>> let me turn to the next question here. thishen we will pick up one rit here. >> mr. prime minister, how confident in the people of the ukraine and your government, the western support that is being promised including economic sanctions will actually be realized? history of assurances to ukraine are not very encouraging. [captions copyright national able satellite corp. 2014] [captions performed by national captioning institute]

>> mr. prime minister, trying to fix the economy is an urgent crisis. in a little more than two months, presidential elections are scheduled. there are reports, rumors of postponing those elections. how confident are that ukraine will be ready to hold elections in two months, and how do you think it will that they will have credible elections that everyone will recognize? >> starting with the first question, it is not just about ukraine, as i mentioned. it is about the global security. let me remind you that in 1994, a budapest memorandum emerged where signatures guaranteed an independence and tear torle integrity of the ukrainian states. and look what has happened. we abandoned our nuclear weapons. right? we did. we executed this memorandum.

and today we asked for the protection. if we don't get this protection, tell me the way how the world is to reinforce or ask another country to stop their nuclear progress? it's impossible to convince, in this case, someone to hold uclear proliferation programs. this is the global problem. and it's up to all of us to fix it. david, on the elections, on the presidential elections, the elections are scheduled for the 25 of may. and we are ready to hold free and fair elections.

we do understand that a number of folks will do everything in order to undermine this election, to stop them, to postpone, to delay, to have another kind of uncertainty in my country. but we launch this. the central election commission is working within scheduled. so we are ready to hold free and fair presidential elections. we asked an international observer to observe these elections. and i still believe -- not just believe, i am sure of it, that elections are to be held as scheduled. and it is on the 25 of may. the new president will -- not the new president, but on the 25th of may we will have a clear picture who is to be the new president.

because this is a two-round plex, and a horse race and another two rounds. mic in the to the back. >> i'd like to first congratulate you on rising to the challenge of this situation which poses a risk to ukraine, and your and you government and the people as a whole have obviously risen to this challenge with great fort tude and conviction. because you and the nation recognize a risk. my question is, does the rest of the world, in your opinion, recognize the risk? this is not just a risk to ukraine, but it is a risk really to the stable world order.

forbodes the at possibility of a new wave of aggression that spreads not just in eastern europe, but throughout the globe. in your estimation, in dealing with this problem, do you feel that the international community sufficiently recognizes what's at stake? >> thank you. ust pass the mic down. my question is, obviously, what we are witnessing these days is not the first instance when russia is violating the .nternational law would be, how do

you mitigate these circumstances? on the other hand, what are the lessons to be learned from the international community to be more effective in this case in this crisis? >> we are ready to sacrifice in rder to protect. >> you even referred to the task as political suicide. >> so let me put it this way. on the conflict in 2008 in the a, these are

plications of bucharest -- impolitics. if you don't have map, you have something else, like military aggression. and -- and this is the dramatic uestion for all of us. >> we need to articulate a real clear-cut answer to this situation. let's be frank. we are trying to figure out how to handle it. but the collective bodies that are responsible for this global security are not as efficient as they have to be. and this way i use very

diplomatic language. > we move to the back. >> jackson deal, "the washington post". they are discussing sanctions next week. is the government of ukraine contemplating sanctions toward crimea? in particular, are you planning to continue water, energy, and imports to crimea? >> from public television. mr. prime minister, we would like to know what kind of actions do you expect next week from your neighboring countries romania,akia, hungary,

and poland? >> thank you for a very impressive statement to us today, mr. prime minister. we really wish you the very best. on that line, what is the wish list with regard to the national security that you would put to the united states and the european union today? thank you. >> our ability to provide water and electricity to crimea. i want to be very clear, crimea is a vital part of ukraine. and we will do everything in order to deliver food, water, electricity to our people. because this is our territory, and they are our citizens.

>> on the european side, we xpect them to sign a political agreement. this is the best response the un -- u.n. could make. they said they will unilaterally apply an economic package. this will essentially support the ukrainian economy. what is the best way to reform the country is to stick to the political association agreement, and to execute every treaty in this deal. and the last question, what we ask for? i already unfolded everything. we need to undertake -- we need to act boldly, wicely, and strongly. and to use all tools, all tools

.hat are acceptable the u.s. is a powerful country. -- the. is a very strong e.u. is very strong, and they can and will, i believe, do everything to preserve ukrainian ndependence. if we speak in one voice, we act in concert, we can save my country and preserve peace and

stability in the region. >> thank you very much, mr. prime minister. [applause] please join me in thanking mr. arseniy yatsenyuk. >> thank you for joining us. please be seated until we exit, and we will be exiting you guys shortly. >> the senate foreign relations committee has marked up a bill billion in loan s. this is one hour and 15 minutes.

>> the russian invasion in parts view, ine -- in my president putin has miscalculated by starting a game of russian roulette with the international community, and we will never accept this violation of international law. this committee and the u.s. congress have a role to play, which is why i am offering, along with the ranking member, the chairman's mark of this egislation, which includes the following components, because it provides for ukrainian loan guarantees, consistent with the announcement by the administration in recent days and mirrors the house bill. it provides for the obama administration to assist the ukrainian government to identify, secure, and recover assets limpinged to acts of corruption by viktor

yanukovych or any other former or current members of their administration. it assists ukraine and other states in central and eastern europe. it allows for additional sanctions, complimenting the president's recent order. -- peace, stability, sovereignty, or the territorial integrity of the ukraine. it provides for charges against russians complicit in corruption of the ukraine. finally, it provides for united states -- which allows the united states to leverage significant support from the i.m.f. for ukraine today and for similar unforeseen crises in the future.

now, as far as offsets, the i.m.f. reform section of this bill does carry a cost, and we have worked very hard to make sure we have a real offset. c.b.o. has scored it at $315 million. we have identified offsets ropriators. app in some cases these funds are drawn from unobligated balances. in all cases, offsets were carefully considered, given the national security interests of approving the i.m.f. i want to say in conclusion, any support this committee, this congress, and our nation ultimately provides to the ukraine will be nothing new. it will abe long milestone in a long 40-year road of support. we need to stay with the

their n people to help own people. corker thank senator for his cooperation and his work so we could get to this today. >> mr. chairman, thank you for getting us to this point today. i hope we will have a very successful markup today and i look forward to this becoming law at some point very soon. you know, this bill, this piece of legislation that we're dealing with today, cements more fully 60 years worth of u.s. national interests, and that is nsuring that europe replanes democratic and free. that's what this legislation is about.

