russia. but, we need to give an incentive for russia to cooperate with us. again, this is one of the reasons why i have suggested that by bringing competition in to this, and eastern europe, and breaking the monopoly that russia has with 70% of the export out of russia. budget.% of the entire if we do this, along with the other steps that we take care to build democracy and support for institutions within ukraine, i think we've taken a decisive step to create the second thoughts, to create the leverage , and my time has expired. i will go to mr. grayson of florida. >> thank you.

i want to join in by some of the comments that were made by my friend from california. ins than two weeks ago, response to the question from the gentleman from florida, secretary kerry said that without a doubt it were free and fair elections in crimea. crimea would join russia. i think that is an important fact, and i think that is the central fact in the situation we face today. all over the world, people are stuck in the wrong country. the great accomplishment of the 20th century was the end of colonialism, the end of colonies , millions of people stuck in the wrong country by means of military force by those powers. maybe the goal of the next entry is to see the for the moment of that principle that groups of people can join together and create a country and join another neighboring country, and be part of the country that they want to be part of.

we cannot ignore the fact that 2 million people in the crimea feel that they have been stuck in the wrong country. wassituation created created in the 70's when they gave crimea to ukraine. both ukraine and russia were part of the soviet union. of thehe dissolution soviet union at the beginning of the 1990's, is now a loss. there are large groups of russian speakers be the border of russia. for thehe great issues past 20 years has been, what we do about that. thate do with the fact there are substantial numbers of people outside of our borders who identify as russians. and are ethnically russian indistinguishable from the people within our borders. the old soviet union had borders

that were arbitrary. parts of the soviet union that are different from russia. for instance, if in fact there some russian military action, we would repudiate that and stop that. the lithuanians, in terms of religion and culture, are fundamentally different from the russians. not.rimean's are in one election after another after another, the entire time that they have been an independent country, the crimean population has shown that it is loyal to the russians and identified with the russians. it voted over and over again with the russian party. and recently we saw that the candidate whom the crimea supported by over 90% of the votes was a russian speaking candidate, and he was thrown out of office. you may say that he was thrown out of office for good reasons.

there are allegations against him. there are allegations that he used the military against his own people. the fact is, from the perspective of the crimean's, their leader, the one that they picked was thrown out of power. it should come as no surprise as secretary care recognized that the craniums of had enough. they want to leave this artificial entity called ukraine. didact, the russians assist. they assisted by disarming the local ukrainian army and navy. that is what they did. they did it virtually level asleep. ssly.oodle that is the fact of the matter. why are we pretending otherwise? why are we speaking about naked aggression? why are we speaking about stealing crimea, or bullying, or audacious power grabbing, or cold war two.

i'm surprised they didn't say the iron curtain has dissented. this is not some cold war that is occurring. in fact, it is quite the country. we should be pleased to see when odlessually blo transfer of power workers. in fact, what we're seeing is the vilification of putin. of anybodyification who would try to identify as the enemy. then, -- this does not help. the basic provision here, the basic principle of self-determination. it is not for us to determine otherwise. i yield back good -- back. >> i think the german for yielding. the gentleman for

yielding. these adjectives are not used in this carefully worded resolution. that is first of all. secondly, the problem or the difficulty is not so much with the example of the lithuanians. the problem is with the example of an aston you or let be up, countries in which -- astonia or latvia, countries in which people were moved out and replaced with ethnic russians. today, in those two countries, you have strong minorities of estonia andkers in lativia. you the same situation in crimea. the majority of the ethnic with then perished

russian speakers in the area you have a different circumstance. problem in terms of the way in which the referendum was held was that it was unconstitutional. it was illegal. that occurred under russian military occupation and coercion did most of the situation where the opponents were silence. importantly, voters remark preservingption of perversio the status with the ukraine. the only chance on the ballot was independence. frankly, i think the vote itself was unnecessary. the ukrainian government made it clear that it would discuss increasing economy for crimea. frankly, that was probably the way to solve this thing, by

allowing crimean to have this autonomy whatever you wanted to call one country, two systems. you would be giving true crimea the autonomy that the local population desires. the presidential elections and are now planned are going to provide a legitimate opportunity for all ukrainians to make their voices heard on the future of the country. i'm going to lead the delegation there in april. we're going to speak to all factions in ukraine. mr. sherman spoke to the issue that we want to convey, one of and attitude of national reconciliation for ukrainians. right now, we are faced with a certain challenge. that challenges, if we do not send a strong message here, what estoniawith respect to or latvia. surfaces,ar situation

was the argument made that a russian population lives within those two countries. we can extend that to any number of countries on the periphery of russia, as you've pointed out. i think we have got to get back to a process whereby this is done in consultation with the international community, and there isn't an excuse given for russia to move aggressively on other countries, using as an argument propaganda that is not occurring. the propaganda component of this was the thought that ethnic russians were being beaten. in our legislation, one of the most important aspects to me is the inclusion of radio liberty broadcasting into the country in these

languages to allow ethnic russians to know in real time what is happening in the country to offset tropicana. i didn't want to bring up those points with respect to the underlying resolution. we are going out to mr. smith of new jersey. much foryou very introducing this comprehensive legislation to support ukraine in its urgent effort. lateandgrab in crimea by core principles of the bilateral and multilateral treaties with russia and the united nations charter, as well as the helsinki final act. it includes a strong sanctions component against russians responsible for this aggression. 4278 includes targeted

sanctions. and it provides assistance to the ukrainian government for identifying and recovering stolen as eight. it is these criminal officials, including and especially unicode those who have russian people. another key provision of the bill provides support for the civil society. it it supports the faith-based groups and organizations that play a prominent role in supporting the rule of law. ukrainian democracy movements are religious movements third orthodox and catholic clergy are prominent in the protest. the drama became as much a symbol of the democratization moment as anything else. religious and faith-based

organizations are part of the civil society and democratization, and a country is just part of the rule of law and anticorruption. the amendment will include that specifically. i yield back. >> we go to mr. lowenthal of california. >> thank you, mr. chair. you rankingank mumble angle for bringing -- member engel for bringing forward this law. i strongly support the sanctions for individuals responsible for the loss of ukrainian assets who have undermined problems.

however, i would like to raise an issue that is contained in the support ukraine act, which probably is not within the jurisdiction of the committee. as we seek to promote democratic values in ukraine, and to support those democratic values, we must not lose sight of our own democratic values here in united states. the bill provides broad discretion to the administration and the staff in the department of state and homeland security. it it is for individuals they determined to meet certain criteria. while i understand and support the need to provide discretion to the administration under these extraordinary circumstances, i remain concerned about the lack of any judicial recourse for those affected. as the bill moves forward, which i do support, and hope that it does, i will request with the that theycommittee

address this lack of judicial recourse. thank you. i yield back. gentleman yield for one moment -- would the gentleman yield for one moment? >> yes. >> receptions of the bill regarding the sanctions, including the preclusion of judicial review. these are not amenable. i just wanted to explain this. concern thens which immigration and nationality act and parts of title 28 of the u.s. code that deals with the judicial proceeding portions, there in the legislative part of the judiciary committee. i would be part of the process. we go now to mr. weber. from texas. chairman.ou, mr. with great respect for my friend from california who is from

sherman oaks, i want to address the idea that there is a brewing controversy on drilling natural gas. i want to bring attention to the fact that president bill clinton was in office. there was a controversy over drilling. thinkof the comments, i my comment from california said, the controversy of drill, baby, drill. there was a controversial bumper sticker. now,id drill here, drill pay less. made were that it would take 10 years for the oil to reach. it wouldine was built, be 10 years before we saw any of the oil. it is pointless. if memory serves me crackly, bill clinton left in 2001. had we told them, we would have

the benefit of that energy now. i think this current crisis point to the fact that that is a controversy that when america can become energy independent, and only serves to create jobs in this country, which we sorely need right now, but it also ,roduces energy independence national security for americans, and produces security around the world. the ukraine ifin they would rather buy energy. as them if they would rather buy gas from america or the russian bear. i think that answer is pretty straightforward. we cannot, in my opinion, ignore the fact that this is a national security controversy, it we want to use mcauley's words from colleague's- my words from california. had we drilled 15 years ago, we

would be in a lot better shape. the question i pose, 10 years from now are we still going to be saying we have this brewing forroversy about drilling natural gas and exporting to other countries. it means jobs for us. if it means a balance of trade for us. it means national security for us. and it means international security around the world. those of the kinds of things that we saw putin due to the ukraine. that cannot be done. when you have a crimean legislator that votes to be re-next to russia, where the people to stand up and say, no. if you had a gun aimed at your head, you is say no to.

