and the deputy defense minister of ukraine was there. at each of these junctures, nato has released a statement of support for the ukrainian people. as the deputy mentioned, the baltic air policing mission, secretary hagel announced that the u.s., which is currently managing that operation -- we f-15s.d four we will add additional f-15s. they will participate in the nato air policing mission. that is reassuring. lies are made nervous by the events in ukraine and what russia has been doing. how those speak to actions are being received in russia? clear with our

russian counterparts about what we are doing. chairman dempsey has had several conversations with his counterpart in russia. we have been open with them. route --taking this rather metastatic -- rather matter-of-factly. that is good. we are seeking to reassure partners who are rightfully nervous. determined to remain transparent. yesterday, in brussels, there was a nato-russia council meeting. it did not go particularly well. nato is trying to send a clear sign of support and reassurance to nato partners. we are trying to be transparent as much as we can with the russians to rid -- with the russians. you have talked in your

testimony about the islamic state of iraq. can you talk about the extent to we think there is collaboration -- i don't know if that is the right term -- with al qaeda on their activities. how are they directing things that are happening in iraq and syria? as opposed to al qaeda? sure. the group that you mentioned him the priorcation of iraq. al qaeda in they are now engaged in a public controversy about whether they are part of al qaeda, core al qaeda.

group ism line is the a group with the same ideology and has been involved in significant amounts of violence in syria as well as iraq. they have demonstrated brutal tactics in both locations. as i mentioned, the degree of and ine in iraq particular, falluja, has risen to a level we have not seen for several years. >> my time is up. >> senator blake. >> thank you for your service. deputy secretary burns, with howrd to the sanctions, effective do you expect those to be? unless our european partners move ahead with some financial sanctions of their own? dealing with asset somehow? assets somehow?

what can you tell us about what the ee was doing? >> the executive order that the president signed as well as the visa bans at the state department is putting into effect are significant steps. we will have more impact if we do more with our european partners. leaders are meeting right now. they are looking at concrete actions they can take to read have taken -- that they can take. they have taken some already. . they're looking at further serious steps they can take. the stronger the effect will be. that is why we will work intensely with our european partners. >> thank you. the out quite -- the outcry from the europeans may stop for the time being. if they are looking

to hunker down. crimea, they are moving forward with a referendum or election any week. -- in a week. the russian parliament is looking for a way to allow them to be annexed or somehow swallowed up by russia. russiag that happens, tries to give some sense of legality to all this that way, how long do you think our european allies will hopeful threshold forward with sanctions? regimee sanctions effective in the long term? what is your feeling? a coupler, i would say of things. there is not any way in which the russians can put a patina of legality or legitimacy on the

referendum. it runs contour -- counter to the ukrainian constitution. that any attempts to alter the territory of ukraine has to be approved by a ukrainian referendum. determined --are to increase significantly costs if the situation escalates. over the long-term, what russia will face if it persists in this is going to be not only increasing costs but into national isolation. which does have a consequence at a moment when russia has challenges. changes in the global energy market. is that shehat none is not growing as much as before. domestic challenges. >> they are sure trying to put a

patina of legality. with regards to russia and our cooperation with them, what can you tell us about how recent events have affected that cooperation? i'm sorry if this is ground you have already plowed. i came late. >> i will be brief. we have been frustrated by the foot dragging of the syrian regime. russia remains committed to the object which is the removal and instruction of syria's chemical weapons. week, beginning of next about 35% of the stockpile should be removed from syria. it is possible to meet the 30th of june target that has been set and it is vitally important to do that. it is an area where russia has a self-interest in trying to make sure that happens.

it is not a favor to the u.s.. hass something russia committed to. i'm hoping we can publish site goal. >> some of the sanctions that are contemplated have involved withration or lack thereof with russia on certain issues. how would that impact our ability to carry forward the agreement in syria? predict,hard to senator, but as i said, russia, having made a visible and public commitment to accomplishing the of the chemical weapons stockpile has a self-interest in ensuring that happens. we will do everything we can to help ensure it does. >> thank you. >> senator murphy. -- senator johnson reference the fact that there are people that believe this is

a sign of russian weakness. count me among them. only two weeks ago, russia had the president of ukraine under there some. a country that had reversed course and committed to a relationship with russia. moved away from europe. today, the situation is different. no matter the future disposition of crimea, there are 43 million other ukrainians, 95% of the country's relation. they now have a government oriented towards europe. --ountry russia now faces they face economic stations that could be damaging. a future as an international pariah. less ability to influence the future course of democratic values.

ultimately, the question is, what is his end goal? if this is a panicked reaction to viktor yanukovych's removal from office, what he is seeking is not just control of crimea but to influence events in kiev that he thinks he has the event -- ability to keep the country out of the eu. that doesn't seem to be the direction this is going. i want to make sure we do everything through our ability to expel russian troops out of crimea. tomatter what his ability club the future of crimea's legal status, i want to hear your take on whether this has anything to do with -- whether he has any affect on what seems a predestined path of ukraine into the european union in. if presentct --

events continue on the course -- will be to solidify ukrainians around their commitment to their independence and sovereignty. deep in their interest and connection to the u.s. and west. their interest and connection to the u.s. and west. what president clinton --viktor yanukovych --vladimir putin looks for is governments that are deferential to russian interests. it is one thing to recognize they have legitimate interests in ukraine. that doesn't justify illegitimate actions. those actions in the long haul will undermine russia and its ability to influence its neighbors. >> we have talked about the fact that just because there are ethnic russians and russian

crimea, in ukraine and that equates to russian sympathizers. that is simply not the case in that part of the world. also not the case in many parts of this country with ethnic russians. to follow up on the question regarding nato, there are those that have suggested the move on -- to emit georgia and ukraine into nato because we would then have an obligation to defend them. ane have argued it is argument for why we should admit you're just. -- admit georgia. how does the administration view the events of the last pep -- several weeks?

in particular with regards to georgia and nato? >> american policy across the administration has been to support an open door for nato. with regard to georgia, to support support georgia's interest and eventual number ship. -- membership. that is a decision that must be taken within the alliance. american policy has not changed. >> finally, this is not a question that needs to be answered. let me say i do not necessarily share your optimism about the direction our european friends are going. i hope the summit today results in a new commitment to join us in sanctions. i'm glad the administration took these initial steps today. given the fact that our economic billion --p is $400

$40 billion, and europe's is forces billion dollars. billion, we will see what the results are from our european allies. >> thank you, mr. chair. thanks to the witnesses. two comments and then i want to ask questions about syria. i associate myself with comments suggesting the move in the crimea is a sign of weakness. -- lead toy to leave back onto quinces for russia. consequences for russia. i associate myself with the comments raised by folks around the table. our energyuse resources to accomplish our foreign-policy objectives.

the energy resources give us the ability to provide a backstop and help countries wing betweenes away from -- themselves away from autocratic countries. we do have the ability to use pullesources to help people away from countries they associated with. i returned from a trip to lebanon with senator mccain. -- it wasearing about shocking. challenge,de of the millions of -- over a million refugees. you talked to them about any issue, syria -- it is a dark

star that warps everything with gravity. water resources, energy resources, tourism and the economy. despite political instability, lebanon has been free from the kind of terrorist bombing activity that has been the norm there. as soon as hezbollah started to go all in for assad, sunni extremists said they are going to, and fight. there has been the violence. we were heading to a meeting in downtown beirut. suicide bombers exploded themselves outside and iranian cultural center. the topic is the spillover effect. the effect in lebanon is absolutely massive. it strikes me as we are

grappling with what the u.s. can do, there are four areas we can be engaged. humanitarian aid to syrian refugees. we are the top provider of aid in the world. not that we can't do more and be calling on other nations to do more. in terms of who is providing that aid, we are number one. there is not a close second. second is eight inside of syria. -- aid inside of syria. there are millions of refugees inside of syria that have been displaced. russia has been the stone wall against a delivery. -- aid delivery. during the winter olympics when the light of the world was on them, russia finally agreed after vetoing security council resolutions to a resolution about the delivery of aid.