we all know with the bucharest memorandum we signed a treaty that said we would ensure the sovereignty of ukraine when they gave up their nuclear weapons when they were a part of the former soviet union. when they did that in 1994, we agreed that we would support their sovereignty, as did russia, as did europe. i believe we're at a defining moment now, and i hope that friends and allies that we have in the area are watching to see if we are going to do those things that are appropriate to ensure that sovereignty stays in place, and i think this bill absolutely meets that test and enerates that balance. as the chairman mentioned, these are paid for legitimately. i want to thank the chairman. i know this is one of the more

difficult things we deal with in this process. as was mentioned, this bill has serious sanctions on multiple levels. as a matter of fact, sanctions we have never put in place before. sanctions for economic dis torings. this is a very, very strong bill. members of the economy have made it much stronger. oan guarantee was discussed. i.m.f. quota reforms. let's face it. this is an issue that will be a little bit more difficult on our side of the aisle, i'll put it that way. this is something that's incredibly important. our nation agreed to this. ukraine is a poster child for why we need the i.m.f. doing what it needs to do in order to help transition ukraine, transition its government,

travensigs the way it deals with fuel, transition the way it deals with corruption. i strongly support the i.m.f. reforms. with that, this bill i think helps ensure we have significant geo-political effect on what's happening. i look forward to the amendment process we're getting ready to go through and hopefully passing a bill out of this committee in the next 30 minutes or hour. thank you. >> thank you, senator corder for a strong statement in support of the bill. let us get started. i have a technical amendment to get started that makes several technical fixes that do not affect the substance of the bill. i will go through these quickly. the earlier draft is -- two

earlier amounts come from the offset for the i.m.f. reform without changing the total amount, and the word "act" in section 11 is amended to say the plurp "acts." let's start off there with those technical amendments to the bill. does anyone want to speak to those? all those in favor say aye. no? the ayes have it, and the technical amendment is adopted, and therefore the underlying text now starts with that technical amendment. are there those that wish to offer any amendments? enator mccain?

>> i have an amendment, number one. first of all, i would like to thank you and senator corker for the hard work and other members for the hard work you have onsumer on this legislation. bject -- obviously there are issues that may be controversial, but the amendment i believe that is the support of our offices and the american ople, and i want to thank or competent staff for the effort they made on this legislation. i thank you. he amendment i'm proposing would give the president authority on targeted sanctions. that would be asset freezes and visa bans on the most corrupt officials in russia. it would be per misive and not mandatory. it gives the president

discussion. it includes a waiver. did for agnitsky act human rights in russia this would do for corruption. it would not attack russian's financial institutions, it would focus squarely on the most corrupt officials in the russian government and their close associates. the sanctions we have in this legislation are good, but we should not only focus on russian corruption in ukraine, we should target russian corruption in russia. we don't want to send a message to russian people that we care about russian officials' corruption in ukraine but not their corruption in russia. this amendment would provide the president with additional authority to impose further costs on putin if events call for it. this is a pro-russia provision. corruption is the most salient issue in russia today. it is what motivated the

protests in ukraine to drive yanukovych from power. this amendment will say that putin may back corruption, but we do not. we would tell putin's top cron ies and partners in crime that we do not sand for corruption. i thank you. >> thank you, senator mccain. would any other senator wish to speak to the amendment? >> let me thank senator mccain. as i'm sure the members of this committee know, this committee passed the minitsky bill that would have applied universal. it would not have been limited to just one country. it would have been applied to any gross violations of human rights anywhere in the world. if we had that bill passed in

the form that passed this committee, then the president could act with the authority of congress if this type of episode occurs again. we hope it will not. but we know that unfortunately e're seeing too often, world leaders and individuals commit types of actions that require united states to show eadership. senator mccain, i support your amendment. i was offering a provision to make these provisions global. after talking to the chairman, i have determined that could slow down the progress of this particular little, and it is critically important that we speak in one voice on ukraine

nd what's happened in ukraine. i do hope we will speak to a global minitsky bill. therefore that we cannot only give the authority of the administration to react to world circumstances but also involved congress so that we can have some degree of impact on u.s. action if this 0 kirs in the future. >> thank you. >> i want to thank senator cardin. he was the leader on the minitsky act. this act has already had impact for the good. i would like to consider pursuing under his leadership a global minitsky act and i hope the committee and its members will push for its passage. i thank you, mr. chairman. i want to thank senator

cardin for his leadership in this regard. i thank him for his willingness to hold in this regard, and i share his goal and purpose, and we look forward to working with to make that happen. any other member that would like to speak to this amendment? all those in favor say aye. nos? the ayes have it. senator paul. i believe we should send an unambiguous signal and message to the russians that their incurings into ukraine is unacceptable. i support the sanctions of the russians. i support the military and technical assistance. i have trouble with the loan assistance in the sense that the loan assistance i believe will be a gift and a benefit to russia. ukrainians owe about $20 billion to $30 billion to the russians. both private russian banks, as well as a couple billion to the gas entity in russia.

bailing out russian indemocrat knit to ukraine i don't think is a way to punish russia or send a signal. in fact, i think it sends the wrong signal. there are other questions you might ask if you are going to loan money to ukraine. i would ask for a show of hands of those who would personally bayou cranian debt. ukrainian debt is rated triple c minus. not one person in this room would buy it. in is not one expectation they can pay it back. ukraine is ranked as one of the most crument nations. corruption is one of the main reasons that the i.m.f. quit sending money to ukraine. i think sending ukraine loan money that will go to russia is not a great signal. and i think sending money without the precondition that we know this is a brand new government. this is a government that just came into existence with maybe

many questions as to how they came into existence. we don't currently have a president in ukraine. there are some questions about loaning them money. we have two billionaires from ukraine who have been recently appointed as mayors. i would be more inclined to loan them money if they would be first in line to put their name on the list of creditors of those first to call if the loan is not paid. so there are a lot of questions i have here. the question primarily is, if you loan money to ukraine, are you sending a signal or are you sending a gift to payoff russian creditors. my amendment would trike the loan guarantees and the i.m.f. one of the reasons for striking the i.m.f. reform is in the i.m.f. reform you would be giving russia an enhanced vote on the i.m.f. their vote percentage will increase by 8%. you will be giving russia more power within the i.m.f. with these i.m.f. reforms.

so i don't think you are sending the signal you want to send by allowing russia to have a greater deal and greater power within the body of the i.m.f. really it should be going in the opposite direction. billion owedto $30 to russia by ukraine. i know the impetus is to send a signal, but i don't think we are ending the correct signal by sevending loan money that will find its way very quickly into russia's hands. >> senator paul for purposes of understanding, you have amendment number one? >> yes. >> senator corker. >> first of all, i always enjoy hearing from my friend from kentucky. he always makes interesting points. i want to thank him for thinks divot on this bill. the russia quota expands further

eforms from 2.5% to 2.71%. this was done to bring growing onomies into the i.m.f. in a more appropriate way. so while that may be 8% of an increase for them, i just want to say to everyone, that 2.5% to 2.71%. and while russia may be a creditor, ukraine has lots of creditors. and somehow or another, they have to make a transition from where they are and in doing so in offering this loan guarantee the stated policy, the state department, that this does not happen unless they have entered into an i.m.f. agreement which would move the country hopefully toward these processes that we'd ll like to see happen. >> mr. chairman, do we have copies of the amendment?