they send the document and stuck their finger in the eye of the biggest tyrant in the world. it was the most powerful countries in the most powerful army. if people in crimea did not want to be annexed, where were the voices to stand up and say, no. it troubles me that we are getting the money and that we are getting involved, as my friend from california says, in a situation where clearly, it seems as if they were unwilling to stand up and write -- fight for their own liberty or unwilling to pay that price. yet, we're are going to get involved and get between the two. i have great respect for chairman royce. i've been overseas with him and watched him with the other countries. and the knowledge he has in the way users affected, so i'm going to wrestle with this one. i've great respect for my

,olleague from sherman oaks that great city california. i will yield. >> we're about to have hearings issue of energy exports. my hope is to keep that out of this situation right here. had we drilled, there are various things that would have happened. would be hurting as much for every barrel of oil as today. i don't think it would've affected oil prices. i will point out that, in japan now, they're paying triple what we are for natural gas. 1.5 times what they are in germany. i doubt we are going to see a decline in what they're willing to pay for russian national gas. i yield back to the gentleman. >> i will shut up and yield back. thank you. >> we're going to have to move to consider the amendment on the

block and other amendments that i have got. , hasrankel from florida speaking time. and mr. keating. i thought i would recognize them. we are going to have members who are going to have amendment good -- amendments. >> thank you. ido support this act, and enjoyed the debate. i would like to raising questions. and then it would like to yield my time to those with like the answer. this has to do with the proliferation of nuclear weapons . under the budapest amendment of 1994, the united states, united kingdom, and the russian federation made assurances to in the eventlaim that the sovereignty was threatened, in exchange for giving up nuclear warheads to russia.rude --

my first question would be probably to mr. grayson and mr. chairman. i would appreciate your answer. thewould you relate to agreement? secondly, to either of you believe this act will, in any way, affect negotiations, either or syria. mr. grayson, do you want to take a stab at that? >> it is fair to say that the russians skated around the agreement they signed 20 years ago. there's a great deal of trouble in the details with regard to how the situation unfolded good i think the chairman quite accurately enumerated many of them. me is whetheror

that somehow trumps the desire and the need for the people of crimea to have self-determination. in my case, i think it does not. that does not mean that we need to overlook the fact that the russians appear to have violated an agreement that you mentioned, or overlook the fact that the russians doubled the legal amount of soldiers that they had in crimea, leading up to the referendum and a number of other regulators -- regularities. i do not think we are the right one of history for standing the side of the people for self-determination. answer that question, your thought of the andpest memorandum of 1994 how that relates to this discussion? >> would you repeat the question? -- myre was a understanding is that ukraine monetarily give up its nuclear fromal with the promise

the united states and united kingdom, and the russian federation to protect their sovereignty. so it seems to me that there may be some implications if we do not move forward with this type of act. i just wanted to get your sense of that. >> well, i would just point out that the political document that to is notwo -- refer a security treaty. the united states is not bound under the document. i do not think that is relevant to the debate or the resolution here. nor do i think the resolution complicates, in any way, the suggestion i think you're alluding to. >> i think you are -- mr. check, if i may -- >> i do not understand. >> i think it's important. >> just in terms of president,

if we do not back up, in some way an agreement, we got ukraine to give up nuclear arsenals with an assurance that we would maintain and protect their territorial integrity. obviously, russia is violating that. >> you yield to me. you are right on the money with that one. absolutely. i was at the time when russia perhaps felt more vulnerable than it feels now. putin feels strengthened now, for many reasons, one of which is the energy revenues that he gets for making russian a power again. therefore, he is conveniently decided to neglect the agreement russia signed back then because he feels he is stronger now and he can afford to do it. i think you're quite right. this legislation stands up to

bad --d says there are is bad faith by russia. beinga matter of putin the bully because he feels that he can be. >> thank you. >> will the gentlelady yield. the point is that the document itself does not require a military response, clearly. dictate that would we take what steps we could to leverage the conduct of russia, in order to penalize russia for violating the agreement ukraine main, as you articulated. so russia understands there will be a consequence in the future if the conduct continues. i think what gives us all pause is the speech that he made.

we set the boundaries of russia are not the boundaries of the current map of russia. and that russian populations anywhere are considered part of russia. of strategy is a signal that we have to be aware of other intentions. 's actions which are just that we need to move decisively and with leverage to put pressure on moscow not to attempt this. mr. keating? >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want a friend this legislation i'm supporting this way. and what russia did was illegal. there are other ways of dealing with issues of autonomy.

they didof oh --kosovo that with the security council. they've been open to discussions and dialogue on issues of economy. rights.lated everyone's everyone's rights are better protected. that is deutsche happen. the way it has happened has been at the barrel of a gun. that is what the legislation addresses, the illegality but was done. i do not think that should be lost. i yield back. i thank you for yielding back good i recognize myself to offer a manager's amendment which was provided last night. the amendment offered by mr. rice of health when it. >> without objection, the

amendment is considered red. i will explain imminent. this amendment includes several items which were shared yesterday and which were disputed to all member offices. there are also additions for other members of the community, mr. smith and others. as i noted in my opening statement, the underlying legislation is a strong message of support for ukraine the pushes back against russian aggression. this amendment contains more items in support of the cause. importantly, the amendment allows for the president to target those corrupt officials closest to putin, target in them for their visa bans. last week for individuals and one financial institution were targeted for providing material support to russian officials. we can and should wrap this up. this is putin's powerbase. contract,government

or ivory, it is already written -- and rampant. it is despised by the russian people. this provision lets them know whose side we're on. the amendment calls for close rigney the of russia's efforts assad in syria. i appreciate the close attention to that issue. muska's support has been moscow's support has been essential. there is reason credible reporting that russia has and thosehe treaty congress a determination in this regard. on security assistance, the amendment answers increasingly bipartisan calls to do more to help improve the capability of ukraine's armed forces, which are been neglected for decades. lastly, the amendment includes

technical changes to perfect the language and the underlying bill . do any other members seek recognition to speak on the manager's amendment? >> thank you, mr. chairman. i speak in strong support of the manager's amendment. i want to tell our colleagues who, specifically, what the bill does, what the amendment does. it adds language on ukraine and human rights. it has language on community and faith-based organizations. society.nian civil it has language to improve the capability of the armed forces. and has language allowing the president and corruption in russia. and it requires closest scrutiny of rushers efforts to arm the regime in syria. it requires the president report on whether russia has materially

breached this obligation, under the inf treaty. it includes a number of technical changes to the language in the underlying bill. mr. chairman, i think that these amendments strengthen the bill and are right in line with what we are attempting to do. i strongly support them and i yield back. rohrabacher from california. >> thank you, esther chairman. -- mr. chairman. i rise in respect to my colleagues but with strong disagreement with them and the managers amendment, as well. there is no doubt that there are significant reduction in russia. there is no doubt about that. there's no doubt that there are significant corruption in a huge , and thethis planet governments that control the people on those terms of the

planet. mr.now that, for example, yanukovych, who was elected as president of ukraine and removed electedd, that he was acause the people supported revolution they had. they conducted themselves in a corrupt way. the people of ukraine were upset. they elected this prohibition -- pro-russian yanukovych to be their president. it is a hostile act toward russia. it is a hostile act toward those

