helped this diplomatically and militarily in supporting theories means in brussels. secretary carrie and secretary haeckel in the council so there's a lot of support they get and practical help that they get and nato is also seeking ways to continue to help ukraine reform and professionalize its military. >> is the ukrainian military satisfied with their governments to bolster the military they

are? >> in my talks a month ago with the defense minister we have a new defense ministry as well as the national security adviser we talked about the support they were looking for in some of which is support that's been delivered since my visit particularly the body armor as they were very focused on. their other items on the way to pay for things like night vision and border security. it's something that they are very focused on. they have a very long list of tasks that you've probably seen an part of the pointed discussions that i've had in secretary haeckel is head and our european command team is having today in key others to talk with him in more detail about further needs that they have. >> thank you mr. chairman. >> senator merkel. >> thank you mr. chairman.

>> this long-term engagement in which we are creating a contrast with russia for the countries that lie along the fault line between east and west and what matters the most to me is the work that we do over years and decades to rebuild the economic and military capacity of those countries so that they truly do have a choice. i joined with senator corker and lacking an day for the position that you are in but for different reasons. i think we want to be careful not to be too responsive in the short-run so as to pollute the efforts of many to make in coordination with the europeans. the russians used to be the best and that is how they expelled napoleon from russian territory. today, they are all about

short-term return. we now have the advantage in seeing the lawn -- the long gain here. i want to secretary nuland challenge a bit of your optimism about where europe is heading. i agree with senator flake that we have got to do this to the extent possible in coordination with europe but we seem to be moving backwards in some ways. the french are arming the russians. there is a half dozen e.u. countries now that are considering building the south stream pipeline even though it contravenes the third energy package directives out of the e.u.. i just think that further complicates your work. it's more recent i a. i don't envy the position you are and because i think you are working with a continent in which they fundamentally disagree as to what kind of the existential

threat russia presents them. we tell them they have to be serious about this in a turnaround and have a very different view. am i wrong to think that in some ways europe is moving in the wrong direction rather than in your estimation holding a neutral position pending new developments? >> senators as you know because you have traveled to very large numbers of the countries under my responsibility, there are lots of different views and lots of different situations within europe in terms of their historic structural dependency on russia. what we are trying to do in the conversation is make the point that you have made that everything is connected to everything and what we offer is a democratic free market model and that is what we need to support in ukraine and moldova and georgia. on things like south stream you made a good impact when you were

in bulgaria and that was very important for u.s. diplomacy. i would give a shout-out to the e.u. which is suspended support for south stream until it can a guy with the larger dependency impacts of that project and we are working intensively with the european union on the larger issue with the nationstates of energy diversification giving them other options enter connectors, lng other sources energy to reduce their dependence and what we are involved with. i think it's an issue of continuing to talk to the europeans about our larger strategic interest of creating less dependency on countries that are autocratic in countries that use trade as a weapon and countries that use energy as a weapon and more of a vibrant market set of principles within

europe. >> so my default is to do this in concert with europeans but when we are in bulgaria we saw the effective unilateral sanctions. we sanctioned russian individual not exactly sure why bulgaria decided to hault construction but there's a lot of speculation was part of a was they were worried about the consequences being sanctioned by the newsday said the question to you mr. glaser is you think about the impact of unilateral sanctions there shortly seems to be evidence that if europeans are willing to move because there is impact with the united states. >> absolutely mr. senator and as secretary nuland said president obama has repeatedly emphasized that we will be prepared to act alone if we need to go alone and you're right the united states plays a pivotal role in the

address in the economy and a pivotal role in the financial system and that does give us power. it's leverage that we have been using as you point out mr. senator in the case of russia. frankly many of our sanctions programs across a wide range of issues. we have repeatedly shown the math alone we cannot act in a meaningful way as i tried to outline in my testimony. all that said i should point out it is obviously the case that we will be more effective and more powerful politically and is that practical matter if we move forward with the european union and move forward with the g7. i they think the time spent trying to put all that together is time well spent. >> by the way we have a lot of other irons in the fire when it comes to the work that the state department is doing with europe some that matter more to national security interest in ukraine does france and the iranian nuclear negotiations. we had a great hearing yesterday

senator nuland on european energy security and thank you for sending your deputy to join us. the last question for you there was some dispute amongst our second panel on who benefits and who was hurt by continued dispute over gas supply from russia into ukraine through to europe. some think that will ultimately hurt ukraine because they will be seen as having to make a choice between their own citizens and passing gas along to europe and other stuff that might move to energy independence if they continue to see the downside of reliance on transit through ukraine. what is your guess on who stands to lose the most from a prolonged dispute over gas transit through ukraine? >> i would say in the short-run both russia and ukraine lose because they don't have other options than to deal with each other and ukraine as you know makes valuable revenue by being

a transit company -- transit count country. including diversifying. it doesn't have to be just a transit hub for russia. it can be a transit hub into other countries from europe if we can energize the market but obviously the best outcome will be with the europeans help and the commissioner as you know is trying to midwife negotiations and that they can come to an agreement on a fair european market price in stable conditions for the next year or year and a half and demonstrate to the world that they are both reliable in this regard. as you know russia has not been willing as yet to guarantee a year-long price to ukraine. >> senator rubio. >> thank you mr. chairman thank you all for being here. i know you have a difficult job.

i wanted to secretary nuland focus on a bill that has been filed in the senate called the russian aggression prevention act of 2014 and i was hopeful that we could get the administrations apart. let me get the thinking behind. first let me describe how i view the situation but it seems to me that his plan is careful in his ultimate goal and i don't think you would disagree with this if he wants to coerce ukraine in kiev into an agreement that insurers russian influence over ukraine's foreign policy. they have a two-pronged plan to do this. on the one hand they provide support for separatist. i have seen evidence they are making significant transfers of heavy weapons to separatists in eastern ukraine of tanks and vehicles. the sound time they are keeping alive the threat of military intervention. they have created a rhetorical groundwork for that intervention for humanitarian reasons that they have made up that they are

also open sources. on the northeastern ukrainian border for the first time since the may withdrawal of forces and that includes armored vehicles artillery air defense units. my sense is that given the recent offensive gains made by key of the threat of military intervention will rise again. the flipside of it is they play this very careful game, this public world that they have of calling for a cease-fire so they can appear like they are the mediators and key of this aggressor. until now they have quite frankly played that game well. for example and putin asked that the force of authorization to the use of force authorization be lifted immediately thereafter the e.u. foreign ministers decided not to impose additional sanctions and by the way i think is part of the a broader strategy that they have of dividing or cutting into western sanctions.

but i also think and this is my guess here but i would be curious to your input on it that there are serious divisions in moscow about the way forward. the one hand to the hardliners which putin may be one of them want to see a tougher stance in you probably have the separatism sells feeling as much as moscow has done it should be more and on the other hand you probably have a elitist and the government that worry about the broader implication of more sanctions. one example especially in the energy sector is that a show is going to soon overtake europe as russia's leading export market especially after the latest deal but they will struggle i believe to meet their demands and the commitments they have made. sanctions have made it harder for them to access foreign financing western technology. for example one of the ways they choose to make their commenced to china is in the eastern siberia feels that they intend to use but this field will be harder to develop because they have high levels of deposits of helium and so forth. similar to a challenge they are facing off the coast of i than

thank -- say it are 10 years off base in terms of doing now. obviously they haven't shown me the deal but i would bet you in the deal they have done with china the bank of china has probably reserved the right to revoke lines of credit if russian companies can't access credit or can't access the technology because a the broader western sanctions. ..