>> and mr. chairman, can i make ne quick response? >> i think we have more leverage -- see, the question has been on both sides. there has been a lot of corruption. transparancy international ranks most corrupt the nations on the planet. we have more chance of actually getting reforms if the money is dependent on the reforms, rather than you get them the money and say you hope this new government will institute reforms. >> senator corker. >> let me point out, it is in our national interest to have strategic partners that respect the human rights of their

citizens. ukraine has gone through a difficult part. ukraine is critically important to the united states. it is in a strategic location. it is very important to regional stability. we have a lot of our native partners in that region. this is a very important country. the corruption that you are referring to was under the previous administration. that prime minister as you know is now hiding in russia, and ukraine is starting a new government, inclusive government, a government that will represent all the people of the ukraine. and it is critically important that they have the economic underpinnings so they can gain the confidence of the people. this allows for the international monetary fund to go in, do the necessary audits, put the country on the right path, and allow them to become a viable, economic country. the loan guarantees is part of a

package. as senator corker pointed out, it only becomes real under the i.m.f. plan. otherwise, it doesn't become real. it is not just the united states . it is the e.u. that wants to understand the importance of the ukraine. this plan is much more effective for the united states and the world community than the alternatives. this is a relevant stiffly small investment to get the type of strategic partner, stable partner in that region, which is important for u.s. interests. i respect senator paul's views on this, but i would urge my colleagues to reject the amendment. >> senator murphy. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. building on senator cardin's comments. with all the comment on crimea, what has been lost in the fog of this is the fact that only about

two million ukrainians live there, and the fact of russia has predecember continued -- many have a at chance to make good on their deal with the e.u. this is a matter of weeks before ukraine faces default. there is only one alternative to support from the united states and europe, and that is russia. if you want a guarantee that ukraine falls back into the russian orbit, then withhold aid from the united states and europe. i know it is never an easy decision to commit this amount of money, but ultimately this is a sign of russian weakness as they lose their foothold in ukraine the way we guarantee that continued path into the e.u. is to make sure that we are an option and that they aren't forced back to russian funding nd ultimately russian control.

>> any other members? >> at the risk of being rundian ant, if we -- at the risk of being redundant, if we allow the ukrainian economy to collapse, all kinds of bad things happen. i have confidence that the new leaders of ukraine are absolutely committed to erasing the corruption which has plagued that country and brought an otherwise rich country on the brink of economic collapse. i say to my friend of kentucky that the prime minister of ukraine is here, and i hope that he would have a chance to hear from him how dire this situation is. and it isn't just the $1 billion in loan guarantees. they need a lot more help than that. they are going to get $15 billion from the european union. it is a sign -- it is a signal, a clear signal, that this congress and this president working together are willing to

help them and assist them at a time of the most critical need that they have. and frankly, if we adopted the pending amendment, it would send exactly the opposite signal, and this whole situation in ukraine is extremely fragile. i would think the worst thing that we could do right now is say that we aren't going to assist you, and i also would point out again, i.m.f. loans, which is really the long-term solution to their economic difficulties as senator murphy pointed out, they require as ms to be implemented they give the money in traunches to this government. i have seen the i.m.f. in action before in these kinds of situations, and i am confident they would insist on the kind of reforms that are being promised now. thank you, mr. chairman.

>> the member senator paul, i am going to recognize you for final comment, then i will have a comment, and then we'll call for a vote. >> you know, i think if you were a bank, and you were going to give a loan, you would have some analysis of whether or not you can pay back the loan, what your are. i don't know that we've had any testimony on whether or not ukraine has the assets to be able to pay back any of this loan. so the real question would be, if we are going to be more honest, we would say, if we're going to do this, we just want to give them a gift maybe and not call them a loan. that would be much more honest. i don't know. if a person owes $150,000 on their house and their house is only worth $100,000, and they can only make payments really on $90,000, is it a good idea to give them more money? i don't know. i think maybe sometimes restructuring your debt and starting over might be a good idea, particularly if a lot of that debt is owed to the russians. really, the money goes to somebody. some very wealthy people will

profit off of this. maybe not the people of ukraine, but some banks will get their payments from this, very wealthy countries, countries we are not very happy with will make profit off this money. they owe $2 billion to russia. they owe another $20 billion to banks. it is unclear how much of this will find its way to government hands. realize when you give money to ukraine, you are giving it to russia. you may think you are sending one signal but i think you are in an unintended fashion sending another. >> i appreciate the senator's views. let me say the chair poses the amendment. the amendment strikes all loan guarantee he's, it strikes the i.m.f. reform. while it strikes that, it keeps rescissions that were originally included in the bill to offset the i.m.f. reforms. so it doesn't seem to me we should be having to keep rescissions if we were to adopt this amendment.

there is no question for those who want to stand with the ukraine, for those who believe that in doing so is in the national interests and security of the united states, for those who are concerned about security issues that it is the i.m.f. that is going to play a critical role, not only in the economic recovery and stability of the ukraine, but in doing so, playing a national security issue. it is also very clear that the i.m.f. is not going to give ukraine a single dime if, in fact, it does not meet a series of standards and obligations in order to do so. so our best guaranteee of ensuring both what has been stated on both sides of the aisle, which is to promote the stability of the ukraine because it is in our national interests and national security as well as obviously the people of the ukraine and to have the i.m.f. be the vehicle to be able to

ensure that that happens in terms of the key role in developing an international assistance package to stablize ukraine's committee, help implement critical reforms and reassure financial markets. with regard to the loan gaurptees in this part of the reform, this bill closely reflects that passed by the house of representatives 385-23. the one thing we do here that the house does not do is we actually have offsets to deal with the loan guaranteee. i think for all of these reasons i would urge my colleagues to vote against the paul amendment. i don't know if the senator is seeking a voice vote. does the senator accept a voice vote? all those in favor will say aye. all those opposed will say no. no? the "nos" have it and the amendment is not agreed to.

any other member wishing to offer amendments? mr. barasso. >> i would like to call barasso amendment number one. page one, u.s. hopes boon in natural gas, quote putin easing on ukraine. then "tightens squeeze on ukraine." my bill would allow liquefied natural gas exports from ewe tain to our nato allies. if we are serious about helping the people of ewe craven, we must extradite the process of liquefied natural gas. russia has no problem using its natural gas to intimidate and coerce other countries. the united states has an tun to be a supplier to l.n.g. and to our allies. this would allow increased energy and security among u.s. allies, help reduce their need

to purchase oil and gas from countries such as russia and iran. as the international relations emergency in ukraine unfolds, it is clear exports from ukraine and other nato allies furthers both the public interest and natural allies. it would help nations diversify energy imports in order to break russian dominance and their control over natural gas supplies. >> mr. chairman. >> senator corker. >> i want to thank senator barasso. he has been way before this crisis out there on this issue. i have a second degree amendment that i bheeve would bring this amendment more fully in mind with w.t.o. issues, which i am afraid that base amendment bumps up against. i know there are some complexities. i know we had a discussion the other day about l.n.g. and how

you cause it to get to the place you want it to get to. i'm going to not offer the econd amendment, but i think this may not pass. i will say to my friend from wyoming, i will vote for this, and as we move along, if it is offered again on the floor, we might work together to make this work better. but i appreciate the thrust, and for that reason i'm going to support your amendment. >> before i recognize other members, which i will, and i appreciate senator barasso's being a continuous voice in that regard. and there are other members of the committee that join him on that issue. committee know that it is the chair's intention not to rule on this because it is without of the chair's jurisdiction. this bill has been referred to the banking committee. i know the energy committee also

has strong jurisdictional interests on the matter. our committee has not examined the issue. i certainly want to work with my colleagues who have strong feelings about the issue. senator barasso, senator mccain, senator udall, and others, to build the record and to try to forge where we might be headed. but for right now, this amendment, which is, i believe, not in the jurisdiction of the committee. also i would urge it be set aside. if it were in fact to pass, we would ultimately have this referred to other committees, d we have the urgency, i think, of the moment. there is also a view that because we have that urgency of the moment that what is proposed on l.n.g. would not have an immediate impact for the ukraine because ukraine does not have the import infrastructure to accept u.s. natural gas. it does not currently have the

wherewithal to build that, and turkey has atold ukraine if it ever did build l.n.g. structure, it would block them out of safety concerns. we can have a debate about all of that, but above all, i don't believe that the amendment is within the committee's jurisdiction, and i also believe that we would also believe that we would delay the bill. senator boxer? >> i strongly support the bill. i am so pleased you have worked across the aisle with senator corker and all my colleagues to stand with ukraine. i have to say that this i'm type of amendment that will lead to increases in energy prices of up to 30% to our people deserves more than a cursory vote attached to a ukrainian bill.