the first question i want to ask you, that was done in mid-february. many weeks ago. there was a 30 day reporting requirement. what have you seen in terms of humanitarian aid delivery inside syria since the resolution? >> it remains a huge problem. we have not seen huge progress since the passage of the resolution. to try toovide a tool ensure not only that the siege -- it literally is a siege of certain cities -- is lifted. we can establish humanitarian access. we are working hard at that. pershing the russians -- pressing the russians and others to make it a reality. that wewant to suggest have seen dramatic overnight progress. we will see everything we can -- do everything we can to improve

the situation. >> my time is almost up. the other elements where we can be helpful but we have to --pple with as far as policy military support. finally, the diplomacy. the geneva talks have been a failure thus far, but there is no substitute. do you share the view that the current idle field situation in syria is essentially a stalemate? is likely to last a long time without either side being able to claim a decisive victory. >> the civil war is a bloody stalemate right now. the assad regime controls some parts of the country but not others. longer that bloody stalemate continues, the greater the human costs for syrians.

also the greater danger to the region, not just for lebanon but also a rack. -- iraq. >> i want to strongly contest the idea that massive exploitation of american energy is going to affect the ukraine. i want to say this because i believe our greatest strength is our national economy. that is what makes us strong. that is why we are strong abroad. the administration has proved five export terminals come a which have the capacity to feet of trillion natural gas. they say that could lead to increase -- an increase in domestic prices. that is a $62 trillion tax on

americans every year. close to $600 billion or $700 billion over a 10 year period. it will slow the conversion from -- coal plants to natural gas plants. it will slow the conversion of oil run buses and trucks over to natural gas. you result, we will contact -- continue to import more oil from places we should not import it. it will slow our economic recovery because of the subsidy. except for labor, it is the largest discretionary item. moreover, the whole idea that our natural gas is going to the ukraine is wrongheaded. executive at exxon mobil has

it relationship with his shareholders. the price he will get in south america or china is higher than in the ukraine. congress and the president do not control where the gas goes. we are a capitalist country. it will go with the highest price, and his is not ukraine. here.d a national debate we have a tremendous economic recovery being driven by the low cost of natural gas. a $62are going to lead to billion a year increase, i can understand what >> and the american gas associate and -- understand what the american gas association wants. i will tell you this. there is a huge price we pay in weakening america's economy. that is our greatest strength. that is what allows us to strive

-- stand astride the world. partner with us. that is why the ukraine wants to move toward the west. it is our economy that makes us attracted to them. not our tanks. not our jets. it is the economy. that is what the young people want. there, free market out aaron natural gas is not going to the ukraine. no president or secretary of state can direct it that way. we cannot compete with russian pop lines. -- pipelines. it costs six dollars just to liquid eyes it. -- liquidize it. if we try to disperse the gas around the world, it will help the chinese and south americans but have a small impact on the ukraine.

people will look back and say, what were they thinking? they had an incredible asset at the allowed to be misused. to theess with regard ukraine, i think there is another dimension. lessen theirnians dependence on russian national --. -- natural gas. whether it is developing resources like shale. those are the things we are trying to work actively on. i recognize i am no expert on global energy markets. i understand what you're saying about the trade-offs involved here. assistn't think in all -- the analysis, it is just some big idea. credibleome from a manufacturing resident --

renaissance we have had in the u.s. because of natural gas. what does that do? manufacturers for and consumers will be threatened. if we want the petrochemical fertilizer, manufacturing energy is one of the biggest single factors. five dollars in the u.s.. want to double it? it will hurt us here in america. we need a big national debate over the wheel gas in jail. -- oil, gas, and shale. >> thank you. 37 years of experience in the house? [laughter] question.one final

>> i do as well. >> secretary, a question and a caution. the question is, in light of what has happened here with russia, considering the announcements of the secretary of defense about our overall plans for the future, it does this give us pause to reconsider what we are doing in europe? >> in terms of military posture? >we maintain a robust posture in europe. even though we have had to come down since the end of the cold war, we still have many forces deployed. the cutie are that was released several days ago make sure that despite the pressures we face, the commitment to a rebalance to asia, we are privileging the trancelike -- transatlantic

alliance. we will have the forces in place to work closely with our allies in nato. part of what we are trying to do is building strong partners. the aviation detachment in poland is a perfect example of can worknited states closely with our polish partners to reassure them and build up their capability to work with us and take care of our security. >> and appreciate that -- i appreciate that. it is not a challenge to the russians. i just think that it is a moment to think about where we are headed here. there were presumptions. i'm not sure that based on current events, those presumptions don't need to be reviewed. i agreed to arms

sales to iraq after a lot of concerns and collective work to get to a point where i thought it was a good idea to do. israelisports of stopping a ship with dozens of rockets, including syrian made understand,t as i iran, wentcame from to iraq, where they were placed on ships -- the cubans used sugar, here they used to cement to hide the missiles -- and then went to the coast of africa, where they were interceded. whether it is

overflights by iran into syria, or being a place where you can send missiles and then having them boarded on a commercial to evade what are violations of international norms of shipments of missiles -- that behavior is not acceptable and comes with consequences. to help you try move forward, i get set of circumstances where i grow in my concern about the iraqis. as i look attion others, our iraqi partners need to understand there are consequences for this behavior.

consequences until we have settled -- there is a series of things here. i have been willing to be helpful. i get concerned. >> senator corker. , here we are. this committee has done everything it can to support and bolster things that the administration has tilted at publicly. the fact we are having a hearing on syria, we have a counterterrorism person here because we know what is happening in syria now. person involved in international defense issues working on the region. the region has been destabilized because of lack of follow-through.

it is disappointing. i respect the public service of everybody on our panel. this is the point where we have -- syria in solly other than dealing with chemical weapons. at a slow pace. i am very disappointed. it is even more difficult to have a policy because we did not take actions earlier on. the administration -- this is a telling panel. i appreciate this hearing. i think it is incredible thing to have this foreign relations hearing. we weren't able to get the senator from massachusetts to get a seven minute -- on the importance of fossil fuels to archive me. -- our economy.

i thank you for that. >> what you yield as the ranking member? >> only five minutes. it was only three of my minutes. >> it was a great testament to the importance of inexpensive fossil fuels to archive me. -- our economy. the things that the state department is looking at? i understand there were trade issues. they are more difficult than just waving a wand. thatare some of the things are being discussed relative to how energy policy in our nation help?t help -- can >europeans don't look like they

are acting extremely courageously. what are some of the things that might be considered relative to eat -- energy that might be important right now? >> the most important thing we can do, senator with regard to ukraine. this to help them develop their own energy resources. take advantage of technology as the polls have done. -- poles have done. central asia and other energy producers -- they can help them improve energy efficiency. practical things that we can do. quite apart from the broader debate that you have both been talking about.

how does the united states vest use what will be an enormous asset is to mark -- enormous asset? >> is there any discussion about that? conversation -- on considerations being made for using this resource we have today? >> there certainly is. a lot of strategic consideration been given to how this huge asset might affect strategy and foreign policy. it will have to flow from a national debate. there are a lot of parts of the executive ranch that will be affected as well. provideing to significant assets for the united states for many decades to come. that asset and how we use it is

going to have an impact on the leverage of countries like russia that for many years have an abundance of hydrocarbons as a tool for national security. so -- relative to how we use haveresource we should high-level discussions? to help us with some of the -- in europeurope with ukraine itself? >> there certainly are high-level discussions. echost briefly, i want to -- i have a great respect for my massachusetts colleague's understanding of these issues. it is appropriate that we are having a national debate about this.