people that run russia. i'm not saying we should not recognize that. ple that run russia. and i'm not saying we shouldn't recognize. yes, they are not anywhere near the honesty standards that we have. but for us to single them out right now as compared to what's going on in china, as compared to what's going on in so many other countries of the world, is telling them, we consider them our enemy. and this is what we're talking about today, is an effort to rush headlong into the cold war again by declaring war on these people. that's what we're doing. we're declaring war on them as individuals, single ling them out from the corrupt dictators of the world. with assad, yes, i think assad is a corrupt dictator with a rotten regime in syria and putin has supported him, but, of course, our guys support al

qaeda, the people who murdered 3,000 americans on 9/11. our allies are supporting those guys. so no, we're going to condemn russia for supporting assad because he's a corrupt dictator. what did prussia just do? they just give $2 billion the in support for general. well, thank god they did that. they're not going to do that in the future if we start singling them out in such a hostile way that we know we're at war with them as individuals and war with russia again. that's not what is best for our country. and it's not what is best for the world. from what i understand what happened in crimea, not one person was killed. maybe there was one. what happened in kosovo when we were supporting self determination, which we should have supported, and in sudan,

we're talking about thousands of people who lost their lives, and yet we have to condemn the russians, of course, when no one lost their life in an attempt to make sure that people of crime ya had a right to control they're own destiny hean their own self determination. so i would oppose this manager's amendment as well as the bill. >> i'm going to recognize myself for a few minutes here. first, i want to make it clear that this bill includes measures to address and sanction ukrainian officials as well. these all apply in this legislation to those ukrainian officials involved in that kind of conduct, but it also applies to the russian oligarchs who have been involved in the

situation. why? well, for one reason we should look at every event we have in this situation in order to make certain that moscow does not move to southern ukraine or eastern ukraine or in other eastern territories. and second, corruption is the most despised activity in russia today. it's one of the reasons russians view the actions of the state as so irresponsible. o so it's not as though in targeting corruption we're doing something that runs cross current with the interests of the people in russia. the authorization in the legislation if you look is very permissive. in other words, we are saying that the administration has the ability to do this. why would we want to give the administration this authority? we're sending the message that

moscow needs to ramp this down. that we need a resolution of this crisis. the only way to get there is if we have significant leverage here. sochlt there's a lot of flexibility involveded in the language that we have in the document. and frankly, and lastly, this group is putin's power base. we have seen the way things have been nationalized in russia and power transferred to oligarchs that are very close to the head of state, and if we are going to succeed in this endeavor, those who have been engaged in ill gotten games need to be penalized, need to feel that there's been a consequence of that type of activity. so for those reasons, i think

that this is important, mr. cisilini was waiting to be re recogni recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for holding on these issues. as we address the crisis in ukraine, i freesht that we are reaffirming our commitments to human rights in burma. ful i want to thank you, mr. chairman and our ranking member for leading this committee in a bipartisan manner as you respond to the situation in ukraine, and leading congress in a thoughtful, unified response to this crisis. following the recent unilateral annexation, we support ukraine'soeverty and territorial borders. it's also critical that the united states make clear that our government will stand in solidarity with our nato allies. this will demonstrate our support of the ukrainian people

and territorial integrity. i would like to thank for your inclusion of the support act, which calls on president obama to expand the list of russian officials sanctioned under the mcgitsvy act. this action illustrates russia's loz of the international stature due to the violation of international law and finally i offer my thanks to you, mr. chairman, for working to include my amendments language. i believe it's critically important to reaffirm the united states policy is to encourage ukraine to protect the fundamental rights of all individuals. the underlying bill encouraged ukraine to respect the rights of ethnical and linguistic minorities, which is important. this will make clear the united states will protect the rights of all ukrainians as they pursue freedom, democracy and equality

under the law. >> will the gentleman yield? >> yes. >> i want to thank the gentleman from rhode island for yielding and for his contribution to this base text. . i think he made a very good point. when we were writing the language in terms of respecting the rights for ethnic and linguistic minorities in ukraine. his point that we should expand that and touch on the importance of promoting and protecting human rights across the board is particularly important given the troubling reports of attacks against peaceful protesters and activists in ukraine. preblgting the fundamental human rights of all individuals are going to be successful to a -- are going no be essential to a successful democracy there in ukraine, and i thank the gentleman again for his contribution. >> mr. kissinger of illinois? >> thank you, mr. chairman.

you have a situation where you have an armed force, whether shots are fired or not, you have an armed force walking into a sovereign nation and tearing a sovereign european country apart. i don't know in any way why anybody on the committee would defend that, would call that a self determination, would call that anything but an aggression and rebuilding of the soviet union. i think it is completely legislate to go after corrupt officials in russia. my friend from california is very quick to go after corrupt officials in afghanistan every time the issue of afghanistan comes up, and it becomes the argument for why we should pull out of afghanistan. i also would like to remind folks that have talked about, you know, the issues all around the globe. i agree. china is a major threat to the united states, and probably one of our chief competitors in the world, with the exception of al qaeda and global terrorism. but i would remind everybody that china has yet to invade a neighbor in the way that russia

is invading, has invaded georgia, is invading ukraine. the second we see china that do that, we ought to also respond very strongly. a lack of strong response will mean china is likely to do that exact same thing. and then i want to address the issue of assad. because, i think this is a big issue. . assad has murdered almost 200,000 of his own people. he did it initially with chemical weapons that choke children and people to death as they basically die as they realize they're dying in their own lack of breath and unable to survive. . so now instead of using chemical weapons he's decided to use barrel bombs in which you load 55-gallon drums with ig nigh tors and drop them on an area if you want to empty. it doesn't matter if there's women there, children, men, it it doesn't matter because you

drop a barrel bomb and kill whoever is in the way. there's no defending assad in syria. the opposition, some have links to al qaeda, but that's partially because assad is attacking free syrian army and allowing the al qaeda opposition to grow so he can do the narrative he's a savior of the chris channel religion in syria. so i think all of the russian influence we're seeing in syria, the rebuilding of the soviet union that we're seeing going on right now, i think it's essential. i think it is essential that we react very strongly to this because the lack of doing this will not only mean that russia is going to continue to push the lines, it's going to continue to climb ethnic minorities everywhere that surrounds it. the baltics are next. they can claim there are russian interests anywhere. but it's not acceptable. and if we see what is going to happen, china can take the same if we standby. >> thank you, with go to mr.

smith who worked to include good language on community based and faith-based organizations in this ukrainian civil society thrust in the bill. >> thank you for including it, mr. chairman. i want to make a brief point to my very good friend. you contrast this legislation and this effort with the iron sanctions act championed by lilliana ross laten, which targets the entire populous of iran. this is targeted. it is modest. it proportionate. it holds harmless the russian people while picking out nose who have committed egregious acts of corruption and violence and my friend from california is right. yanukovych won a free and fair election in 2010. he won it. i've chaired hearings and heard from her daughter because she was unjustly imprisoned after

the fact by kan cove itch. yanukovych was in a race to the bottom, corruption wise, during the demonstrations, he actually sent out his bully boys, and people were wounded on independence square. they would follow people who were wounded to the hospital, and then they would disappear, presumably tortured, and killed, and never to be heard from again. . that's where the faith based organizations, mr. chairman, in one of their many acts of bravery stepped in, and actually opened up the monostairs and the churches as a place of refuge, brought in nurses and doctors, and denied access to yanukovych's bully boys and said, you're not coming in. so they were right there throughout all of this. but again, this legislation is all about targeting. i wrote the democracy act in 2004, ten years ago.

it targeted yugoslanko who was the last dictator of europe until recently. he has a despicable regime. this man tortures his bully boys like yanukovych's, are known for their employment of torture against the civil society, and especially against those in the opposition. we tried to do this with china. i offered legislation that is law today. that has been absolute unimpleme unimplemented, first by the bush administration and now by the target administration, that targets people who commits repressive acts into the people's republic of china. so the idea of targeting individuals is not new. it holds harmless the general population of these countries and says we're going after the the offenders, those who commit acts of human rights abuse and violence and the like.