and for those of u.s. putting a price on carbon, we are yelled at every day because it might lead to a 20% increase in electricity. this is a huge increase. for all the reasons you've cited, we can't today resolve all these issues. some day it might be a terrific idea and it might work real well, but right now, i want to help ukraine, i don't want to hurt the american people. so i hope we will table this, or perhaps it can be withdrawn. it needs a much longer discussion than we have time for today. and again, congratulations on the underlying amendment. chairman.ou, mrs. senator barasso raises an important and legitimate issue. we know that the ukraine as well as georgia, the balance ticks, the former warsaw pac countries and former soviet repics are all subject to extortion by vladimir putin and the russians as well as the european union, i might

add, over the availability and cost of natural gas. he has played that card every chance he gets to put pressure on them. i think we need to ad depress this. i won't rule out the possibility, but some of the questions that have been raised here. not just the environmental question, and the cost of utilities in our country, but we are seeing a mini resurgence of manufacturing jobs in america because of the low cost of natural gas. i think it is incumbent on us to ask the important question, what cost to the american economy will there be? how many jobs will we lose? we may create jobs in liquefied natural gas, transport facilities and the like, but how many will we lose in the manufacturing sector if the price of natural gas in our country goes up because of this decision? these are all relevant, important questions. i don't know how they will be resolved, but i think the chairman is right. this really needs to be brought to several committees of jurisdiction to make sure we

have a thoughtful approach. >> senator udall. >> thank you, very much, chairman menendez. and let me just say, senator barasso, the thrust of where you are going with this is a very good idea, and i support it. i think the support of l.n.g. is something we should be doing as a country. we have to somehow shake up the d.o.e. process that is going on. it is, in my opinion, going through slowly. several bills have been introduced. senator barasso, as you know, my colleague and our colleague mark udall, has introduced a bill that would improve exports of all w.t.o. countries from existing or future facilities. i support this effort. the volume will be determined by the price of gas and the cost of facilities. the gas will likely go where there is the most need.

there is a strong interest, i think, in eastern europe given ssia's strong economic behavior. last summer i joined a bipartisan letter with both democrats and republicans to support further l.n.g. exports, and i understand there is also bipartisan opposition to this policy. but what the letter said, and these are both democrats and republicans saying this, and it is even more true today, the world is hungry for u.s. natural gas. and the geo-political implications of l.n.g. imports are tremendous. what you are doing i would really like to work with you on, but i think this could derail this very important bill we're working on, so i'm going to support the chairman in terms of referring the jurisdiction and the ruling that he has made. hank you, chairman menendez. >> senator.

>> thank you. because this has come up a number of times, i can see at least three positions on this committee and i can see at least one in the body. one the position articulated by senator boxer and it was also articulated by senator markey. second, that we should be exporting l.n. g. it is a commodity, like all commodities. and a third opinion, which is mine, that we should export it in a limited way to accomplish certain national security objectives. if this bill were just about the ukraine, i might be willing to support it. frankly, there are three different positions about a pretty complex issue. i feel pretty strongly about my point of view, but i acknowledge faith re some other good arguments. i think doing it in the context of this bill when i hope we would send a strong message of support for ukraine i think would complicate it. i hope we will be able to get to that debate, because these three positions ought to be thrashed

out. we should have the kind of debate senator marquis was talking about -- senator markey was talking about last week. >> thank you. yeah, we need a timeout on this issue. we don't know enough to make an informed judgment in this committee on an issue which is fundamental to american economic security. and i think that the more people understand about this issue is the more reluctant they are going to become in exporting our most valuable resource, oil and natural gas. we're not in surplus in the united states us -- in the united states at all. we still import natural gas and oil. we're not in a squation where we should be sending this valuable element in our security overseas. as we export young men and women over to the middle east to defend the imports of oil into

our country. that's a pretty big decision for us to make in a foreign policy context, by the way, in terms of what does enhance our security. last year natural gas prices went up 27%. as a result, there was fuel shifting back over to coal. meaning our careen house gases went up 2% last year, went up last year, because of the shifting back to coal because the price of natural gas went up. that's a big decision as we talk about climate change in this committee. we have jurisdiction over any climate treaty. we should think about that. reach rk to america to its commitments to copenhagen on greenhouse gases in 2020, we have a responsibility to talk about that. we also have a responsibility to talk about the natural gas vehicle industry, and the utility industry, and consumers in our country as well. the more we export is the better it is. by the way, this natural gas is

highly unlikely to ever go to the ukraine. let's just say that. pe we know they have plans -- they don't have plans to build a terminal, they don't have the apacity, and they -- the turks would oppose them even getting access to it. is is a highly flammable cryo-frozen fuel that would have a nuclear bomb-like impact if there was a terrorist attack. i understand tour turkey's objections, but ukraine is unlikely to ever build a terminal. moreover, as we look at this issue, we have to ensure that we think about american consumers. there has always been a debate over what impact -- our climate change bill would have on american consumers. well, this would have a

dramatically larger impact than anything else that's ever been done. the energy information agency pretty much has concluded in its statement back to the congress that if four trillion cubic feet of l.n.g. have been imported, it would lead to close to a $262 billion increase to american consumers. now, if we talk here about a $62 billion tax on consumers each year in any other context but national security, people would be outraged. and as i come from an energy exporting state, i understand that. but 31 states are energy import. they don't have any natural gas or oil. we have to import it. i understand the perspective of those states that export. but this is our most valuable

commodity, oil and gas. it's not like a watch manufacturer exporting, it is ot like the kumkwat industry exporting. if we're going to talk about a country that is not in surplus right now, the united states, or diplomatic reasons to be sending a signal, well, the signal is going to be for rio, seoul, beijing get ready to purchase this low cost natural gas. because as that goes out on the open market, our price goes up, because we have less levels, but the bonanza is in these other countries. and we have to talk about who the beneficiaries are in terms of manufacturing of our goods sold back to us. the control of this is not in the congress, and it is not for sure in the bhouse. the control is in the c.e.o.'s offices of energy companies in the united states.