you'll find that the position we should use in a strategic and specific weight are assets to accomplish national security objectives. not based on an illusion or lack of analysis. we may see there is no advantages, but the advantages are outweighing the domestic pricing or domestic effects. from nations that have received waivers to enable them iranian oil, for example, without -- they get a waiver because they are -- and their economies would not function without a rainy and oil -- iran ian oil. that can be a very powerful

lever in attempting to find a diplomatic path. i think a national debate is a good idea. i think there will be trade-offs. we went to keep everything onshore. assetlief that this is an , it is sort of without analysis. it has been proven -- >> ok. >> i can do it in one minute. >> we are a capitalist country, not a coming this country. russia -- they can direct their oil anyway they want. we cannot do that. allow for a rise, the

large bus and truck fleet is able to go to natural gas. thatu do one third of fleet, you get rid of one million barrels of oil we are imported from the middle east. really -- that isolates us from any pressure from russia. they don't have control over our energy situation. we have to be careful that we don't lose the opportunity. that's what conversion of fired buses and trucks allows. -- secretary kerry said this, climate change is a national security issue. the sooner we turn over from coal to natural gas as the sooner we will meet our targets

at copenhagen and later at peter's -- paris. i asked for a real debate, not illusionary debate. you.nk thank you.you -- i >> let me think this panel for a lot of insight. there is no difference between us and setting up to russia's aggression as it relates to the ukraine and what we need to do in response. i look forward to the committee coming together to do that by early next week. this panel is excused. >> the foreign relations committee heard from foreign policy scarry's. -- scholars. here is part of the hearing.

>> we want you to summarize your statements to five minutes. stein --n this --man and and menendez, it is an honor to appear before you. war is likely the to kenya you for a long time in syria. we shouldn't rule out the possibility that the regime could fall fast. this could be combined with the field reversals. -- battlefield reversals. that the now clear the war willio is continue for a decade or more. his position is bolstered by two factors. he is supported by iran and

russia. he has a brazen willingness to to flourish relative to other rebels. preventedry has not islamic groups from holding territory as it has done for more moderate factions. the strategy has served its purpose. the role jihadist splay has fromred western country throwing weight behind the opposition. a major whipple -- ripple is foreign fighters. be every bit the equal for what the afghan soviet war meant. ath complex have attracted large number of sunni muslim

fighters. unfortunately, many foreign fighters have joined the factions. any afghan soviet war, relationships amongst militants endured for decades. they change the international security environment. it gave her to al qaeda. -- birth to al qaeda. like the afghanistan war, the syrian war will have are flung consequences. 11,000 foreign fighters have been drawn to the battlefields. arabs whoe number of went to afghanistan in the 1980's. there are concerns about their jihadistonnections to groups. many of these fighters hail from western europe. this is a top national security concern in several western european countries. be feltct is likely to

most acutely outside the west. have joined the jihad. saudis have joined the war as well. given their population it isions, there -- difficult for them to absorb the foreign fighter challenge. the afghan soviet war shows that foreign fighters produce consequences in unanticipated ways. indonesians are for the first time going overseas to fight, not just to train. that has given rise to concerns this conflict may breathe new life into an extreme group. written testimony emphasizes what we have seen in lebanon and iraq. this is a serious concern.

already, the serial war is a tragedy. war -- syria for is a tragedy. i would describe the u.s. policy response as confused. i share the frustrations about our strategic rift. we seem to vaguely know what we don't want to happen, but have no idea how to get there. there is a risk that the more involved we get, the greater danger we get drawn into the conflict in ways we do not intend. be dealingy should with the massive humanitarian crisis. something we should do for moral and strategic regions -- reasons. acceptable and perhaps desirable for the u.s. to arms forsmall and's --

rebel factions. we should resist the attempt nation to send antitank or anti-aircraft weapons. riskspresent significant that the weaponry could end up in jihadist camps. a reality the 21st century is we need to do with the environment of constrained resources. in syria, it is difficult to achieve gains at an acceptable cost. i look forward to talking to you. >> thank you very much. n honor to be here. there are multiple connections between the two issues. one is that president assad announced he is supporting putin. the war in syria is a humanitarian catastrophe that threatens to put -- terror the war apart he read it has

injected new oxygen into terrorist groups. means limited to groups associated with al qaeda. we are now facing a sharp rise of violence. past few weeks, much of the discussion has focused on diplomatic talks. the regional implications of syria i want to focus on three things. one of the flow fighters to syria and then act home and the impact this is having in the region. in the region which is already happening. third, the macro trends, the kind of things that create conditions that are conducive to long-term violence and instability. as i was think about the hearing, i reread a 1993 report

written by the state department's inr. they discuss things like foreign fighters coming home from afghanistan. if you take out afghanistan in syria,-- and insert there are things that could have been written yesterday. the note that the greatest number of foreign fighters on both sides come from the middle east. the likelihood, and we are already seeing this, the majority of fighters will go home and attack in their regions three -- regions. we have seen an israeli arab convicted for fighting. we have seen suicide bombers going there. we have seen people carrying out attacks in a -- egypt.

on.cases go on and notedrs ago, the inr that the support network was it -- contributing fighters to groups worldwide. it will be again today. of the report is entitled, when the boys come home. there is a libyan group operating in syria. setting up a bakery and setting up -- giving up aid to communities. supporting only assad and hezbollah, but supporting al qaeda elements. raising money through kuwait from iran. allowing al qaeda elements to do that with iran. in terms of the proxy issue,

this is no longer a simple rebellion. it has grown into the case of a proxy war between sunni gulf states and iran. this is something that will set the stage for the next decade. while the war itself might be ssuetiable, the sectarian i is not. we'll create conditions for instability over the next decade. it talks about things that it describes as, looming disequilibrium. today. seeing problems with force -- economic impacts on fragile economies and neighborhoods. jordan in particular. lebanon in particular. this is something we are seeing in spades now.

anticipated this kind of chronic instability in the middle east is something we would see. it highlighted iraq, libya, syria. there is no way it could have anticipated what we are doing today. i submit that the u.s. is not doing enough to address these problems. feeler to respond to this crisis has led to the horrific consequences today. there are certain things we have to do. we must degrade the regime and the extremist capabilities to create conditions for moderates. we have to mitigate the regime and extremists abilities to do damage. aid isarian agencies -- addressing the symptoms. what are we doing to stop humanitarian crises from being

-- going on tomorrow? i applaud the committee for holding the hearing today. what happens in syria will not remain in syria. you both for some very insightful and logging -- testimony. you had to a little bit of this at the end. if you were in a position to describe policy, what would you say it should be? what we start with you. -- why don't we start with you. >> i have a more minimalist view of what we can accomplish. i don't think we can make an enormous difference on the battlefield. we can contain the impact of the spillover. reducing the amount of foreign fighters.

making sure we can track them. and reducing the humanitarian cost of the war. above all else, we have to commit to a policy. we shouldn't be on the fence between regime change and containing spillover. we need to make a choice. i take a minimalist view. i understand colleagues have them -- a different view. >> thank you. i agree with him on some of the things we need to do. --lso think some a with there are other things we need to think about. assad regimey the control of the error? that doesn't have to be boots on the ground. we have other alloys in the region. there are things we can think about doing creatively in that area. show --tain area, we we we should consider things that were on the table.