and so i think this is an excellent bill. it's a modest bill. it is proportionate. zbr can gentleman yield for a question? >> i'll be happy to yield. >> you mentioned the targeted of your legislation. the targeting of individuals in china who are engaged in those practices. am i not a cosponsor of that bill? >> yes, you are. and one is law. it passed in 2000. >> and let me know what we are discussing here is the fact that we are not enforcing that law, but yet, we now want to enforce a law like this on people who are equally corrupt, and i would in no way try to defend these people who run russia as being anything but corrupt officials, but the fact is that they will be the ones who we will enforce this notion on. and thus, if you are the only

one in the world who ends up having such a standard enforced, is there some reason for them not to think that we are going to war with them? >> well, i say to my friends enforcement, even with the act has been spotty and shotty, as the gentle lady from florida pointed out, and there's language in this bill that calls for expansion of that list. there are people who have committed horrific deeds who are not on the list. we're calling on the administration to do a better job with that, as it is already law as it relates to russia and china. although that's not the context of this debate. and to say with regards to the ukraine and as the chairman pointed out so well. this not only applies to the russians who committed misdeeds, but also the ukrainians. >> mr. vargas from california seeks recognition. >> thank you very much. mr. chair, i appreciate it. i wasn't going to speak. i think it is important that we

have a robust discussion. i think the discussion today has been fascinating. it is dangerous when we cant niz a strong man. i think the language i heard about putin filling the churches in russia and somehow unifying people around the russian area is dangerous. we've seen this in the past, where a strong man comes to power. . he's held up by his own people, and then begins to almost become an other worldly figure. this is dangerous. i hope we don't lose sight of that. some of the language i heard today is dangerous. i just want to mention i do support the measures before us. thank you. >> mr. grayson? >> thank you, mr. chairman. this bill in terms of what it says, not what it does, accomplishes two things. one is that it increases aid to

ukraine. the second is it imposes sanctions on some class of individuals who are in russia and the amendment goes to some substantial lengths to strengthen the part of the bill that imposes sanctions on individuals in russia. i would like to hear from the proponents of this bill and this amendment exactly what they think will be different in the real world, as a result of the passage of this bill. i don't want to sound flip, but i will tell you with were not expecting putin to visit disney world any time in the near future. the fact this this bill prevents him or his colleagues from doing so doesn't seem to be reflective of anything that would reflect their motivations, much less reflect their actions. that concerns me. . i understand as a congress there's only so much we can do to affect a situation so far from our shores. i think that's true in general. that there's a very narrow limit

to what we can accomplish when dealing with foreign policy as a hole. i do want to hear what it is that the passage of this bill and this manager's amendment will do that will be different. that will make a difference and affect the motivations of people who are in charge in russia. >> i thank the gentleman. will you yield? >> yes. >> i appreciate that. mr. grayson? >> the people wielding power in russia are not just the officials in that country. the people who have enormous power there are people who have stolen enormous amounts of money. they have basically taken resources because of their political poll, because of their closeness with president putin. but traif transferred a lot of the wealth offshore. they are susceptible because they do like to travel abroad, and they do like to move their money out of the country. they are susceptible to pressure

if we apply smart sanctions. they are friends. they are poliaccomplices of president putin. so they have enormous influence at the end of the day, on russia's foreign policy. and the combination of putin's concentration of power, not just to his own advantage, but to the advantage of the individual who is have this wealth at risk, the combination of repression against the people, and against the political rights of all russians, and the theft f you think about it. the theft of russia's wealth through corruption have resulted now in an authoritarian system that is pursuing an aggressive foreign policy. one that started in the ukraine but may not end there on the basis of president putin's last

speech to the douma. so we have an ability to send a message, cross current with that approach or a message that instead says to the russian people we stand with you against those who have received ill gotten games, in particular these individuals have benefitted, as we know, from the disillusion of rule of law in russia. and so this as we're looking for leverage, this is a way to put enormous pressure on moscow. that would be the calculus in terms of the smart sanctions that we have, in my view, in the bill. >> i'll reclaim my time. just to pursue this further. what we're talking about here is using the fact that the russian oligarchs have e massed a large amount of offsure outside of russia assets to use pressure against them to get them to

pressure presumably putin to change russian foreign policy and make it more, shall we say discreet. so, for instance, one could picture the united states and the the european union working together to actually cease through sanctions the action of russian oligarchs that are held outside of russia, including the owner ship of the brooklyn nets. i'm not sure that would be worth very much, but one could do that. so is it in fact anticipated that had this bill would be used for the purpose of actually seizing assets of russian oligarchs that are held offshore in the united states or europe or elsewhere? >> our president will be meeting with heads of state in europe to discuss next steps. this would give the president the ability to freeze those assets. and i would argue that the

specter of those assets being freezed will focus the minds of those close to president putin. this is not as confrontational as other approaches that might be suggested, but it is one that i think is effective because the amount of wealth we're talking about, the amount of ill gotten games and the amount of influence that these people have is truly disproportionate. russia is no longer a society in which the direct influence of the people are as influential as those who replaced them by being close to the head of state. and so their input, i think at the end of the day, is going to be important. i've raised other leverage that we have in the legislation as well. but for this issue, that's the calculation. >> thanks for the explanation, mr. chairman.

>> thank you. >> we go now to mr. connelly. >> mr. chairman, i was simply going to observe. i find it interesting that our friend from florida has made a passionate case for the justification of the power grab in crimea because of russian heritage and the will of russian mf majority at the expense of a very minority and we ignore the process of the rationalization, the fact that russian thugs were bust into crimea, deliberately to influence the outcome. deliberately to intimidate those who may have a different point of view. >> will the gentleman yield? >> my only point is i find it odd having given that statement, we're now concerned about the sanctions in front of us. which is it? do you favor the power grab in crimea, or do you in fact simply want to make sanctions even more effective?

i yield back. >> will the gentleman yield to me? >> certainly will. >> okay. it's both. i yield back. >> we recognize mr. yoho of florida. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i appreciate it and i understand the intent of what we're trying to do here. i do support the intent of supporting the people of ukraine, however, i think the process that we're going through is la little bit misguided, and what we're talking about is, you know, russia stepping up and showing their power. i've got in front of me the kind of history of the crimean peninsula. and it says that crimea is in an autonomous repib lick in ukraine, but they stand as kind of an independent state from what i see here. 58% of the state of crimea is ethnic russia.

again, i support the intent of what we're trying to accomplish, but i think what we're seeing in russia is mr. putin stepping up. he's emboldened. you're seeing venezuela emboldened. you're seeing china emboldened with iran and syria, and i think the reason we're seeing that is we're trying to project strength, but they see us as weakened. i know i don't need to remind everybody that we're $17.4 trillion in debt. the government was shut down in september and october because of the lack of funds, and yet we want to give more money to a country, and we have to borrow that money, yet we have people in our own country who can't get health insurance or send their kids to school, and for us to project strength, i think it's time we strengthen america and rebuild america, and that's the only way that you can show up dpl a fight or in a confrontation. you can't show up when you're heam rajing.