they are going to take it to the highest price. and the highest price by far is china, but the way, and japan and rio, going south and going east. but it is not going west to europe. the hands on the tiller of those ships is controlled by rex tillerson at exxon, and he has a responsibility to his share holders to get the highest price. the ukraine can't compete and europe can't compete, and that's the bottom line. that's the reality of where it is going to go, but the reality is the american consumer is the one going to have the energy tax put on their shoulders and it will hurt all aspects of our economic growth. i thank you, mr. chairman. >> i urge members, since i am going to rule this out of order, that this may be a debate or another time. senator johnson. >> thank you, mr. chairman. senator markey mentioned reality. i have heard it repeatedly said

that russia moving to crimea demonstrates its weakness. to me it seems like a pretty strong move. what i like about this is it highlights the strategic weakness that has allowed this. e fact is, the west, europe, handing out oil, we need to recognize the reality, we need to weaken putin's hands and strengthen ours. long-term we need to have this discussion, this debate. again, that's what i appreciate about senator barasso's amendment. > senator sheheen? >> i thank asenator barasso for raising this discussion. i think it is a discussion we need to have. but given that your intending to rule this amendment, and i

assume the other, out of order, i would hope we would discontinue our debate before we lose our quorum. >> i appreciate the senator's observation. senator barasso. >> mr. chairman, i realize you have the power to make certain rulings in this committee, and i obviously disagree that this be put off until another day. amendments other that deal with the jurisdiction f the banking committee, reappropriating funds from the department of defense is not necessary -- not necessarily the jurisdiction of this committee. i appreciate the kind comments from the committee. many members of the committee have said they want to take real steps to help ukraine. i am offering congress a chance to help ukraine and our allies. the message we are sending now

is we are more willing to protect russia's energy monopoly. the irony is not going to be lost on the people of the ukraine or the allies or the leaders in the kremlin. it is clear by not voting we are rewarding russia with more power at the international monetary fund while denying ukraine the opportunity to be more energy independent from russian energy sources. if members are willing to provide american taxpayer dollars from ukraine to pay russian gas bills, then we should en-- i would say by passing my amendment, the united states has the ability to be the strategic supplier to our nato allies and ukraine. it is worth noting that my amendment on l.n.g. exports has strong bipartisan support in the committee. i expect our bipartisan pass an amendment

that helps ukraine decrease the -- helps ukraine. i look forward to traveling to ukraine tomorrow and speaking to them bl buying natural gas from america to help decrease >> the chair rules the amendment out of order as a topic outside of the jurisdiction. i would be happy to go through those, but i think in the interest of time, we will put that into the record. , theut objections amendment is ruled out of order.

does anyone else wish to participate in the amendments? >> i want to offer my amendment number one. nine ands section offsets to the department of defense. in order to help offset the cost, as well as to help with the enhanced security funding. -- i realizeint there are differences of opinion. i don't believe this is essential for the bill. it is controversial. it will divide us. we are not providing a unified front in a situation where i think we should. amendmentupport the from senator paul.

i think it is important we send a strong signal. what i'm concerned that this provision does keep us from preventing a unified front. very briefly i wanted to speak to senator paul's amendment three you are not going to have the type of input or the type of economic plan that can will -- working in ukraine. -- that can work in ukraine. they are coming up with a plan. the u.s. needs to participate in that. forms -- the imf to fullythe cost offset, that has been one of the controversial issues. i hope we would recognize that for the u.s. to fully engage on this package which is in our

national security interest -- i want to underscore a point that senator murphy made. pulled ine has been two directions. whether they are part of russia or europe. they want to be with europe. we shouldn't force them economically to have to make a choice to be dependent on russia . imf is part of the solution. the u.s. has to be part of the modernized imf reforms. .hese changes are needed >> senator murphy. >> this isn't theoretical, it is practical. developing nations are increasingly hesitant to join with imf efforts to provide relief with the proper strings attached in places like ukraine. so long as the west end on the sidelines. this has practical consequences lead thebility to help

imf into situations where they are bested but to do so. if we continue to sit on the sidelines and the committee continues to be unwilling to have the u.s. join other nations, there will be justification for those developing nations to provide roadblocks to the type of assistance that ultimately as to u.s. security interests in the case of the ukraine. are no other members, let me say that i respect the senator's views. i disagree on the imf, particularly in this package. playing the central anchoring role in developing an international assistance package to it -- stabilize ukraine's economy. and reassure global financial markets. -- seekon we straight

to strengthen the imf's efforts -- it would increase available emergency funding by 16%, sending an important signal to other potential doors. is also crucial to ensure that the u.s. maintains its preeminent leadership and influence within the imf and increase the effectiveness of the imf and protecting global financial stability. including the 20 reforms. this bill will ensure the fund has the necessary resources to support structural reforms in the ukraine. ad the wherewithal to prevent financial crisis in the ukraine that could spill over to global markets and threaten u.s. economic security. the events in the ukraine are the perfect example for why the world needs a strong andrnational financial --

the imf to serve as its first responder. all parties are looking to the imf as the lead actor developing a financial stabilization package in the ukraine. this preventing an economic crisis that would only exacerbate current tensions. and kurt are -- and further damage u.s. geopolitical priorities. for all of us who are concerned about stability and security, all of us were talking about the next crisis, i heard voices complaining about the administration not responded to time.raine' at a different and the west was not responding sufficiently. you have to be in a position to do that. the position is through the imf. even our loan during tea is nowhere near what you will need to publish -- accomplished through the imf.

we need to get this done for the ukraine. we need to get it done for the next global crisis. for us to be in a preeminent leadership position with influence over what the imf does. we do that by meeting our obligation. so.s very important to do i opposed the amendment. i respect his views. a full we have had oh -- debate. >> i don't believe the u.s. will be standing on the sidelines. i don't believe the imf will not be able to act. i want to refute those charges. this is simply not necessary for this package. but i would request a rollcall vote. say to the gentleman that i spoke to christine. she sees this as an essential element of being able to move

forward not only in this crisis but in others. with will likely,. -- which will likely,. we will call the roll. >> no by proxy. >> no. >> no by proxy. >> no. >> no. >> murphy? no. >> no. >> mr. corker? >> no. >> mr. rich? >> aye. >> mr. rubio? >> he didn't send a proxy. >> aye. >> no. i am sure he is a yes.

meaning no. [laughter] the clerk will continue the role. paul?her -- mr. paul? >> yes by proxy. >> no.

>> he is not coming. the clerk will report. [indiscernible] >> excuse me? [indiscernible] >> i know washington counts in unique ways. the amendment is not agree to. anybody else wishing to offer an amendment? >> we have it in amendment from me. what the amendment would do is add number 82 section six a. to section 6ht (a). and to also address violence against women and girls. i want to thank senators johnson, boxer, durbin for

cosponsoring. and senator cardin has been asked to be added as a cosponsor. -- me point out the region reason i thought this would be important to add is because of we look at how ukraine fares when it comes to their treatment of women, they rank very low in politicalomen's anticipation. 119 out of 136. only 10% of women in parliament in ukraine are women. 45% of women in the ukraine beent that they have subject to violence at some point in their lifetime. i think this is an issue it is important for us to continue for this to focus on. i hope the committee will support this amendment. perks -- >> i were thank the senator for her amendment. >> i share the sentiments.