they don't need to escalate things too far. ofre are a limited number runways in the country that can take delivery airplanes from russia and iran. we have munitions to take out those runways. if we were able to do that, the consequence would be they would not be able to get the kind of weapons resupplied they are using on a day to date basis to create the humanitarian catastrophe. >> both of you referenced the challenge of those foreign fighters inside of syria then returning to their countries or elsewhere. , you could take one of your policy suggestions, which youo control the borders -- have one part of your answer. -- to dealo what

with the question of returning foreign fighters? are we looking at what is happening in syria with al qaeda groups active in syria? in essence getting ready for varsity play? >> it will be a variety of answers. some people do not go to the front line. some people do not even link up with jihadist factions. others do. ,he question for those who do are they ideologically right allies to -- radicalized? or can they be reincorporated? this is a problem for somebody countries in the region. in some countries, it is not against the law. they don't have the option of arresting. there are also to people who

were not on their radar screen which creates an intelligence problem where the u.s. can be helpful to pardon agents. -- partner nations. >> i published a book on hezbollah. i talked to senior intelligence officials around the world. different countries have different ways of dealing with it, from freezing passports to freezing citizenship. this is a massive problem for fbi and dhs. services are not necessarily getting more full-time employees or budget. it is not just a couple of groups. people are going to fight with not yet designated groups. those are also a significant problem. itoad, people are saying --

is seen as a defensive jihad. the west is not going and defending these sunni women and children, so we had to do it for our own. when they get there, most of these people who go, the foreign fighters, and up fighting with the more extreme elements. they do come back far more radicalized. -- vast majority do. that created tremendous problem. much of the current activity in syria and lebanon and iraq reflects strategy guidance were operational directions? qaeda in pakistan? >> it is difficult to know. we are trying to interpret what givenf guidance might be by an organization that tries to keep its guidance hidden from view. there are a few areas in which

we can interpret them fairly well to read we can see public messaging. the syrian jihadist but at the forefront of the rhetoric from an out of al qaeda's senior leadership. the tend not to become as operationally involved. micromanaging things on the ground. l they have tended to use is centralization of strategy. it would be a shock if we found they were directing operations on the ground. one final note, where we can see be guidance coming from the network am a it was referenced in the previous cancel -- panel. subsequent to the assassination of an al qaeda figure, one of the groups on the ground, an al

qaeda affiliate, put down and ultimatum. -- you had a number of clerics come out and condemn the ultimatum. after that, he did back off. this is an indication of when the urbanization asked to try to influence an outcome is certain way. -- in a certain way. you can see the influence of strategic guidance. >> in a nutshell, i agree with everything he said. i would add this. you are seeing an interesting -- it haswhere isis broken with al qaeda. it will be interesting to see if this leads to the downgrading of isys. either of which could happen.

he was -- his assassination was enough message that they are not taking the al qaeda core leader's message seriously. what we will see going forward is the proliferation of affiliates and non-affiliates without necessarily seen the core disappear. you have al qaeda core raising funds in kuwait, qatar. some that money being funneled through iran. with iran's knowledge. >> thank you both for helping the committee in its further understanding of the challenges in syria. with the oppressed mission -- appreciation of the committee come of this record will remain open until tomorrow.

the hearing is adjourned. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] http://twitter.com/cspanwj rich president obama announces sanctions against russia. then a foreign affairs hearing on ukraine. then, highlights from sea pack, the conservative political action conference. >> the house today voted re-hundred 85-23 four $1 billion in loan guarantees for the ukrainian government. also today, president obama ordered limited sanctions against russia erie it he announced the action at the beginning of the white house daily news briefing.

>> good afternoon, everybody. i want to provide an update on our efforts to address the crisis in the ukraine. since the russian intervention, we have been mobilizing the community to condemn this violation of international law and support the people of ukraine. this morning i signed an order that authorizes sanctions on individuals and entities responsible for violating the sovereignty of ukraine or for stealing the assets of the ukrainian people. the state department has put in place restrictions on the travel of certain individuals. these decisions continue our efforts to impose a cost on russia and those responsible for the situation in crimea. they give us the flexibility to adjust a response going forward based on russia's actions. we took the steps in

coordination with our european allies. i have spoken to several of our friends around the world, and i am pleased our unity is on display at this moment. we have moved to announce substantial assistance for the government in kiev, and in brussels today our allies took similar steps. i am confident we are moving together, united in our determination to oppose actions that violate international law and to support the government and people of ukraine. that includes standing up for the principle of state sovereignty. the proposed referendum would violate the ukrainian constitution and international law. any discussion about the future of ukraine must include the legitimate government of ukraine. in 2014, we are beyond the days where borders can be redrawn over the heads of democratic leaders.

i want to make sure there is a way to resolve this crisis that respects the interest of the russian federation as well as the ukrainian people. let international monitors into all of ukraine, including crimea, to ensure the rights that all ukrainians are being respected, including ethnic russians, consultations between russia and ukraine with the participation of the international community, and russia would maintain its bases in crimea provided it abides by its agreements. the world should support the people of ukraine as they move to elections in may. that is the path of de-escalation. secretary kerry is engaged with discussions with all parties to pursue that path. but if this violation of international law continues, it

will result in the united states and our allies and the international community's resolve being firm. we support the people of ukraine. one last point, there has been talking in congress about these issues. today i call on congress to follow up on these words with actions, to support the imf's capacity to lend resources to ukraine and provide assistance for the ukrainian government so they can weather this storm and stabilize the economy, make needed reforms, deliver for their people, all of which will provide a smoother pathway for the elections that have been scheduled in may. today the world can see the united states is united with our allies in upholding international law and pursuing a just outcome that advances global security and the future

of ukrainian people. that is what we will continue to do in the days to come until we have seen the resolution to this crisis. thanks very much. jay and ben and others will be happy to take your questions. >> administration officials discussed recent events in ukraine at a hearing of the foreign affairs committee. in addition to loan guarantees for the ukrainian government, the house is considering a variety of sanctions against russia, including a resolution condemning their military invasion. this part of the hearing is just over an hour. it begins with committee chairman ed royce. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> we will ask all the members if they can come in and take your seats for this hearing. outme begin by pointing

that ukraine is facing not one crisis but a number of them. its new government is confronting an economic and financial crisis wrought on by years of mismanagement, years of corruption by previous government officials. and it is doing this while under military invasion and economic coercion by neighboring russia. and it is doing this while under military invasion and economic coercion by neighboring russia. the world has been speaking up, sending a clear message, and that message is that moscow's actions over the past week are out of bounds. the new government in kiev cannot succeed without strong and rapid support by the international community. working in close cooperation with our european allies, the u.s. is crafting an immediate assistance package. but this help must be accompanied by fundamental economic reforms if ukraine is

to stabilize its economy. only ukraine can help us help them. i'll also mention that later this month, prior to the elections in ukraine, i will be leading a co-del to the country because we must also help ensure the elections scheduled for may will be fair, will be free and reflect the true voice of the ukrainian people in all regions of the country. a country that is becoming increasingly divided. i think our oversight and engagement is important. a successful election is essential to ukraine's ability to resolve the many issues it's got on its plate and to advance towards democracy and long-tinge prosperity. addressing ukraine's energy security must be part of our

response. russia has repeatedly used it y supply of natural gas to pressure ukraine. and has announced it will significantly increase its costs in a deliberate effort to squeeze ukraine. fortunately, we have an option to help counter this threat. namely, reducing the current impediments to exports of american gas to the ukraine. the administration has it within its power to do this by removing the current bureaucratic obstacles that only empower putin. they should do so rapidly. this committee is working to provide appropriate assistance to all ukrainian people and also to pressure russia to withdraw its forces and cease its efforts to destabilize ukraine. as part of that effort, immediately following this hearing, we will mark up a resolution that the ranking member and i have introduced that condemns russia's aggression and outlines these

steps. i strongly encourage the administration to increase efforts to isolate russia diplomatically. there is much that can be done. such as introducing a resolution at the u.n. security council that condemns russian aggression. isolating moscow. the rest of the international community will support such a resolution. moscow alone will veto it. but it will increase the pressure. the treasury department should also make clear that the u.s. is also on the lookout for russia banks that involved in illicit activities such as the transfer of stolen ukrainian assets, especially those banks that are primarily owned by the government or by the oligarchs. we also in our resolution laid out other steps that should be taken. such as the limitation on travel. many of us have been calling for action and last evening the