i think the rest of the world knows that we're hemorrhaging. again, i support what we're trying to accomplish. and i need just for information to pass this out, that we gave the ukraine over $102 million last year, and we've committed or obligated $3.6 billion since 1990 to help them do all the the things a we should have been monitoring that has brought us to this point, and to go forward in saying money is the solution without being from a point of strength i think is erroneous, and i think it just sends the wrong message that we can solve this problem. >> will the gentleman yield? >> yes, i will. >> okay, this bill only addresses already appropriated fiscal year '14 funds. not any new money. what we're doing in this legislation for the members edification here is we're prioritizing and moving the funding that was appropriated, specifically focused on what we

can do in democracy building in the ukraine here with respect to taking such issues as the overseas private investment corporation, which pays for itself, but we're giving added for those businesses that are going to invest there, the opaque insurance policy will stand behind those businesses and other funding to build civil society with respect to the training of law enforcement and so forth. >> will the gentleman yield back? >> i will. >> on page 6 of the bill it says congress finds the following. ukrainian economy is weak and vulnerable. then it goes on the to say a financing gap within the government of ukraine as estimated will amount to $35 billion over the next two years. that's deficit spending, and a large underground economy has developed. the economic condition undermines and, i want to emphasize this. this economic condition

undermines democratic prospects in the ukraine. again, we're at $500 billion in deficits. and it's soon to return to a trillion dollars because of our economy, and it goes onto say years of poor economic management and performance economy. it says it may continue to undermine political stability and unity within ukraine. >> if the gentleman would yield, i just -- >> we could almost be talking about the united states on the way this is put. poor economic management and performance. >> i think when the gentleman reads that statement, it sounds as though this measure would appropriate $35 billion. that is not -- it referenced the fiscal problem. >> i understand. >> that exists in the ukraine. but the lion's share of that is being shouldered by europe. i think if you totaled -- and i'm doing this by memory. but if you totaled up the provisions here in terms of supporting law enforcement in

the ukraine, et cetera, it's about $68 million. the reference that you are citing is simply the facts on the ground in ukraine. not what we're committing to. i do want that to be you said stood. and the $68 million or so that we do commit heresaid stood. and the $68 million or so that we do commit here is money already appropriated for the budget for foreign affairs that we are reprioritizing for this purpose. so i think that clarifies a little bit. >> if i had my druthers, i'd rather pay off our debt with that money. i'm out of time. >> i ask for unanimous connecticconsent. >> absolutely. >> my reading of the bill is that we're actually taking money from the pakistani aid budget and putting it into ukraine instead.

i yield back. >> and i believe -- would the gentleman yield? >> yes. >> in terms of that portion of the budget, i think it's broadcasting in pakistan that we're taking the funds and applying it here. for the record. now, are there any second degree amendments to the manager's amendment? hear nothing second degree amendments, the question occurs on the manager's amendment. all hose in >> reaction outside of the supreme court to a case involving health care laws contraception mandate. the head of the internal revenue service will testify about the ongoing investigation looking into the targeting of certain

clinical groups by the irs. that is live tomorrow morning at 9:30. later, executives from target and visa and head of the federal trade commission testify about recent consumer data security breaches. you can see live coverage of that at 2:30 eastern. the two top members of the house committee unveiled their legislation to but in the ball collection of metadata under the pfizer court. committee chairman mike rogers took questions from the reporters for about

nine months of intense negotiation to try to come to the conclusions of that we could move forward on an issue that has been contentious, often misunderstood. something that we think protects america. i want to talk briefly about this program. passionately i believe this program saves american lives. we believe it was legal. it was overseen. it was passed by congress. of sectioncommittee 215, nobody saw any illegal activities or misuse. we know the program service purpose. was legal. had the proper level of oversight. it did create discomfort with america.

after 9/11, one of the gaps in our ability to protect the united states against an attack like 9/11 was the fact that we wheno ability to find someone in a safe house in yemen found into the united states for one of the hijackers ended up flying into the pentagon that day. there were seven such calls. that is a gap. doh the community decided to in conjunction with congress was find a way to fill that gap.

all the reviews, from the ig pressure refused to the professionals review panels down no misuse of the program. americans need to buy into this. if we are going to be able to track terrorists calling the what kind of a program we put together that will allow us to maintain the program, and from the confidence americans have. we believe we have done that. we think we have found a way to and the government's ball collection of telephone metadata and provide a mechanism to protect united states and cap those terrorists who are pulling in united states. we have met with the stakeholders. nine months, met with industry folks. we've spent long hours talking to each other on the committee

trying on a wet way forward. i do believe now we have found that, minus. a couple of highlights of the bill. ban under section 215 is the use of pfizer to collect local electronic medication records, e-mail, metadata, and internet data, the use of pfizer collect bulk to etc. rsonnel records, we can go into more detail in the questions. that is the primary concern of the average american super concerned about the government holding large quantities of phone metadata. no content, no names, just the data. we think we have found a way to do that. we can explain it later. what will, breaking member to

make comments. this is a significant step. the white house is moving to our position on this. we been sarah -- we have been sharing with them for a few weeks. this is an important step for them and moving forwards we can get on to other important matters. i will turn it over to the breaking member. >> thank you. i want to acknowledge the leadership. we have been working on these issues to protect our country for lease the nine -- for at least the last nine months. the chairman and others in the committee have had negotiations. we had come to an agreement so that we can have a bipartisan bill. too want to knowledge members here today, working on cyber issues. i want to thank him for his input.

also, i want to knowledge thompson and schiff who have worked closely with me to get our issues together. doing is, what we're we're listening to the american people. we also know our committee has a responsibility to to protect the american people from terrorist attacks. we cannot let 9/11 happen again. we know that if we would've had information that the 215 would have given us we might have been able to stop the 9/11 attacks. we do not know at that time the terrorism was in san diego plotting this attack. , number one,ing is ending all collections. the government will no longer be able to have metadata. -- butadata was legally

there was a perception issue. the public was concerned that the nsa or the intelligence community was maintaining information. mike and i knew we had to deal with the perception. nsale who work at the everyday get up in the morning and feel strongly they are doing the right thing. they're not breaking any laws. there is not one instance in the program anything was illegal. notwithstanding that, we decided we felt strongly we were going to do something to make a difference. said, the phone companies now will have this data already, will be taking a the phoneiving it to passnies, and then we will

reasonable articulate suspicion. a terroristhere is in a safe house in yemen. if that terrance called united states, that would be the test we would need to get the information. what is more important in our country, which makes our country is the -- so strong, process. will evaluate every individual case as it occurs. that doesn't happen now. providethe fbi will this information. -- it to pass the tacit has to pass the test at that point.

we also want to deal with other issues. transparency. we think it is important the public knows how important the mission is, and how to work with the military to save our country from terrorist attacks. i wouldn't start -- i'm going to stop now. >> we will open this up to any questions we have. say to people who say their are no safeguards? >> two things. you get two bites of the apple. you have a program review. you have to have a court authorization for the program itself and its guidelines and standards. a prompt review of the numbers, and we do that for circumstances. these things happen in real time.

reviewe core will do is each individual selector. they will approve the program as what qualifies as articulate suspicion. then they will take the information within a short time and make sure it meets the standard. if it doesn't, we require a purge of the information. you get to levels of judicial coverage on the particular search. we are talking about foreign numbers calling into the united states. >> what happens if the court says that will not protect? >> that information is purge. they will do a review. it is required under the law to be purged from the system. >> there is no incentive for the fbi to come start this process. knowing that if they don't have expunged.it will be

there'll be a test. getting names in this. that number would come in. it only gets phone numbers. no numbers -- no names, no addresses. it still has to meet that suspicion test. subsequent to that, if they want to find who owns the number, they have to turn over to the f the i to get their legal standard to find out who owns that phone number. the big change here is a one-time the program would send all this information, put it in a lockbox, americans felt uncomfortable with that area and this is the alternative. -- americans felt uncomfortable with that. this is the alternative. that is a major difference when it comes to book collection. -- bulk collection.

it was we think there could be in the future abuse. that is what we're trying to do. alleviate that concern that there could be of use in the future. >> let's talk about what it tells us. , gettingnformation enough information for more tests for probable cause or that intelligence is getting information and building on that. that is why you have the test. >> just a quick clerk vacation. -- just a quick clarification. iswhat you're trying to do collection, [inaudible]

