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 favor say

>> coming up next, house intelligence committee. after casesction that went to the supreme court. >> on our next washington journal, our guest discusses the proposed a plan and nsa storage of data. ona colorado representative supreme court health care contraceptive mandate case. and our guest on an article about first lady michelle obama. your phone calls and facebook comments on washington journal.

>> the two top members of the house committee unveiled their legislation to end the bulk collection of metadata under the pfizer court. committee chairman mike rogers took questions from the reporters for about one hour. >> good morning. we appreciate all of you being here and the members who joined us today. judge andant to thank all the democrats on the itmittee and republicans, has been 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. the review committee of section 215, nobody saw any illegal activities or misuse. we know the program served its purpose. was legal. had the proper level of oversight. it did create discomfort with america. making efforts to call into the united states, we had to have a program that accomplish that. let's begin with how we got there. 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 had no ability to find when

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. with the community decided to do in conjunction with congress was find a way to fill that gap. all the reviews, from the ig to congressional review 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 united states, what kind of a program we put together that will allow us to maintain the

program, and reaffirm the confidence americans have. we believe we have done that. we think we have found a way to end 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 right way forward. i do believe now we have found that compromised. a couple of highlights of the bill. what we will ban under section 215 is the use of fisa to collect local electronic medication records, e-mail, metadata, and internet data, the

use of fisa collect bulk to the personnel records, etc. 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. i want to allow my ranking member to make comments. this is a significant step. the white house is moving to our position on this. 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 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. i do want to knowledge to 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. basically, what we're doing is 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. what we're doing is, number one, ending all collections. the government will no longer be able to have metadata. the metadata was legally -- but 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. people who work at the nsa 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. as the chairman said, the phone companies now will have this data already, will be taking a warrant, giving it to the phone companies, and then we will pass reasonable articulate suspicion. if in fact there is a terrorist at a safe house in yemen. if that terrorist 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 so strong, is the process.

procedures.he the courts will evaluate every individual case as it occurs. that doesn't happen now. we have the fbi will provide this information. it has to pass the test -- it 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'm going to stop now. >> we will open this up to any questions we have. i think from cbs.

>> what do you 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. within a prompt review of the numbers, and we do that for circumstances. these things happen in real time. what the court will do is review 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 two 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 was not okay? >> 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 to start this process. knowing that if they don't have the test, it will be expunged. there'll be a test. >> they are not getting names in this. that number would come in. it only gets phone 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 fbi 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 and 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 abuse in the future. >> let's talk about what intelligence

is. getting information, getting enough information for more tests for probable cause or that type. intelligence is getting information and building on that. that is why you have the test. >> just a quick clarification. if what you're trying to do is collection, [inaudible] can you explain why --[indiscernible] >> first of all, we need the program to function. this is a critical program. to catch foreign terrorists calling into the united states. we believe that the other bills out there doesn't make that standard to protect through

intelligence gathering so we can 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 with it head on 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 over prism? 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. he had 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 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 unicorn chasing 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 new 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 to 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 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 media 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. the phone number we need.

>> 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 intelligent 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. it 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? >> no, 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 and 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 appellate court cases that reaffirm the underpinnings of this program. the way it was set up protected civil liberties. the five years, we went 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 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. the terrorists are the needle.

you need the haystack. that is what the program was about. after snowden, a lot of discharge. we have to deal with it. the perception was there. i berbers and the nsa. patriotic, smart people. .hey go to work every day believe me, they are not happy they are being criticized for something they did not do at all. nobody likes that. for the benefit of the program and to get citizens to understand, what we started this data would notlk be helped. we'll go further. we have a judicial review and that is huge and major. want to get transparency.

the kind of language. to make sure we open up some of the issues of the court. we cannot give out sources and methods, but we do let the public review. we are doing, we are listening and we need to balance. you cannot have security if you do not have privacy. try to seek this balance. we filled the seeks the balance. getting into the sensenbrenner issue, it makes our country less safe because you will never pass the test. when we are trying to get intelligence and you have to have ongoing investigation. we cannot get it there. and i can never be a part of that and put our country at risk. there are a lot of bad people out there who try to attack us every day. it's our job to stop them. where the talk about legislation goes from here and the timing and the chances of it passing? a productive had meeting with colleagues today and within walking -- working on a whole host of issues was stop -- issues.