administration called me to indicate that it was going to take steps on precisely these issues. the visa and the asset bans here. so we will look forward to that statement from the administration, i think further elaborating the executive order announced early this morning. but we must remember that the purpose of our pressure on russia is not simply to punish aggression and certainly it is not to escalate the confrontation, but instead to move putin toward a resolution that protects the territorial integrity of ukraine. that was our april business here. as we look forward, we have with us today three administration witnesses to answer questions from members regarding the current situation in ukraine and

the administration's ongoing efforts to provide assistance to kiev and to pressure russia. the ranking member will be here shortly. and while he's en route, i'll also take this opportunity to introduce our witnesses. we have limited time this morning. so before i introduce the witnesses, we're honored to have with us today ambassador mossic from the embassy of ukraine. mr. ambassador, we know that it is a very difficult time for your country, and we want to extend a very warm welcome to you. as you can see, ukraine hasp friends on this committee. this morning, we're pleased to be joined by representatives from the department of state, the u.s. agency for international development and the department of treasury. a career foreign service officer, he previously served as deputy chief of mission at the

u.s. epbase mbassy in moscow be assuming his duties in the bureau of european and ur raeur asian affairs. mr. singh is the deputy assistant secretary for europe and eurasia at the u.s. department of the treasury. he advises the leadership at the department of the treasury and the white house on global markets. and without objection, the witnesses full prepared statements are going to be part of the record. i'm going to encourage you all to summarize and use your time to present your viewpoints. afterwards, the members will have five calendar days to submit statements and questions and materials for the record. without objection, as member offices were notified last night, in light of our time

constraint, mr. engel and i are suggesting we limit to three minutes per member to help maximize participation of all the members this morning. if i could now go to our ranking member, mr. engel, whose family is originally from the ukraine, mr. engel from new york. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. deputy assistant rubinrubin. thank you for appearing before the committee today. and for your tireless efforts in support of ukraine. on an issue that is in the forefront of all our minds right now. the u.s. has strongly supported a democratic prosperous sovereign ukraine. in keeping th ining with this c, we supported a peaceful resolution of the recent crisis there as hundreds of thousands of ukrainian citizens came out in the streets of kiev and throughout ukraine to express

their desire for a more democratic state. signalled that ukraine was back on the path, but instead of welcoming this event, as was the case in the u.s. and europe, president putin has reacted in a very different and very disturbing manner. so let me be clear, president putin's aggressive military actions in crimea fragrantly violate ukraine's sovereignty. they violate international law. they're deeply destabilizing and have serious implications for security in europe. all of us should be profoundly concerned about this and furthermore, justification for this is unsupported by the facts. there have been no persecution of russians in ukraine. all credible on serbservers agr this point. i believe this is a critical moment. must stand up for ukraine's unity and territorial integrity. russia has deep historical ties

with ukraine and russia and ukraine should enjoy good and close relation. president putin must support ukraine's sovereignty and the right of its people to freely make their own choices and chart their own future. russia must also understand there are koconsequences for it aggression. including visa bans, freezing assets and banking sanctions. so president putin understands that this will not be business as usual. i call on our european allies and other members of the international community to take similar measures. i also support the administration's initiative. to send international observers to monitor the situation in crimea and other parts of ukraine. russia in turn should welcome such a mission and return its troops to its bases immediately. our other priority would be to help the government deal with the formidable challenges it faces. secretary kerry was just in kiev and this was the right time to

go be an the right way to show our support. given ukraine's dire economic situation, we and our iron allies should be ready to provide a robust pledge. i strongly support the initiative to provide loan guarantees to ukraine and i'm very pleased that the house will pass legislation authorizing these guarantees later today. i also welcome the eu's announcements that it will provide very efficient loans and credits and will support ukraine's efforts to reach an agreement with the imf and implement reforms to address structural weaknesses. we should also provide additional assistance in areas of urgent need such as to help ukraine recover looted assets, combat corruption, increase energy security and counter politically motivated trade actions by russia. with regard to his last point, i also believe we in the eu must steadfastly support other nations facing similar russian

pressure such as moldova and russia. i urge them to reach out to all groups and to work together to build a tolerant pluralistic society. must protect the rights of the minority populations and make it clear that it protects all citizens. mentioned as another justification for russian military aggression. i recognize there is a concern, but as the respected ncsj recently stated, i quote, although there has been isolated incidents in crimea and eastern ukraine since the protest began in november, there's not been a pattern of violence against the ukrainian jewish population. finally, let's thank the witnesses and the administration for its tireless efforts to support democracy in ukraine. as the people in ukraine confront the many challenges

ahead, they should know the united states will stand with them. we will support ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity. to build a more democratic process and just future. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. we're going to go to mr. rubin. >> thank you, chairman choice. memb royce. i'm thankful for this opportunity. i'd also like to thank my appreciation for the ambassador for joining us today. we very much appreciate his presence. let me begin by thanking this committee for its deep engagement on this issue. we've been heartened by the robust bipartisan support we've received from this committee. house resolution 447 introduced by the house in february 10 sent a powerful message that the american people stand wholly and unequivocally with the people of ukraine in their hour of need.

you've notified us you're, ma g i marking up a new resolution today. our united efforts have demonstrated to the people of ukraine and to the international community that the united states is resolute in its support of ukraine's desire for a democratic, peaceful and prosperous future. i will talk about regional stability. russia's military intervention is ukraine and the international community to russia's action. i've submitted a more detailed written testimony for the record. i underscored the situation in the region extremely fluid and changing by the hour. i would also like to underscore the situation has changed as recently as this morning. which i'm prepared to discuss in further detail. let me also add a few words about my personal commitment to

ukraine and its future. when i was the internal politics here in the state department. i helped open relations with independence ukraine in 1991. worked and lived in kiev from 1994 to 1996. i speak ukrainian and i have friends throughout ukraine. i've watched with horror as ukrainians were cut down by snipers in the heart of kiev. their determination, their courage and their assistaninsis the possibility of the future for themselves and their country. it is not about the united states. it is not about russia. the people of ukraine have made a decision about their future. has taken the steps of creating a government following

yanukovych's abdication. these decisions have been supported by overwhelming majorities, including members of president yanukovych's party. the united states welcomed the formation of the new government and is working with its leadership as it ensures the protection of the rights of all ukrainians. as the international community look, for ways to help ukraine, you will focus on the efforts to build a democratic country reflecting the will of the people of ukraine. the decision of the ukrainian people regarding the government needs to be respected. russia's military intervention in ukraine has derailed the process. as secretary kerry said in kiev, the contrast could not be clearer. a russian government out of excuse, hiding its hand behind intimidations. the united states fully and unambiguously condemns russia's military intervention. we've repeatedly indicated it is

a violation of territorial integrity. including russia's obligations under the u.n. charter and its treaty of friendship with ukraine. as well as russia's agreement of 1997 with ukraine. russia agreed in that treaty to respect the sovereignty of ukraine and not to interfere in ukraine's internal affairs. this is also a blatant affront to the 1994 budapest memorandum. we've taken action, consistent with the unacceptability of russia's military action. we have suspended preparation in the g-8 sochi preparationings. we have suspended military to military contacts. we have issued a statement with the unanimous approval of the members of the north atlantic council strongly condemning the escalation in crimea. nato was stepping up efforts to

increase our commission. we are considering other measures to provide reassurance to our allies. today, the united states has marshalled the full package of measures aimed at demonstrating the u.s. resolve in the face of unprovoked military intervention. pursuant to the president's guidance, the state department is putting in place visa restrictions on a number of individuals reflecting a policy decision to deny visas to those responsible for or complicib co policette. undermining democratic processes or institutions in ukraine threatening the peace security stability sovereignty or territorial integrity of ukraine. contributing to the misappropriation of state assets in ukraine. without authorization from the ukrainian government and kiev. we've made it clear to russia and others that steps to undermine ukrainian democracy will result in further political