>> first of all, we need the program to function. program. critical terroristsreign coming into the night it states. billsieve that the other out there doesn't make that standard to protect through intelligence gathering slick and find out who is planning attacks. that was a big part of it. they will approve the program. set the standards for r.a.s. and then when the selector, that means 555-1212, we get that number from afghanistan, pakistan or yemen or fill in the blank of 20-some-other countries and that number comes in and tell you why it's a terrorist, the judge would say here's the

requirements you have to meet in order to even submit the number. they can begin collect in real-time and the court must promptly review to make sure it meets the standards of the court. if it doesn't, all of that information must be purged. >> let me try to answer the sensenbrenner issue and deal head on with it right now. in my opinion, the sensenbrenner bill and i understand what he is attempting to do, it's a good start. but it makes our country less safe. why? i talked about the example of a known terrorist calling from a safe house in yemen. under the sensenbrenner bill, in order for us to be able to have the ability to see who that person is calling and get that information, under the sensenbrenner bill, you have to have an ongoing investigation. that's not an ongoing investigation. right there, we wouldn't have the ability to see who is calling into the united states because we didn't have an ongoing investigation. what sensenbrenner is attempting

to do is getting information for a probable cause, for evidentiary hearings, that type of thing. we are in the intelligence business. we have standards in intelligence. and yet, we understand listening to our constituents who have concern about privacy and we should. we should always be concerned about privacy. what we're doing is attempting to get this information so it can move over sometime and get more information if there are bad guys that want to attack us and take it over to the probable cause sensenbrenner side. >> are you negotiating -- [inaudible] what about snowden, is this a victory for him because his claims and concerns were correct? >> his concerns were not correct. this was a legal program that had proper oversight. there were five different places he could have taken his

concerns, he chose none of them. 95% of the information he took was related to military, tactical and strategic information that we now believe is in the hands of the russians. a lot of that information benefits the russians and there is information in there that benefits the chinese military as well. it is important to put into perspective what he did in this particular case, which is create confusion on a legal program. he had no understanding whatsoever of all of the level of protections nor the court-level of protections nor the i.g. inspections are and he has do a complete disservice. it created a misperception about the information. after all of the reviews and there has been plenty, the president is now up to two, there has been no abuses in the program or misuse of the information. the concern always has been, but

couldn't there be in the future? we took that to heart and sat down and said we have two goals here, one is to regain the confidence in americans what these programs really are and it's really hard to cut through the misinformation, a lot of union corner information and it has to meet it against terrorists communicating in the united states. >> why is the potential alleviated by the phone companies holding onto the data? >> there is no requirement on the phone companies in this bill. they have metadata which is their way of collecting information to bill customers. these are called business records. and the metadata is the way they have billed. when i was in the f.b.i., they called them pen registers or track and trace. this has been going on longer -- as long as the phone has been there.

there is no new requirement there. >> isn't there a risk that the phone companies abuse this the way the government would abuse this? >> the phone companies have access to it today, so we didn't change that. and this bill doesn't require that you hold certain pieces of information. it is absolutely nonbinding on any information. these are records that they already have. there is no new information they have toll collect, zero. what we're saying is, just like you would do on other criminal matters is you try to go to the company and say we need to see these business records based on this r.a.s. standard. it happens thousands and thousands and thousands of times a day in criminal investigations today in the united states. so there's nothing new about that. >> how is this different than a national security letter? couldn't you accomplish the same thing?

>> the national security letter is an administrative subpoena in the course of a criminal investigation that could either -- it could be intelligence-related but a different legal standard on different programs. we didn't touch that program. the program we are dealing with today which has the number one concern today in talking to our colleagues and americans, they didn't have a comfort level with the n.s.a. in bulk metadata even though we had huge levels of protection. i believe privacy is better protect, but we didn't can change any of that but the way the government collects that information. we didn't change anything at the phone company. >> some of the national plead yeah this morning have said that this program will now have the phone companies collecting the data for us. they have that data. under the f.c.c. regulations, they have to keep all of these numbers of all of their customers for 18 months. what we are doing is saying,

number one, we are passing the r.a.s. test and looking at each case. that is not the case in the program. we are going to individually court test. they aren't doing anything different than they are doing now and we are not forcing them other than the warrant which will pass the r.a.s. test. >> yes, ma'am. >> you had mentioned that you had worked industry in the past five months. what was their reaction to this proposal and are they asking for some kind of compensation for whatever work they'll have to do on their end? how does your proposal differ from what the administration wants to see? >> well, again, we provided -- start with the administration piece first. we have been working on it for nine months.

it's within our jurisdiction and responsibility and we believe it's important to talk to all of the stakeholders to make sure that this works. we believe from what we read in the paper yesterday, unfortunately that's the way we had to read about their proposal. what we read yesterday, they are coming closer to our position here. we think this is a bipartisan well-thought through haggled over stakeholder event and still protects the programs and we were encouraged to see they are moving in our direction. we provided them legislative text a couple of weeks ago and read about their proposal in the newspaper. we had a meeting at the white house yesterday where we tried to get parameters and that was helpful. we are going to get there. hopefully by the end of this week, it will come to an agreement how to move forward. first part of your question --

>> as a democrat i should respond. we have been working with the white house and the white house includes the legislation community. we have had conversations with high levels in the white house. we met yesterday. i believe we are very, very close. the white house understands we need to do something with the issue of holding bulk collection because of the concerns of our constituents. we need to balance to protect our citizens. we know it's a dangerous world and terrorists out there every day to try and kill and attack us or our allies and we had to have the balance and we believe we sought that balance. there are a couple of things we have to work out. but based on the information we provided them and we have vetted everyone. we have vetted the phone companies and communicated with the white house.

this should be a team effort. shouldn't be a republican or democrat. that's why we are standing here in a bipartisan way. the stakes are too high. i believe the white house -- could be one issue and to be honest with you and i'm not sure where that white house is. might be we had discussions -- by the way, we have pre-judicial also and reviewed the procedures. we had pre and post. and we don't have the exact time but once we get the phone number, the courts are going to involved right away, depends how long they will take to get it back. where mike and i are concerned about the pre, we want a flexible system. if that yemen person is calling over and getting ready to coordinate an attack, we are moving right away. the privacy rights of our country are being protected because the courts are involved all the way through. if we can't pass the r.a.s. test, it's expunged.

>> is there compensation for what they are requesting? >> they aren't seeking anything new under the law and we don't provide any language under the law for direct compensation. >> they like the fact that they are having a warrant and like the fact they are not being forced to hold the information longer than they would under the f.c.c. there has been a lot of negotiation, but we wouldn't be here now. >> what is one of the reasons for the original n.s.a. phone collection that they needed to store the metadata longer than 18 months and why is the 18 months sufficient now? >> in any one of these programs you have to find a balance. again, i believe the program is legal in overseen and determined by 17 judges 37 times that was constitutional and met all the tests. >> that's u.s. district court and supreme court.

>> and there are hundreds of a.m. ate court cases that reaffirm the underpinnings of this program. the way it was set up protected civil liberties. the five years, we wept back and said at some point you have to be able to find a balance. preferably, i started out with maybe we ought top keep the program that has been tested and overseen and can protect civil liberties. we are beyond that. now our number one goal has never been b.p. phone collection but how do we catch these people trying to call into the united states and can we do it in a way that prevents another 9/11. that's the bottom line. under the arrangements of what we have, it at least provides us the majority of what we need. it's not everything. we need to understand, when we make changes, you assume a little more risk.