-- there anyone who wants to speak to the amendment? it and the minute is agreed to. >> you have an amendment that is a very simple amendment. a have prepared every year report regarding chinese military activity. this does the same thing for russia. admittedly, a similar report was included in the defense authorization bill, but for one year only. given the activities of russia recently, it appears to me we have to have this as an ongoing report. it adds a few other things to what was in the annual report that was asked for in the defense authorization bill such as an update on the nuclear modernization programs, weapons

proliferation, and others. it should be relatively noncontroversial. it attempts to support ukraine and at least take a hard look at the russians if not actually do some appropriate discipline. this falls in the latter category. i generally am supportive of the thrust of what the senator wants to do. the amendment asks the dod to onpared a report to congress the future military power of the russian federation. that is fine. but the amendment also requires a full accounting of our military to military engagement took this with russia. it asks for a detailed summary of the topics discussed. that would likely curtail the

potential for productive meetings between the u.s. and russian defense officials. it would likely and any chances of u.s. russian military cooperation. considergentleman taking that section out? in which case i would be prepared to accept his amendment. >> i would. that is aan, i think broad interpretation. having said that, i can take that out. motion that wea -- that the men then this menendez -- the amendment to strike the language i just referred to be accepted. is there a second? all those in favor say aye. all those opposed say no.

ayes haveave it -- it. are you willing to except a voice vote? .ll those in favor say aye the amendment is adopted. is there any other amendment? is notough mr. rubio here, he is here in spirit. he has jury duty and has asked rubiooffer on his behalf number one. it adds language to paragraph 15. that language strengthens the language of regarding the with russia's participation in the g-8. most language in the bill puts

sideboards or restrictions if you would on russia's participation in the g-8. anddds language that -- that particular language is strong -- talking about not invading your neighbors. adds additional language -- addedrms -- that would be after discouraging them from entering and violating territorial integrity of the neighbors. >> is there anyone who wishes to speak to this amendment question mark -- this amendment? you have other amendments? >> no. >> i am inclined to be more excepting if there are limits. >> irony game you might and -- i

already gave you might answer. any member who wishes to speak to the amendment? if not, all in favor say aye. the amendment is agreed to. we thank him for his civic participation in jury duty. >> thank you, mr. chairman. we are sending mixed messages to russia on whether or not we are encouraging them by sending them loan money via ukraine. are sending them a message that their behavior is unacceptable. i offer this amendment to make it clear we would like to send a message. this paul amendment three. a $50 million fund

, the u.s. russia investment fund. are clever washington mathematicians who have concluded that cutting spending is increasing spending. i don't agree with that. this would send a good signal if not a great deal of money. a signal to russia that we are unhappy with the behavior and putting our money where our mouth is. any other member who wishes to speak to this amendment? >> if we could have a roll call, i would appreciate it. thank you. while i appreciate senator paul's thinking and tapping the have funds, recent events

underscored the need for more assistance to democracy, rule of law, and civil society organizations in russia, not less. the amendment is technically not possible. the fund is not free for reprogramming. capital independent fund incorporated in delaware, with specific restrictions on its expenditures. i think that what we need to do is hope of democracy and rule of law in russia. not take away resources. i would have to oppose the senator's amendment. >> i know the house looked at this, saying cbo would actually score this is spending. not as a reduction.

they were counting on the money coming back to the treasury. for what it is worth, i appreciate the intent of reducing spending, but but it has been indicated it will be scored in the opposite direction. it takes money -- i would like that out -- point that out. >> does the senator asked for -- the clerk will call the roll. by proxy. proxy -- no >> no. >> no by proxy. >> durban. >> murphy. >> no. >> no by proxy. >> mr. corker? >> no. >> aye. >> mr. rubio? >> mr. johnson?

>> aye. no proxy available. no vote. >> no proxy available. no vote. >> mr. paul? >> aye. >> the clerk will report. >> nose or 11. yays are 4.1. >> one final comment. defenseerence to the appropriations under this bill, these are rescinded from unobligated balances from other procurement. it is a fund that is under executing. is out of a $6.4 billion appropriation that procures

various types of equipment. $57 millionng about in budget authority. out of a program that the army, due to the recent termination of a certain program, has ultimately decided to retire all of what they call the warrior helicopters. that program is proposed for cancellation in the budget requests to read -- budget requests. the bottom line is it has been vetted with the appropriators. we are talking about underperforming and/or program ends -- programs the department has canceled. we feel that it is fitting and appropriate to share with both the state department and d.o.t..

-- dod. >> we were happy to work with you in our subcommittee. i was told by the comptroller's office that they have no objection to these offsets. >> i appreciate senator durbin and his role as the chair to give us that insight. i hope that eliminates any questions. the vote is on final passage of the bill. the senator. >> i will vote against this. i have to tell you i am disappointed. i wanted to do the things we all want to do with the ukraine. i'm disappointed we have included matters regarding the imf that i think should be debated separately. that i and others have strong feelings on. as a result of that, i will cast a no vote. i'm hoping after it comes back

from the house and that is out of there, i can vote positively. all those in favor. court -- aye by proxy.-- durbin? >> aye. >> murphy5 ? >> aye. byi by proxy -- aye proxy. mr. johnsonnson? -- ? aye by priooxy. >> no by proxy.

>> mr. chairman? >> aye. 14 -- the legislation is favorably reported to the senate. i ask unanimous consent that staff the allowed to make technical and conforming changes to the bill. with that, this hearing is adjourned. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014]

>> afghan security forces will deteriorate if the u.s. withdraws at the end of 2014 according to general joseph, the top commander in afghanistan. you can see the entire testimony online at c-span.org. here is a little what he had to say. meit is very disturbing to to hear the president say that -- longer karzai weights, waits, the lower the number of troops will be. why would this dictate the number of troops and missions we would want as part of the

residual force? >> i can't talk to that. >> i'm sure you can't. out of the to get equipment that we need to get out of afghanistan? on schedule? >> absolutely confident we will be able to do that, senator. >> even if the russians cut off one of the avenues. great efforts, we have resilience in the system. i'm not concerned about a loss of russian northern distribution network. >> are you confident with the level left behind that the -- say 10,000 plus nato forces -- that the afghan military will have capabilities such as air of actuation, close air support, and intelligence capabilities? >> two of the things you mentioned are gaps that will

exist in 215 -- 2015. the air force will not be fully developed or intelligence. their special operations cap will not- capability be fully developed. those of the four main areas we will be focused on in 2015. >> in your view, if we left afghanistan, with no residual ofce, we could see a replay the iraq scenario? >> if we leave at the end of 2014, that afghan security forces will begin to deteriorate. en seer care -- security vironment will begin to deteriorate. the only debate is the pace of that deterioration. ofthere is a long line outstanding leaders. we are proud of the service you have rendered and continue to render to our country. senatesanity --

intelligence committee chairman came to talk about allegations that the cia searched a kampeter network that was set up for committee staff. he said gop staff was not aware of the investigation. i am here to speak about and intelligence committee matter. allegations have been discussed rapidly and the halls of congress and the press. based on press reports yesterday, today, and even last have beenlocations made with regard to the central toward thee action's committee as well as staff toward the cia. the reason i feel compelled to speak on this matter is the following. although people speak as though we know all of the pertinent

facts surrounding this matter, the truth is we do not. the republican committee members on the senate intelligence committee and staff were not involved in the underlying investigation of the detainee and interrogation report. factsnot know the actual concerning the cia's alleged actions or all of the specific details about the actions by the committee staff regarding the draft of what is now referred to as the panetta internal review document. both parties have made our nations against one another, and even speculated as to the actions. but there are still a lot of unanswered questions that must he addressed. no forensics have been found on y:e cia computers, or as m

regardingd to them -- the cia searched or the circumstances under which the committee came into possession of the panetta internal review documents. given that both of these matters have been referred to the department of justice, and may take us a while before any accurate factual findings can be reached and a satisfactory resolution can be achieved. it may even call for some special investigator to be named to review the factual situation. l get to the bottom of this. but today i cannot make a statement that a will reflect what actually occurred, and therefore what recommendations we ought to make as we move forward. right now our committee members are conducting an internal assessment of the facts and circumstances involved in both of these matters.