before what the to the press conference today. we are feeling good with people escingce inc. -- coal around an issue. provides an absolute misperception about one is and what is not exactly happening. the united states government is not listening to cell phones or read your e-mails across america unless they have a court order through a law enforcement agency. that is a drastic difference from what you hear often talked about. politicians and the media. we have to stop all of that. it is dangerous. that and allll of the conversations, will been able to bring get democrats and republicans and we are having great discussions with the senate. there will be people married to

their own particular positions and that's the nature of this beast. we think the power of the solutions in a bipartisan bill families the standard that people were concerned about will have the house and the senate. and as i said, the president is not far from our position. we look forward to putting the final touches on the negotiation where we can finally have something to move through and put this behind us. really important issues to deal with. this is absolutely critical as we move forward. having this press conference today to send a message to the american people that we have addressed a major change. it will -- [indiscernible] we also have to educate our caucuses. well the middle and moderate and a far left and far right and we will educated them. and tell them what the balance is. one of the things we own the

intelligence committee have said, the threats are very serious. we have a lot to do it the area of technology. off of where we are

at the billable looking at the target and the issues that are out there. it is educating our caucuses and we think we can get the boat to move forward. to move forward. we're almost there with the white house.

there are things to work out. >> yes, sir. timeline you, the are hoping to finish this up, by summer? a i think it would take on natural rhythm. we have other issues to deal with. conversations, some members want to look at and make a decision on where they want to be. and they want to find a balance. those were the instructional we and said working this thing out was let's find the balance. , hard slug about we got there. it will take on it on a natural rhythm. there are other security bills and issues and energy and to deal that will have with these issues. we thought is was important to put something on the table. they are the coalition and get it done. say a timeline between now and june or july, we do not know. we think the more people to understand what we have done and what it looks like, the more support we will get. >> lets me get some extra folks. access,say russia has which documents. >> as i said, there's a great defense, damage assessment details all of the -- and the fact that by those analysts believe that information would be in the hands of the russian intelligence services today. not if it is under the russian influence today, everybody agrees on that. the question is when did that start. that seems to be the debate. that means that information which is deadly to our military force,d navy and air some who are in combat zones today as some of the information that was stolen, that could lead to the death of u.s. soldiers. and something where i'll try to go through. 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%, 95%, 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. >> clearly the program 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 pretty 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 can not like the program and we got this. that is why we are standing her e today. >> i think that the first issue is that we are the best country 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. >> [indiscernible] >> 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.

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. 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? and infection computers with malware? 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. people take it as gospel. it's 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. come 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, 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 unions of america. 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. 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

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 -- is it as it is sne >> 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 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. >> 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. 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. and if they want content later, there is no recording, that doesn't happen. they have to take that information, and have to again rate the case in order to go out and determine who it was if they could build probable cause to get content. those are pretty solid protections. >> we are concerned, we already from pre-court on the process and procedure, but there are those who feel strongly that you

need the pre and the post together. our concern is that it would take too long. you need flexibility in the process. but if it turns out down the road after six months or a year, we can always look at that issue pre versus post and make sure we have the correct balance. we have the obligation to protect us. look at the unsophisticated attacks from the two brother in boston. >> thanks everybody. \[captions copyright national

>> the u.s. supreme court heard arguments on contraception and religious freedom. we will get reaction, in a moment. the house foreign affairs committee tested a ukraine aid package, which included sanctions against russia. the health care losses that employers need to provide health care. some believe they should not have to pay for the services, especially those that conflict with their religious leaves. this will be barbara green of hobby lobby grid and they'll be followed by anthony on. family started hobby lobby built on our faith.

we kept that tradition for more than 40 years grid and we want to continue to live out our faith in the way we do business. the choice that the government has forced on us is unfair, and not in keeping with the history of our great nation, founded on religious freedom.

we believe that americans do not lose their religious freedom when they open a family business. we are encouraged by today's argument. we are thankful that the supreme court took our case. we preferably a way the justices decision. rushnce we open to my dads , it was about the quality and craftsmanship of our product. we believe in hard work, and citizenship and the dignity of our customers and employees. we never that we would see a day when the government would tell a family we could no longer run our business anyway that affirms the sanctity of human life. the government would actually force us to become complicit to the perpetual destruction of human life. rather than sacrifice our opinions to god, we have taken a stand to defend life and freedom against government coercion. we did not choose this fight, our families would have been happy to continue providing good jobs and generous health-care benefits. but the government forced our hand. we hope and pray that the supreme court will uphold the law religious freedoms of all americans to seek to glorify god even as we go about making a living. thank you.