and economic isolation should they continue on this path. mr. chairman, our focus remains on deescalation of tensions. the possibility of an offramp that could lead to the relaxation of tensions in ukraine if the russians are willing to take it. secretary kerry met yesterday in paris separately with the foreign ministers of ukraine and russia. the osce and the united nations are in the process of deploying monitors in the country. these monitors will provide transparency about the activity of military forces. and defuse tensions between groups. they along with senior delegations will offer objective on the ground information to counteract russia's flagrant propaganda campaign. let me be clear on this point. there are no confirmed threats to russian naval bases. the interim government is a body

that represents the will of the people. i would also like to state before this committee that the united states is closely monitoring reports of anti-semitic acts. we take this issue very, very seriously. and i would like to concur would the statement that you made indicating that we have no such information indicating there are widespread anti-semitic incidents. we have been in touch with the chief rabbi and we believe this accusation is, again, being used to justify an unjustifiable military intervention. >> thank you very much, mr. rubin. now, we have five minutes for opening statements and so, page, if you could summarize, i think that's for the best. miss alexander. >> thank you for inviting me here today regarding the u.s. assistance package for ukraine. >> page, go ahead and put the

microphone there. >> to recent events are momentous for ukraine and the response of the united states government is critical to the region's future. the u.s. is working with our international partners. especially the international monetary fund to provide needed support to ukraine's people and its economy as they approach this crisis. for peace, prosperity, freedom and human dignity. the very things that the people have been for the last three months explaining their concerns. as the chairman mentioned, for the upcoming elections, moving forward with a series of programs in five specific areas to help ensure these elections are free, fair, transparent and inclusive. we'll work to improve the legal framework to strengthen the election administration, support civil oversight of the process by domestic and international monitors. encourage civil society coalition tossing advocate for

further reforms. promote a more balanced open and diverse information environment throughout the country. and support a robust yet a fairer political competition in informing the public through support of public opinion polls and ensuring training for our party poll watchers. we recognize the more inclusive and accountable governments will not be established with just one presidential election. over the mid to longer term range, we will pursue a multifaceted approach to strengthening ukraine's democratic institutions and processes. years of economic mismanagement have left ukraine with a heavy debt burden. we regulatory oversight of financial institutions and an uncompetitive business climate. the ongoing stability has led to a heightened insecurity, prompting the bank of ukraine to impose capital controls as depositors become wary of the soundness of domestic banks. recognizing the serious potential for failed banks, usdi

will work to help provide banking supervision to increase public confidence. we realize ukraine's inefficient and import dependent energy sector continues to be a significant drain on ukraine's financial resources and this needs to be addressed in the medium term as well. so u.s. technical assistance will be provided to the government of ukraine as it makes important policy reforms and comb battats the corruption has prevented ukraine from reaching its economic potential. we need to revitalize support for the private sector which has staggered in recent years. usdi is working with agencies to develop plans to improve the financial sector transparency, refor the energy sector and improve the operating environment for private sector businesses. mr. chairman, mr. engel, members of the committee, thank you for this opportunity to testify on the issues of great importance. not only for ukraine but for the region and for the united states. this is a critical moment for an

opportunity for ukraine and usdie is well positioned to help ukraine meet some of its most pressing challengings. the ifm will be crucial to those efforts. this concludes my testimony. i'm prepared for questions. >> thanks, miss alexander. we'll go immediately to mr. singh. >> chairman royce, ranking member engel, members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today. i visited kiev last week to meet with government officials and express our solidarity during this difficult moment. secretary lu has spoken several times with the ukrainian prime minister. who has assured us that the government is prepared to take the necessary steps to build a secure economic foundation. including the implementation of urgently needed reforms to assure financial stability, unleash economic potential and promote the economic aspiration, of the ukrainian people. the fragility of ukraine's financial condition underscores

the urgency of its new government committing to an imf-led program and securing the financing it needs while difficult adjustments are made. the fragile economic situation in ukraine stems from many years of poor policy choices, lack of reform and corruption under previous governments. as well as it is negative confidence effect from russia's recent actions in crimea. ukraine's new leadership has declared publicly and committed privately its willingness to undertake the necessary steps to secure assistance from the imf and others and the united states has made clear that as ukraine implements reforms, we will work with our partners to support the ukrainian people and restore the country's economic and political stability. as part of this international effort, the united states has developed a package of bilateral assistance, funded primarily by a loan guarantee that is focused on meeting ukraine's most pressing needs. these efforts will complement what must be the centerpiece of an international assistance effort and imf program.

only the imf has the capacity to provide the necessary large-scale re, sources and the expertise for agenda in ukraine. an imf program also sends the strongest signal of confidence to markets, businesses and households at a time when sentiment remains volatile. more specifically, the imf has the expertise to develop in consultation with the ukrainian authorities an economic adjustment program that eliminates unsustainable economic imbalances, removes costly and poorly targeted government subsidies and improves ukraine's business climate and competitiveness. the central role of the imf in this assistance effort is an illustration of why the imf is so vital to political interests. the imf is the world's first and more of the active responder in an economic crisis by providing financial support and hands-on policy advice. the imf helps keep our allies and partners strong and prevents dissatisfaction from spiraling

in a political disability. this makes the imf role critical to our nation's economic well being. when instability abroad washes up on our shores, it results in fewer jobs and savings are hurt through financial markets. for the united states to continue playing a leading role at the imf as it helps ukraine, one of most significant steps we can take right now is to pass the 2010 imf quota and government reforms. why is this so important? first, the united states has the only major economy that has not passed a 2010 reforms. and our inability to act has led other countries to worry that the united states is retreating from its position at the imf at a time when its role is so pivotal to the future of ukraine. the refors would support the imf capacity to lend additional resources to ukraine if it meets bridge financing to a larger package. we should be in favor of providing as much financial flexibility and resources as

possible to the imf. there exists broad support in the american business community for these imf reforms. the u.s. chamber of commerce, financial services roundtable, financial securities, financial forum and business roundtable all agree that these changes are necessary and in the best interest of american businesses and the global economy. part of the reason why the business community supports these reforms is it's a safe and smart investment for the united states. the legislation will not add one new dollar to our overall commitment to the imf. the imf has a rock solid balance sheet with liquid reserves and gold holdingings that excise all of its credit. on the imf since its inception seven years ago. our voice may diminish and we will miss an opportunity to bolster the fund's re, sos and economies may turn away from the

imf towards regionalism. which means the united states will lose the leverage and influence it has built up over decades at a time when our leadership on the global stage is so critical. ukraine has asked for our support during this difficult time and the united states, along with its partners, should be ready to answer the call. thank you. >> thank you. in the interest of allowing our newer members of this committee to ask any questions and get information they need, i'm going to forgo my time and pass to mr. engel of new york. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i'm going to only ask one question to give more people an opportunity to ask questions. i think i'm going to ask it to you, mr. rubin. russia's exerted intense pressure, especially economically, on ukraine in the past, and my fear is ukraine can expect more pressure in the months ahead. how can we and our european allies help ukraine and other countries such as moldova and

georgia, which are attempting to build democratic states, resist this pressure? one of the things that worried me about leaning to this crisis is that putin in trying to lure these countries into its customs union offers them all kinds of goods, bonuses, gas, money, and the european union says, well, we'd like you to affiliate with us in the eastern partnership but there are 12 hoops you first have to jump through and if you jump through them and land on your feet, we'll consider you. i really think we have not -- the playing field has not been level leveled. and we create obstacles to having these countries enjoin with us to look westward rather than eastward. they all complain to me when they come into my office, and what can we do to change this? >> thank you. i would like to first talk about the economic aspects of your question. i think i can point to some

recent action both in the european union and the united states to address the very concerns you're talk about. congressman, i think most importantly, i would like to talk about the emergency assistance we've announced. which is tied in with the key reforms the government needs to make to get the economy back on its feet. the european union announced a major package this week and secretary kerry in kiev announced we are starting to put together a package that will include a loan guarantee that we've already been consulting with members on the hill about, including this committee. i think it's very important to recognize the perilous financial situation that ukraine finds itself in under russia pressure but also under serious mismanagement. the new government has taken a promising set of steps and we believe that the new government is very serious about moving quickly to get ukraine back on its feet. it needs support. we're committed to providing that support.