this will be an ongoing process that should not be described or discussed in the public domain. but like all other intelligence committee matters should remain within the purview of the confines of the intelligence committee. today, i simply wanted everyone to know where i stand on this matter and how we need to get to the ground truth of these very >> the ukrainian prime minister meets with president obama.ster he speaks with the atlantic council about his country's future.

and $1 billion in loan guarantees for ukraine. a couple of live events to tell you about tomorrow on our companion network c-span3. the senate banking committee holds confirmation hearing for nominees to the header was irv, the national credit union, and department of housing and urban affairs. at 1:30, john kerry is scheduled to testify about the department budget before the foreign affairs committee. and you can participate via facebook and twitter. while this invasion continues, we and the other nations of the world cannot conduct business as usual with the soviet union. that is why the u.s. has imposed stiff economic penalties on the senate -- soviet union.

i will not issue any permits for soviet ships to fish in the coastal waters of the united states. i have cut soviet access to high technology equipment and agricultural products. commercemited other with the soviet union. i have asked our allies and friends to join us in restraining their trade with the soviets and not replace embargoed items. i have notified the olympic committee that with soviets invaded afghanistan, neither the american people nor i will support sending an olympic team to moscow. [applause] years ofghts from 35 house floor coverage on our facebook page. c-span. companies 35ble years ago and brought to you as a public service by your television provider. journal's, washington

spotlight on magazines focuses "wired"ticle in magazine which suggests tech companies had to fight for their lives. this is a half-hour. >> our series continues here today in the washington journal taking a look at they february for "wired magazine", " how the u.s. almost killed the internet and why it still could." mr. leavy joining us to talk about this. the day these tech companies were contacted by the washington post about the revelations made by edward snowden, what was the reaction? guest: this came out june 6 of last year, purported that these companies had cooperated with the nsa in giving it access to

the data about customers. everything from google searches to facebook photographs to anything the people shared. to read the articles you would think there was a direct umbilical between the nsa and these companies. that was not really the case, but as it turns out the companies were cooperating in a secret program that forced the companies to give information to the nsa, but by that point, the companies were trying to correct the record when they were somewhat jagged of what they were doing. there was a whole doubt about what the companies were doing and people could not trust them for anything by that point. host: were the companies really surprised, and how did they not know what was really going on? guest: they had never heard the

codename of the program that they had been cooperating with. it was called prism and was in the internal slideshow from the nsa, never used to them that turned out to be the name of the database that had the information. hat had the information. they were also surprised it was .eing reported there was a massive amount of data. that's mr. he persisted for a few months, until they learned there was another major source, a bigger source of information from the servers, the company storehouses of information about you and me and everyone else through the nsa, which the nsa was also intercepting traffic circulated among the different databases -- data centers of the company where they store --

store information. google has multiple data centers and do not talk to each other. the nsa was basically tapping into that and getting the information there and collect in it. were the tech companies giving the information or was the u.s. government taking it back it? guest: both. there is one slide that talks about the downstream method, which means asking -- actually compelling the companies to give information that they asked about certain targets or e-mail addresses or whatever in the companies would have to provide the information or track and real-time what the customers were doing, and then the upstream method where behind the company's backs essentially they were grabbing the information. when it comes to the companies giving it, being required to do so, if the ceos

did not know, and you report the stories went around asking, are we doing this? if we -- if they did not know, then who was giving the information to the government? guest: that is an interesting thing i learned, in certain cases and in a big company like this, you try to insulate the ceo from what is really going on . there are compliance officers generally a company like facebook or google, someone who maybe has experience in dealing with the government that negotiates the terms of what they hand over. it is a little fuzzier whenever the press comes in. sometimes the company might say that is too broad. other times they might try to fight it. of course, the court that gave the order does not give them much play, and if they do not cooperate, they are in contempt of the court and subject to fines and penalties.

yahoo! try to fight this in 2008, and what was the outcome? guest: when the order for first , theyhrough in 2008 fought it. they said this is unconstitutional and had to fight it in secret because when you get an order from a secret court you have to fight it in secret. it was not until last year that these priests came out in public. they lost the object in and lost the appeal and still might be of mine somewhere but generally that it has been deemed constitutional. >> what part of the law did they cite that it is sort oftionally? guest: in keeping with the patriot act,

and a lot of other actions dealing with earlier surveillance act. amendments through the survey let's act and really broadened the power of the government. congresspeople say is it broadened its way beyond what they thought they were doing, at least in the nsa interpretation. interpreting it in the widest possible manner, and some people in congress like senator ron wyden said we never thought this was going to happen. patriot actof the said it exceeded what he thought would happen. host: what was the message when yahoo! lost the battle? the other message to companies was we have to cooperate. they pushed back and said he wanted tell our customers the kind of information we are handing over and how much. they can only do this in limited

ways that did not give a whole picture for what is going on. after president obama announced reforms, modest reforms of the surveillance ask, this january, there is a little more play in what the companies can say. even so, we do not have a complete picture of the nate church of the information they are handing over and how wide the scope is. in a way, it is less relevant now that we know from the back , the nsa is getting massive amounts of information, and what the companies want to do in those cases is encrypt the information so the government cannot easily access it and read it. >> what does the government say about encryption, and explain how it works. a method byn is which information is scrambled. even by intercept it, i cannot necessarily read it.

the nsa is an organization whose mission is to decrypt, unscramble these kinds of codes. they are very good at doing it. even so, not so good that state-of-the-art encryption can be easily baffled. that is why countries like -- companies like google, hollings are encrypting or manning to encrypt the information as it moves among data centers and internet. edwarde learn from snowden recently that encryption works. guest: it does work but is not flawless. in order to do it right, you have to be relatively sophisticated. not so easy for everyday people to use it. i interviewed eric schmidt, the executive chair of google. and co-author of a book he

wrote. they did a big, international -and said theyr to bash the prize that in companies that have a lot to lose from having communications intercepted do not use the tools available to them to scramble communications because it is too complicated. host: a tweet from a viewer -- do these companies make money from the government or mining this data and handing it over? so, the first part of the question from the government, just for their own use gets to the absence of what is -- gets to the essence of what is required for the companies to use this.