>> now we hear from some of the attorneys in the case. he is representing hobby lobby. this is after the oral arguments. if i can just say, we are gratified that the court heard these cases and accepted both of was important for them to understand the religious objections of both the greens and the hobby lobby case, and the other case. we think the courts took them series lead to them under consideration. we think there are real concerns of the government comes in and takes a position that even a kosher deli that was told that it would have to the open on a saturday cover that they would have no basis to even get into court and make that claim, that is a very difficult argument to sustain. the nature of their argument would also say that a for-profit medical clinic would have no

ability to raise a conscious objection, only in front that congress revising conscious objection, with a dna position to do that. >> the court got to that i sang there is no case. on either side that says either the for-profit corporations definitely have a religious exercise give and there is no case that they definitely don't. i think with the arguments explored is that the ramifications of saying that a for-profit corporation under snow circumstances and even get into court to raise a free exercise claim is just untenable.

thehat did you say to justices comments and set the law is not forcing anyone? >> the options are provided are the options to pay a $475 million fine or a $26 million fine, or to comply with mandate. it it is not that any companies are asking for special treatment. the point is that there is a statute that you've heard a lot

about the provides every person in this country a right to be treated on the basis of the person and on the basis of their religion. if the government puts burden on a person's religious exercise, and they cannot force that with a compelling interest than the person's claim is supposed be syndicated good the problem with the program here is that an agency has provided these employersions for the protected by the mandate and a subset of the others protected. congress has a statute that affords protection to everybody, it is not on the agency to provide protection only to some. the only sense i have of the question is at the core took the case very seriously. we are gratified that we have the opportunity to present our case to the court grade we wait their decision. thank you very much. now we will get different it's from the supreme court health care contraceptives meant a case. parenthood and the national women's law center spoke with reporters after the case. as a reminder, there will be oral arguments friday at 8:00 p.m. eastern here on c-span.

my name is marshall in berger. i am copresident of the women's national logger. brief on behalf of 70 organization speaking to the women whose help and futures are at stake with respect to their access to contraceptive coverage. the supreme court has said in the past, and i want to read this quote, being a will to decide when or whether to have impacts the ability to participate equally in the economic and social life and access birth control. overall improved financial security. i will add, as well as their health and the health of their children.

its use is nearly universal and the benefits are extraordinary. what is at issue in this case is whether when the government determines that preventative health care that is essential for women must be provided to

overridden by any for-profit corporation that decides to do so. if that would be objectionable to the corporation. my organization, the national women's law center heard from someone who was not heard from in the supreme court. that was actually a woman who was an employee of hobby lobby itself. read from and i can her words, specifically about the importance of contraception to her and to her family. she said it would allow women to lead a responsible life. it is the ability of women to be responsible and to protect their in health that is at stake this case tonight. thank you very much. i'm the president of pro-choice america. i want to say one thing. what the court heard today -- with the court heard today is that if it was to file for the plaintiffs it would be the first in the court of the country had proactively extinguish the american.any this is about all women, all women's health and freedom. we are the nine percent. we will not have our rates

extinguished. our bodies are not albatrosses business. thank you. >> the president of planned parenthood and the action fun. i'm proud to be here on behalf of the 3 million patients that we see for health care. what i think we saw today in the court was the importance of having women on supreme court. i was so proud to be there, as a woman who cares about women's health, and to have the justices talk about what is at stake in this case which is whether millions of women and their right to preventive care, including birth control, is crushed by handful of ceos who have personal opinions about birth control. it was a wonderful day for women. i really believe that this court understood that women have the right to make their own decisions about their health care and birth control. it is not their bosses decision. the supreme court is looking

at whether corporations have the right to be exempt from part of the new health care law that requires coverage of contraceptives for the employees. will be playing the audio friday it it :00 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> the house foreign affairs committee passed a ukraine aid in russia sanctions bill that does not include national monetary fund changes, which the obama administration -- after the markup they moved to drop the provision from the bill. this markup included other resolutions. at chairman is congressman -- royce. pursuant to notice we meet today to mark up three bipartisan