starting with not just the loan guarantee we're talking about but increased technical assistance and other form, s of aid. supporting ukraine with the united states as the leading part of that effort. moldova and georgia are very vulnerable as well, there's no question. we had the prime minister of georgia here two weeks ago at the white house meeting with president obama. prime minister of moldova also meeting with the vice president, the secretary of state. we're doing everything we can to help them financially but to provide the critical support for the democratic choices of their people. and we'll be doing that in the months ahead. but i think it's very important to basically underline the point that this is a critical moment to give them that support now when you have governments making the right choices. we recognize that. we will be doing that. >> eric you're a little too close to that mic.

just move it back a little bit. >> thank you very much for calling this hearing and for your excellent bill. the magniski list. denying and evoking visas of russian regime members who is connected to belligerent actions in ukraine and freezing or prohibiting any of their u.s. property in transactions are move, in the right direction. now we move name them and other officials responsible for human rights abuses. not just in ukraine but in russia as well. to the magniski list which imposes similar sanctions. adding these names to the list would make these sanctions permanent rather than an executive order that the president can rescind. i've already committed many names to the obama administration to add to that list. since we passed the magniski act. there are many names here.

names, position, examples and ev of gross human rights violations. i will send a new letter to the administration asking for more names of human rights violators to be added to the list. i would hope that my colleagues will join me in that letter. and the president must take similar actions actions. and the executive order of the president, he talks about actions or policies that undermine democratic process or institutions in ukraine. well, he and his officials are also responsible for policies that undermine democratic processes or institutions in venezuela. now is the time to act. 16 of my colleagues sent a letter to the president asking for those similar powers under the international emergency economic powers act. is the administration considering adding more names of russian officials guilty of

human rights violations to the m magnaski list? is it simply an historical document for academics to ponder? are we simply going to stay with those few names put on the list and have not added many since then? >> thank you, congressman. we are actively considering adding new names. absolutely, we take the legislation very seriously. and i do not have any new information for you this morning. that is something that is underactive consideration. >> thank you, sir. >> gregory meeks of new york. >> let me just see if i can do -- real quick question. first, mr. singh, i know that the treasury department is working closely with the department of state and the white house on a loan guarantee package for the ukraine. have you ta you talked about it briefly in your opening statement. i wonder if you can discussi in more detail how we in congress

can support and improve the capacity of the imf to provide guaranteed -- a guaranteed loan package. >> thank you for your question, congressman. so the imf and any assistance package for ukraine that's going to be credible needs to play a central role. and the best thing we can do right now is to maintain our leading voice at the institution, the imf, that is going to be at the heart of the assistance effort. if we don't meet our basic mission to fund it, the support may diminish. passing the reform provides the imf with more financing flexibility. particularly in the case where ukraine could need a bridge, a short-term assistance package, as a means to get to a larger agreement with the imf. now, the imf's on the ground, looking at the data.

we don't know yet whether that flexibility will be needed. it's a good idea to have it. >> thank you. miss alexander, as you prepare for the long-term engagement and the development of the ukraine, are you confident that the interim ukrainian government is a stable partner for usaid? >> thank you, congressman. the benefit of the people that we've worked with in ukraine is that one of the development assets that ukraine has is also its vibrant multifaceted civil society. so we not only work in ukrainian government, we work directly with civil society. but we've been very impressioned with what we've seen in the ukrainian government so far. we've been impressed with the restraint and we consider them good partners. so we're confident our money will be well spent. >> finally, mr. rubin, i'm a firm believer in multilateralism. in a multilateral way.

i think it's vitally important for the united states to do that and to have this unified voice towards russia, for the reaction in ukraine. how can the united states -- i think this is something -- i just want you to elaborate a little bit more, better engage our allies in european to ensure we have the same strategic goals for prosperity of the u.s. and european relationship? it seems there have been some cracks recently. >> well, thank you, congressman. we have actually made this a very high priority. secretary kerry has spent the past few days working on that. working with our allies and other interested governments to try to craft the united international community approach to ending this conflict, for russia to withdraw its troops and restore its recognition of ukraine sovereignty. we agree this needs to be a collective international approach. it needs to be a democratic approach. we believe the call of the

international community for this to be settled through dialogue, for russia and ukraine to immediately begin talking about this can only happen if the international community is united in supporting this. that is precisely what the secretary is doing in europe right now. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> mr. rubin, how do you assess the risk of miscalculation? with so many 747s pointing at each other only one troop -- or one soldier has to fire and things can get out of hand. you mentioned the oec monitors. they've been stopped. as you know, they can't get in. when i visited oec monitors and other countries including georgia and croatia and elsewhere over the years, they have such limited capabilities to mitigate a firefight or any kind of hostility. secondly, i was in belizzie, georgia, after the russians rolled into okasia and south ossetia. they several times put their

tanks on a road as if they were going to belizzie only to turn around, you'll recall that. their objective strategically was south ossetia. what is the objective of the russian, now? is it just crimea or other regions and cities in ukraine, typically on the east coast or the east area, i should say, in the cross hairs? and mr. singh, if you could, sergei glasiab has said russia will abandon the u.s. dollar as a reserve currency if the u.s.ish in aipt u.s. ish ish in ainitiates sanctions aga russia. and the eurasia economic union, a meeting this week with belarus and kazakhstan and putin talking about that union that comes into force in 2015. how does that play into all of this? >> thank you, congressman. the question of international observers and monitors is

absolutely critical. as you stated. we believe the best way to deescalate this conflict, to ensure there are no accidental incidents that lead to escalati escalation, is to have an international presence, eyes and ears, on the ground. that is what we've been supporting. that is what we've been supporting. that is what the special envoy is there for. we believe that they need access to all areas of ukraine. they have access to all areas except crimea. the government has been supportive in encouraging monitors to come in to address any allegations of abuses, to address any concerns about minority rights. and that is the way to address these concerns, is through eyes and ears on the ground that can provide an objective assessment of what's going on and also be there as witnesses to what's going on. we find the fact that the monitors have had extreme difficulty in getting into crimea, to perform their activities in crimea, is something we consider unacceptable and we believe all

the authorities involved, including the local authorities, have an absolute obligation to allow that to happen. we will be pushing to expand the monitoring. we will be pushing to expand the scope of the monitoring. and without that, we fear it will be very hard to actually know what's goggin. to answer your questions as to what the russian's objectives are, i have to say, i wish we all knew the answer to that question. we've seen that clearly one objective is to militarily occupy and control the territory of the autonomous region of crimea. we have condemned that. we considered unacceptable. we consider the russian forces must return to their barracks under their treaty obligations in the basing treaty with ukraine. we condemn any further use of russian military force or aggression on the territory of ukraine. we hope we will see no further use and we can return to a diplomatic dialogue to end this very, very unfortunate situation. with that, help turn to mr. singh. >> the reserve currency portion of it, mr. singh.