i think -- when i look at everything we have been able to put together, i think the risk is a place we can accept as we move forward and try to fill it in with other programs and other things and our intelligence collection overseas. >> to answer your question why we need the program to begin with after 9/11, it's like finding a needle in the haystack. you need the haystack and that's what the program is all about. and after snowden, there was a lot of mistrust and we have to deal with it. like an official representing our constituents. i represent the n.s.a. these are some of the most patriotic, smartest people and they go to work every day. and believe me, they are not happy they are being criticized for doing something they didn't do. for the benefit of the whole program, country and get the citizens to understand what intelligence does, we start at

number one all bulked out. that's major and huge. but we are going to go further. we have judicial review on each individual case, that's huge. we want to get into the issue of transparency. congressman langevin wants to open up some of the issues in the fisa court and maybe six months after the case, the public review, fisa court decisions. we are listening and we need the balance. can't have security if you don't have privacy and can't have privacy unless you have security. we feel strongly that this seeks the balance. in my opinion, it makes our country less safe because you will never pass the test when we are trying to gain intelligence and have an ongoing information to get information. we can't get there and i could never be a part of that to put our country at risk for another

terrorist attack. there are a lot of bad people that want to attack us evidence and it's our job to do it to stop it. >> can you talk about where the legislation goes from here? >> we had a productive meeting with our two senate colleagues and working with them on a whole host of issues, literally before we walked up to the press conference today. you know, we are feeling pretty good, people coming around a solution. no longer can we be all for it or against it. that is unproductive and it creates an absolute misperception about what isn't exactly happening. the united states government is not listening to cell phones across america and not reading your emails. unless they have a court order through a domestic law enforcement agency to get those. that is a drastic difference

from what you mere often talked from politicians and the media. we have to stop all that. it's dangerous to us protecting ourselves in a more complicated and more dangerous world. so through all of that and all of the conversations, we have been able to bring in republicans and democrats on our side and having great discussions with the senate. there are people who are married to their own particular positions. that's the nature of this beast. the power of the solutions in a bipartisan people that meet the standards that people were concerned about will pass the house and will pass the senate. as i said, the president is not far from our position. and we look forward to putting the final touches on the negotiation to get where we can finally be for something to move through and put this behind us. we have important issues to deal with. i mean this is absolutely critical as we move forward.

>> we are going forward in the press conference today to send a message to the american people that we have a drastic major change that will not put our country at risk. we also have to educate our respective caucuses and we have far left and far right and going to educate them on what this is and tell them what the balance is. we in the intelligence committee know how serious these threats are and they are very serious and we have a lot to do in the area of technology and the area of cyber. not getting off of where we are on this bill, but look at the target issue, the issues that are out there in the future that we are going to have to do. educating our caucuses and get the votes to move forward. we are almost there with the white house. we have some things to work out but in the end, we all want the same thing.

>> following up on that, though, is there a time line in which you are hoping to finish this, by the election, by the summer? >> it's going to take on a natural rhythm. we have other solutions to deal with and just in conversations with members, some members want to look at this and try to make a decision about where they want to be and they wanted to find a balance. our instructions, when we sat down, and said we are going to work this thing out, said, let's find a balance. it was a long path. other national security bills will be on the floor and other issues from energy and commerce that will have to deal with these issues. it's important to put it on the table and say that's what we are working for and build a coalition and get it done. we aren't going to say a time line. we don't know. more people that understand what we have done and what it looks

like, the more support we are going to get moving forward. let me get these folks in here. >> you say that russia has access to the snowden documents, which documents and what's your evidence for that? >> as i said, there is a great defense report, damage assessment report, that details all of the information, a that we believe he has and the fact that at least by those analysts believe that that information, some or all, would be in the hands of the russian intelligence services today. the question is not he is under the influence of russian intelligence services today, the question is when did that start, that seems to be the debate. that means that that information, which is deadly to our military army, navy, air force, marines, some of whom are in combat zones today and some

of the information that was stolen, definitely could lead to the death of soldiers on the u.s. battlefield. it's serious. and i think the media got confused that they got everything he had. that is not true, they didn't get hardly anything that he stole. the vast majority of what he stole had nothing to do with any of the issues we are talking about today. i forget what the number is today, 97%, 9 %, you'll related to military, strategic and tactical issues. >> terrorists, especially al qaeda can change their mechanism on how to communicate and those terrorists and al qaeda specialists that we were on and watches where they were going --

it's very serious. snowden took an oath and turned his back. i would love russia to send him back here. and i can't say -- he's there and i know the russians and i'm sure the russians have gotten all of this information. >> the assessment of the report is grave national security damage, which is the highest indicator that you can have. >> on terrorism, can you tell us where we stand on the hearing next week, what you are trying to accomplish and if asked, will you let other committee members participate? >> i have no interest allowing any members of other committees. this is the regular course of the intelligence committee to do its work and follow up on investigations. this would be the third testimony in front of the

committee to try and find the answers on benghazi. i believe a public hearing given the controversy and swirl after his two classified testimonies throughout the course of the investigation was important. and so i think hopefully this will shed some light and allow him to answer the questions that we know many people have about what he knew and when he knew it. and i have every full faith that he is going to be truthful in his testimony and wim allow us to continue all aspects of the investigation to come to a conclusion. >> who asked for those talking points anyhow? [laughter] >> next question. >> did not pass the test with the american public. looking back, do you feel that the program should have been designed as you are proposing

now as in the first place so when snowden revealed this it isn't -- [inaudible] >> some of the loudest protests on these issues today never read the classified reports that were made available to them. we have an awesome responsibility and every member on this committee knows it and understand it. we talk about it ourselves. it's a burden and privilege to be down there to access the most sensitive things our u.s. government does and a huge responsibility. we believe all of that was accomplished. even though it's not on the committee was made available for them to get questions on it. those on other committees that would have jurisdiction were provided updates, most of which did not take advantage of reading those reports.

what i get so offended about in this whole process, those members who say the intelligence committee has run amuck, many members of this house did not do their basic constitutional function of learning the true operational programs. and that's treat strong talk, but i believe, because we find ourselves where we are. it was authorized by congress and then reviewed by congress. all of their operations were sent up to committees, to the appropriate committee. the expanded members were invited to come down and take part of how it worked. this was not -- there is no abuse here. no illegality, no unconstitutionality. some people don't like the program and that is why we are standing here today. >> i think that the first issue is that we are the best coach in

the world. mike and i travel to hot spots all over the world and one of the reasons is because our forefathers made a system of check and balances. we are the type of people that this could be better. what has happened here as a result of snowden and turn a negative into a positive, we have a debate that has been going on and that debate is dealing with privacy versus security and that's a good debate to have. but we have to do what is right and get to the facts. and i think right now because of the perception issue, absolutely no illegality whatsoever but perhaps of the perception issue, we want to do better we want the constituents to know they are not violating any privacy rights. i might not always agree with aclu, but i appreciate the fact that they are raising these issues.

you'render if the model proposing would have been better in the first place. >> look at homeland security and as a result of what happened in 9/11. congress reacted right away. congress did -- there were some very smart people and lawyers that reviewed and the program, the minute it was passed by the supreme court, our checks and balances and our system of governing. because of the fact that we in this free country we can debate and make those issues. if we can make it better and our constituents can feel safe for privacy and the fact we are protected against terrorist attacks, we will continue to do that. that's why we are the best country in the world. >> to say there is no debate on this program is wrong. we had plenty of debates in our committee, senate committees and

other jurisdiction committees. there were debates on these programs. and i supported it when it was classified and i support it today. i think that's important. some people disagreed and didn't like it but at the end of the day, the consensus was important program and fills an important gap and have a tremendous amount of oversight. if the i.r.s. had this kind of oversight we would all be getting refund checks. it is unbelievable how much oversight and scrutiny is on this one program. that's why those of us who believe in civil liberties and our constitutional obligation believe it passed all the tests required including the judicial review. so to say that we should have done it this way -- a, technology has changed when it started and the way we investigate overseas, incredibly

since i have been on the committee the last 10 years. that's an unfair premise to what is a conclusion here today that candidly we are changing the program based on a perception, not a reality, which is why we have classified information in the first place. we have to put ourselves in a policy that protects america. we found it in this program. some people disagree. >> what about all these other programs that were exposed in terms of the n.s.a. leaking encryption? there doesn't seem to be any concern in congress. >> a lot of what has been out there is wrong. great example, the last go-around when the n.s.a. contractor got up and said n.s.a. is stealing economic data for the purposes of espionage is wrong and we didn't do it. it happened at the time when americans were trying to

negotiate with europe over a transatlantic trade agreement. and i tell you, there is a lot of intelligence officials today who will have to go back and every new revelation, knowing he is under the influence of russian intelligence will have to scrutinize it 10 times more than we did. unfortunately, most people take it as gospel. i guarantee you it is not. when it came out that the united states spied on 80 million french citizens' phone calls in a period of a month and how terrible, awful and disgusting and the french screamed blood murder. to find out, that wasn't the truth. that was information that the french intelligence services gave to the united states based on their collection protecting their troops in combat area. that's a big difference than the united states spying on french citizens, which it doesn't do. so the frustration for us is now, i would be exceptionally