their model of serving the customer is based on how the information about the customer and being able to target information that the users want or deliver the information that they want a son who they are, that is really important to the company's. companies want to cut a deal with us. host: they sell this information to other companies who want to research? guest: they do not sell it, they use it for themselves, to make our lives better. then they give us better search results. facebook says, because they know more about us because they can provide more relevant information when we go on facebook and look at the newsfeed that scrolls by there. they do not sell to the government. they do get reimbursed for supplying it to the government but do not make content from it.

that is a small amount of money. >> you write this i'm a google, facebook microsoft and the other tech titans have had to fight for their lives against the u.s. government and an excuse of look inside the year from hell and why the internet will never be the same. why hasn't been a year from hell? -- has it been a year from hell? guest: these companies are under cotton screwed -- constant scrutiny because they ask so much about because of the benefit they provide to us and these companies sell advertisements against the information and do not give it to the advertisers that use the information to service advertisements there so it is part of the business model as well. they have spent years trying to get us comfortable with deals and have done a pretty good job because we use these companies a lot, even though you know we are sharing information and other

circumstances we might not be comfortable with. then all of a sudden something new comes into the equation. not only being used by the companies i'm above the government is getting a hold of the information. little brother collaborating with the brother. that throws all of the trades very and could make us uncomfortable with that and would threaten the core models. involvedting viewers in this conversation. you can call in. democrats (202) 737-0002 andblicans (202) 737-0002 independence and all others (202) 628-0205. you write in the story about how president obama initially responded to the snowden leaks. what did he say, and what impact of that have on the company's? guest: the leak about the prism program, which involves

companies handing over under order information to the government, he tried to reassure americans by saying, do not worry, it is only for foreign intelligence. so if you are an american citizen, that is not what we are collect and there. this did no favor to the companies. over half the business is overseas. that is where most of the growth is. that did not do them any favor, because now foreign customers are very wary of the customers -- of the companies. they say if i use google or facebook or the other companies or a company stores my information in the cloud, is it all going to the nsa? all going to the united states government yang? greg in georgia. independent collar. my question is the way

the government is taking information from the high-tech companies. facebook is sending mail to get information. and taking money out of the companies. thank you. guest: i think it is difficult going back to snail mail now. the fact is we are all pretty hooked on the new technology here. i do not think you can turn back time to say i am going back to or mail system and the nsa the fbi into ever surveillance targets will be going back to steaming envelopes. a nice idea, but i think we are way past that. host: a new report out that says the internet rebel -- will

revolutionize the economy. by 2025 users will be more informed and help the economy. and next in aurora, colorado. -- ann. caller: i wanted to make a correction about a statement made that these companies do not .ell the data they are mining when twitter went public it was made known that 20-30% off office is the actual sale of data they collect on people who are tweeting, what they are , etc..g and when the internet to me is one massive advertising tool. categories, all of the private information and use it or sell it. host: i will have stephen leavy respond to you. i may be brought in

describing that, but we were talking about facebook and google, they will not sell personal information. they will use that information. there are a sub industry that does nothing but sell information that is gathered there. all sorts of advertising -- advertising networks and other things that plant bugs on your computer, essentially, as you -- surf thed at internet and look for information. i think we need laws to limit that. as for the twitter thing, it is my understanding that they aggregate a lot of the information, but most of that is public information. they do nottweet, treat privately but in general. twitter does sell firehoses of information that otherwise could

be gotten, but not otherwise an easy form. host: back to the government role in this. the president nominated to head upthe cap -- to head this was on capitol hill testifying about their surveillance program. the headline is he backs data collection, saying they support the idea of maybe a third-party holding onto maybe double of the data. how do you think tech companies would respond to the idea? i think he was talking about a different program we have not talked about before basically collects all of the data about who we make phone calls to and how long those called last, and that includes americans. part of the reason why the companies were so upset when the

first revelation came out is that was a day after he learned about the massive surveillance program on americans, and a lot of people assume this was the technological equivalent. they were getting the same data about mail, which prison does not do. as it turns out, the nsa had experimented in a similar program a couple of years before. in terms of that, i think tech companies would be very uncomfortable with that. they do not want to be in a position of holding information that is seen as storing it for the government for the government later x oration of targets. >> verify vent. the president deals with what you don't-- host: verify then. with: prism deals information about you or that who yourate or he --

communicate on the systems with google, facebook, yahoo! come apple and a number of the rest of them. in that case, the government makes a request to a company like this book or yahoo! and the company then provides that information on the customers or e-mail address that is involved in that target. trying very hard to see how broad the things are. that is the one thing you can really not get a handle on. you say there is a request. have a request on joe sixpack and this e-mail address and everyone who lives in houston or malaysia or something like that. they say it cannot be that broad. it is tough to say. we are a little more information out of the companies will tell you more. it is not a giant amount

compared to how much information the government caught from the upstream methods. address the second part of the title in the story, the u.s. government almost killed the internet and still could. here is a quote from the facebook ceo, mark zuckerberg. explain. years -- four years some companies have been unhappy to dominant power on the internet is the united states. most of the big companies like the ones we have been discussing here and the ones that build the infrastructure for the internet are american, and certainly western, develop nations. they say we want a piece of that and feel maybe we should not connect so easily with the rest

of the internet. powers haveus, the opened nature, that anyone can plug into it. you do not need permission to begin a business on the internet, and it is global. urgings on behalf of of these are out there but the nsa revelations gave them new power. now countries like rizzo, police malaysiay -- brazil, and germany talking about walling off citizens from everyone else and hurdles to integrate the information with the rest of the world. that really could impact the internet as we know it and make it less useful. the big companies would have to invest a lot to make the systems work. -- starttartup company up company may never get off the ground because i could not reach

the global audience that every internet company wants to reach. commentre is another, and -- now someat is right, businesses and other countries are selling their wares on the bases we do not cooperate with the nsa. one venture capitalist told me that was the pitch of a cloud storage company to him from europe when they were talking beut why they were going to a successful business and maybe an american company like dropbox or google cloud business or amazon. next call. republican collar. caller. occur twohad an event

weeks before the nsa scandal occurred on the news. i was working on my computer. i am a writer and writing a historical novel about h and each of -- ancient egypt. i have multiple sites up on my google. resumea sudden the word one-inch highared on my screen and had no idea what that was about and my system went down immediately, and two weeks later i heard about the nsa and understood what it was, but i do not know what happened to me. was this a trainee who got it wrong or a computer that malfunctioned? i do not know. a prettyretty

interesting story. i cannot give you an answer. almost like the x-files. since the companies did not know the code name you would not think it came from them. , unlikely they would be looking at your computer, but to be honest, i do not know what happened. the programes worked versus what is called muscular? the codenames for the program i described earlier where the government tapped into the traffic circulating among the databases, specifically apple and google. companies like microsoft and facebook also assume the same thing was happening to them. upstream program i described where as prism was the downstream program where they compelled companies to give the information. host: american heroes has -- -- says --

guest: that is a terrific question. one part of the story we have not discussed yet is i called the nsa for comment. i said do you want to talk to me? i had written a book in the 1990's. i covered the crypto wars where about thea big fight encryption technology. for a long time the government fought it and fermented companies from exporting it. eventually they gave in. to go to thehard nsa and talk to them. in this case they surprised me. they said come down and talk to us. i spent a long