>> yes, congressman, let me give you a simple answer. russia doesn't get to decide the world reserve currencies or the united states level of interest rates. that's determined by our economic outlook and our monetary policy. we have the most deep and liquid capital markets. we have the most attractive investment environment. this is not -- we control our own destiny in this regard, not russia. >> we'll go to albio siris from new jersey. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you the members here today. i believe we should have strongs sanctions. i don't think putin understands anything else. but how can we get strong sanctions when europe over the last few years has become more and more dependent on energy from russia? for example, germany didn't jump right away because obviously, i think it's something like 40% of the gas from russia. how can we get a consensus to come up with strong sanctions

against russia, when they are so dependent? so -- and the other question that i have is russia threatening if strong sanction, start to infect our economy, they're going to go after the assets in russia that are american assets. what are they prepared to do? if they go after those companies and american assets in russia? >> thank you, congressman. let me address, first, the question of coordinating the policy. the european council of the european union yesterday issued very comprehensive framework for imposing sanctions and the leaders of the european union are meeting today to consider that. we believe that what our allies and partners have done understand the seriousness of this. we have been working very closely with them including secretary kerry meetings in the past two days. we agree with you there needs to be a coordinated international

approach to make clear to the russian federation there will be serious consequences for russia, for the russian economy, for russia's standing in the world, if russia continues its current course of action. this is not intended as a threat. this not intended as any form of economic coercion on anyone's part. this is intended to say the international community is based on a set of principles, the set of laws. the united nations charter, the helsinki final act. members hav toward each other. it must be followed. that's the basic foundation of the international system and the postwar settlement in europe. this is simply a clear message to russia that russia has to return to respecting those normts, foez commitments, those laws. we believe that there will be coordinated international action, that it will not be just the united states imposing sanctions and other forms in response to russia's actions. we believe we will see that very shortly, and we will work very hard to ensure that this is a coordinated international front. i would adjust to say that we

will very strongly support the rights of our economies, our investors and the basic principles of international law and all the other obligations the countries have toward foreign investors. we take that obligation very seriously. >> mr. singh, can you address the issue of russia? >> sure. congressman, mr. ruben is right. we're working very closely with our european counterparts, but the reality is russia is a very large economy, a $2 trillion economy, eighth largest in the world. sbr enter connections on the trade front, the financial front, the market front. it's important that we're proportionate in our response depending on russia's actions. with respect to the energy question in particular, i would observe there's a co-dependence. yes, europe relies roughly a third of their energy imports come from russia, but so, too, does russia depend on those

earnings, on those export earnings to europe. so they also need to be careful. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> we go to mr. steve shab bot of ohio. >> thank you, mr. chairman. president putin's recent explanationtion for his aggressive actions in crimea don't pass the laugh test. he suggested he's obligated to protect his fellow russians in ukraine when crimea was last part of the old soviet union back in 1956 when i was 3 years old, when it became part of ukraine and remained so after the fall of soviet union and add vesht of an independent ukraine in 1991. his arguments are weak and his actions are clearly in violation of international law. unfortunately there is the perception at least that there's a growing power vacuum around the world and various bad actors are filling it, from the middle east to the south china sea, now ukraine. in the last few weeks we have heard from the white house about consequences and all options on

the table and so forth. it wasn't that long ago my colleagues will remember that we were hearing about drawing a line in the sand. frankly, i fear that there may be a growing perception among our friends and allies in the international community that the united states at least in the area of foreign policy lax resolve. i hope our witnesses this morning will be able to alleviate some of those concerns. a couple of questions, where are we in regards to our cooperative efforts with our european partners? i've heard vague comments about consequences from european officials. how serious are they? who are the players in the region that are working closest with us and where are the weak links? it's been suggest thad some of our allies in europe would never agree to strong sanctions on russia because of the fear that their sources of energy supplies would be cut off. well, here is an idea. perhaps our friends in europe would be able to avoid that fate if they, in fact, produced more

of their own energy which is present but untapped because of their own domestic energy policies which we encourage. or even better, the obama administration could reverse its anti-production policies, approve the keystone pipeline, for example, open up anwar, encourage the development of our shale export program, and the europeans could buy their energy from us while increasing american manufacturing jobs. just a thought. i've given you a lot to think about. any comments? >> congressman, thank you. let me say that in terms of ensuring that we have unity of purpose and action with our allies and partners in europe, this is our highest priority. again, this has been the main objective of secretary kerry's work in the past several days in europe. we believe we've seen clear statements that the leaders of european union, of the european union's member states and countries in europe that are not

members of the european union are very serious about the threat that this set of developments poses, will take action, and we're working very hard to coordinate our action with them so we're presenting a strong coordinated front on this. let me also say that we've seen action taken by countries not in the european union and countries in the european union already to impose sanctions, to freeze accounts, take other steps, visa bans, to make clear there will be consequences for violation of the international order. additionally, let me say it is our highest proi or the to ensure the solemn commitment wes have under the north atlantic treaty to our allies in europe are upheld. we take that obligation with the utmost seriousness. we have worked within nato in the past several days to ensure that we are prepared within the alliance to support all its members. we've taken action to expand.

we'll be working very closely with them in coming days and weeks to ensure that the alliance stands strong and united on this. the last point you mentioned, i would just like to say that energy diversification has been at the heart of our policy toward europe for the past 25 years under every administration, and it remains at the heart of that. obviously there's still a long way to go. we strongly believe that diverse sources of energy, lack of reliance on a single supplier is very important for europe's security and future development. thank you. >> we go now to mr. brian higgins of new york, or did you have a point you wanted to make, mr. singh? >> i was going to make the point that it's clearly important to collaborate closely on sanctions. we should acknowledge a very welcome announcement by europe in terms of their assistance to the ukrainian people. what's important right now is we all come together as an international community and meet ukraine's financing needs as it

makes the reforms it needs to achieve economic stability which will pave the path to an independent future. >> mr. higgins? >> thank you, mr. chairman. russia has violated all kinds of international law including the treaty they signed with ukraine guaranteeing its borders in return for which ukraine gave up its nuclear weapons. russia's occupation of ukraine is a direct and clear violation of ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity. president putin has acted like an international street thug. in 1994 when russia was included into the g8, it was in recognition that the post soviet russia was behaving like an honorable member of the international community and not a rogue state. if russia's behavior has changed, then it would seem to me that russia's status as a member of the g8 should change a little bit more aggressively than simply a suspension.

their membership should be revoked. it should be revoked. number two, nato, which is 28 countries including the united states and canada and 26 european countries was essentially established to safeguard freedom and security through political and military means. it was a vehicle through which democratic principles could be promoted. any thoughts about the idea of permanently kicking russia out of the g8 and offering membership to ukraine in nato? >> thank you, congressman. as the white house announcement stated this morning, we have suspended all preparations for attending the g8 summit in sochi. as we've said previously it's hard to imagine the president would go under current circumstances. the larger question you ask, obviously is something the president will need to consider.

i think this gets to the bigger picture question which is russia's role in the world, how russia participates as a member of the international community. under the structures and laws and obligations that all members of the international community have toward each other. so i think the larger question is very clear. we, as i mentioned, take the north atlantic alliance and its obligations solemnly, seriously and we are looking actively to consider how we can do more as an alliance to respond to this set of developments. but i would also add that we've said all along that the alliance is based on a set of values and commitments and principles, what kind of societies have come together. in this case we have stated publicly, for example, that georgia will be a member. that was stated twice by the alliance and remains our position. we believe all societies should have the right, all countries

based on the will of their people to choose their alliances, their friendships and the organizations they wish to join. that's just a basic set of principles. that's something each country should be free to decide for itself. that's the most important principle. >> we go to mr. mike mccall of texas. >> i recently went to russia and got the sense that mr. putin is going back to a cold war mentality. this is more of a philosophical question. do you believe russia is intend on reconstituting its empire? >> i think, as i said earlier, i don't really want to speculate about why rush is doing what it's doing. honestly we don't know. i think what we have to judge is simply what is russia doing. what we see russia doing is what has caused so much concern and that is intervention on the territory of another sovereign state through