careful about what you hear coming out of that whole information broker system created by the n.s.a. contractor, because we don't know, was it under the influence of the russians. if you look at what the russians are doing in the ukraine today, we better shake ourselves out of this a little bit. they have aggressive campaigns and using intelligence officers and special forces officers to run up and down and create huge problems in that particular country. we see the same thing in georgia. amassing troops and heavy equipment. they are playing for real. so this notion that we are going to have this discussion in our coffee shop without any understanding of what is happening on the ground and what the russian intelligence services are doing around the world is irresponsible. there are more russian intelligence agents in the united states today than at the

height of the cold war. >> and the other issue, too, what snowden was able to steal from his country, 90% military, the russians now have that information and understand what our sources and methods are what our strategies are and don't you think they aren't using it and it is a sensitive matter to the whole world and what is happening with putin. >> if this bill is perception more than reality as you said, what do you do to counteract this perception, monitoring, unrelated to deals in china, deals in europe? and you have been talking about what snowden took. is there a fear -- do you have any idea how much more is going to come out? >> next year at least.

>> just the sheer volume that was provided to the media is huge. there are null outlets created for the sole purpose of releasing that information. i suspect that you'll see a tremendous amount of that being released. >> talking about the perception in this country. i'm talking about the perception in other countries? >> one of these is dealing -- our business community was dealing with in europe. and don't fool yourselves, the french passed a measure to make it so they don't have to get a court order to get personal data stored on their systems in france. espionage is a french word. some notion that the europeans are aghast at espionage is just wrong and many of those european countries do use the economics

to state-owned companies' benefit, which we clearly don't do here. we have to start having an honest dialogue and start having an honest dialogue about what is happening. europeans spy on the united states of america. sorry, every single day. what we are trying to do is make sure that we get a balance in the discussion. we have gone to the european union to balance that discussion so that you can really argue on the same set of data points. to me, that's really important. >> let's talk about where we are today, we are talking about the united states of america first. since world war i, almost every count in this world has some form of intelligence. what we are doing here, we are starting to lead by example, we are showing the rest of the world that we are making changes based on the perception of our

constituents that have concerns about privacy. we have more checks and balances of what we do in intelligence than any other country. you just heard about the french. we have two committees. we have justice, inspector general, we have the courts. that's a lot. i used to be a former investigative prosecutor and you had to have probable cause to get a search warrant. dealing with the united states first. that is our highest priority. and then we are going to lead by example what we are doing here today. >> on the previous question, do you see any need for reforms for programs in section 702, such aspirin? -- such as prison? >> you know, those programs are under different authority. we oversee them. we have lots of conversations about what they are. and that is an overseas-based program. and i don't believe you want to bring that in to some domestic discussion.

that is a very program with a very different set of authorities which is heavily overseen by the committee. i'm not sure we ought to try to mix the two. this is the program that caused the angst. that bulk collection of metadata. we believe it's a pretty big agreement here today that says we found a bipartisan way to end the government collecting in bulk that metadata and found a new way to protect the united states. >> there is a separate matter. there is someone -- many high-tech c.e.o.'s lobbying in washington having concerns about it. you are saying the main problems -- >> i don't believe that foreign collection on foreign soil is something that we need to change. it is really important that when

we have some 26 countries with ungoverned space and al qaeda is spreading in the way that they are, which means we have more threat streams than ever before and the russians use their intelligence services and special forces in ways that are really dangerous to liberty, democracy and freedom, including by the way, the gentleman we met who for the sole purposes of living on a farm, the russians separated from the rest of georgia, he was 85 years old and a gun put in his stomach saying don't talk to anybody on the other side of the fence. that is the berlin wall in the middle of farm country. this threat is real and the intensity of it is growing. we met a guy in the ukraine who had his face cut and he was put in a position of -- they nailed with a nail gun, nailed his

hands up on the wall for the sole purpose of getting him to confess on videotape that the americans were the ones who gave money to spur the riots in the city of kiev. americans, women seemed to have missed the boat here that this -- we seemed to have missed the boat here that this guy is up to absolutely no good. those programs that allow us to understand what is happening, i think we would be foolish and irresponsible if we disrupted them for any political purpose. i encourage all the members to come down and understand the scope of these programs so i think the misinformation that's being provided out there to whip up the frenzy of americans to think that every phone call is listened to and every email is read, is not true and not happening, is dangerous to our national security. >> let's talk about our ongoing process. it is more in the realm of the president of the united states dealing with the allies and leadership in different

countries. if one of our allies is talking to iran and we can get the information and it's against our best interest, the united states of america is our number one priority. believe me, there are countries out there that would love to find a way if they have been able to listen to our president or policy people. so this is an ongoing process, but we want to maintain it especially with our allies. i want to make sure we do what we can do to find out what russia, iran and these countries are doing. but again, i know the president has conversations with leps of other countries of how we are going to work through this process. when you look back 10 years from now and what we are doing in the area of cyber and technology, we are going to be the pioneers and have a long way as technology keeps evolving through the process, too.

this is the beginning stage and trying to get it right. >> just the last point. one of the big differences in 215, somebody asked this question, do you do it pre-- have to get the court to approve every single number prior to get the number or after where you have program review? you create a new standard under the legality of saying that a foreign terrorist will have a different legal standard than a u.s. citizen and i think this is really nuts and ought to deal with this head on. let me give you an example. i left some bad guys out there in chicago, but coming back. >> if i was prosecuting, we would have gotten them. >> you have this other standard. in the criminal law today, i'm going after a crime committed by a u.s. citizen, i get a subpoena and go down to the fope company

and say give me these records on this subpoena, never even gone to the court. what they are saying is some terrorist who is calling into the united states, we want you to have the higher standard, we want you to go to the court to get that number approved before getting that information. you have created two different standards, one for foreign terrorists and one for u.s. citizens. let me give you a great example. if you're -- it's against the law, section 18, title 18, section 1821, to take dentures across state lines that are unlicensed, dentures. what we're saying, the groups that were arguing for this, we are saying it is more important for you to worry about herbie the unlicensed dentist who is taking dentures across state lines and we are going to have a low standard to that and high

standard for zawahiri to slaughter 3,000 americans. we came to the agreement on 215 that you have a program review and then an after-review of each select tore versus what most people want to shut the program down. i think it's wrong to have a better standard for a terrorist living overseas than a u.s. citizen who may be engaged in criminal activity in the united states. we shouldn't go there. wrong way to go. this bill answers that question, takes us to the next place and i do believe and we have handouts with great stuff in this bill that i think will make americans feel comfortable, regain their confidence and encourage our intelligence services to go out there and do their best which is to stop bad guys from killing americans and protect our national security issues.

>> when the order is issued is that administrative order or court-approved order? >> it's an administrative. >> so the f.b.i.? >> yes. but with the court order review right away. >> and secondly, does the phone company turn over not just that selector but the two-hub connection and if so who does that? is that the phone company? >> they would request 555-1212 and that information would come to the n.s.a. based on court review and review after that to make sure it met the r.a.s. test. >> how many would that, over the course of a year? >> each individual case.

if there's more information, it could be an actual conspiracy. they are going to do their investigation and make a determination they need more, they will have to come back and do the r.a.s. test again. >> it's two hops. in the beginning, it's the two hops, but again, getting intelligence, this is where i have a problem with sensenbrenner, in the ongoing investigation, we wouldn't get any of that. it would make us less safe. you get the two hops and after you do the investigation to move forward, you need to pass the r.a.s. test to get more information. based on your field investigation with the f.b.i., you might want to go to the court and use the foundation of the intelligence to get to the improbable cause. >> no content. this is really important. there is no content in this collection, zero. it's only that metadata. >> no name, no address.