measures. without objection, all members may have five days to submit statements for the record, and any extraneous material on any of today's items. and we'll now call up the ukraine support act. h.r. 4278. without objection the bill is considered read and open for amendment at any point. and after my brief remarks, i will recognize our ranking member, mr. eliot engel from new york, and then any other members seeking recognition to speak on the bill. we will then proceed to consideration of a manager's amendment. then to an en bloc package of bipartisan amendments, and then to any free-standing amendments that may remain before the committee. now let me make the observation that russia's armed intervention in ukraine and its illegal annexation of crimea have

created an international crisis. and the danger, obviously, is far from over. president putin has deployed russian forces on ukraine's borders, and may yet attempt to carve off additional pieces of eastern or southern ukraine. if we wish to prevent him from further aggression, then the united states and our allies must take immediate action to strengthen ukraine's sovereignty, to strengthen their independence, to target responsible russian officials and others, in order to give the russians second thoughts before they take any additional action. this bill provides much-needed assistance to ukraine's struggling democracy, which will be tested in the presidential election that's scheduled there for may 25th.

this includes security assistance. it also supports the reform of its police force and the removal of those responsible for the violence against peaceful protesters. in addition, it promotes economic reform, anti-corruption efforts, the recovery of assets stolen by former ukrainian officials, and other urgently needed measures. this legislation enhances the availability of accurate news and information needed to counter the propaganda sent in by moscow. and that propaganda from moscow is being used right now to create confusion and fear and unrest in the country. and so this legislation will authorize increased funding for radio europe radio liberty and the voice of america. and it will enable these

institutions to expand their broadcasting in russia. there will be additional reporters, additional stringers, so that in the russian language, ukrainian language, tartar language, the languages spoken in ukraine and this part of the world, there will be the ability for people to hear in realtime what's really going on, instead of just what is on russian television. if we are to help ukraine break free of russia's grip, then we must help it escape from moscow's control over its energy supply. the u.s. has a readily available tool to help accomplish this goal, which is to remove existing restrictions on our export of oil and natural gas into ukraine. into eastern your honor. this will not only boost the u.s. economy and create american jobs, but also enhance our

national security by undermining russia's ability to use its energy exports to blackmail other countries. including our allies in europe. tomorrow the committee will hold a hearing on the very important and timely subject of the geopolitical potential of u.s. energy exports, which is of direct relevance to the situation we face in ukraine. let me also make the observation that our chairman of the joint chiefs recently told a committee in the house an energy independent u.s. and net exporters of energy as a nation has the potential to change the security environment around the world notably in europe and in the middle east. so as we look at our strategies for the future, i think we've got to pay more and particular attention to energy as an instrument of national power.

the reason we're concerned about this is this is 70%. 70% of the exports out of russia today. it is 52% of the entire budget for the russian military and russian government that is coming, because2 of the ability of russia to have a monopoly on ukraine. a monopoly, frankly, that russia has used to its advantage in the past to undermine, to undermine the ukraine. this bill ramps up pressure on putin and his accomplices who have played key roles in russia's aggression, by specifically targeting them we can demonstrate that they will pay a heavy personal price for the confrontation they've engineered. the sanctions are aimed not only at the government officials, but also at those who hold no official position, but

nevertheless, wield great influence over government policy, including the so-called oligarchs. i am pleased to have worked closely with ranking member engel on this bipartisan bill. i believe it will send a clear message of american resolve. i think it will be heard in kiev. i think it will be heard in moscow. and frankly, throughout the region. and with that let me turn to our ranking member, mr. engel, of new york. >> mr. chairman, thank you very much for holding this markup of the ukraine support act. i am very pleased to be the lead democratic co-sponsor of this legislation, and i want to commend you for once again working with us in a bipartisan way. i say this and i cannot say this too often, that i wish the rest of the congress would take its cue from this committee, and to show that we really can work in a bipartisan way to do what's best for our country.

president putin's invasion of crimea is a blatant violation of international law, and also of russia's commitments to its neighbor. the phony referendum he organized at the barrel of a gun has culminated in the first outright annexation of territory in europe since the end of world war ii. and now he is massing troops on ukraine's border, greatly increasing the risk of further violence and conflict in ukraine and the wider region. the united states must take a strong stand against this naked aggression. h.r. 4278 reaffirms our strong support for the people of ukraine at this very difficult time. it authorizes assistance for the country as it seeks to regain its economic footing and prepares for democratic elections. it supports efforts to help ukraine recover looted assets, professionalize its law enforcement, and it requires additional broadcasting to ukraine and other countries in

the region to counter the outrageous propaganda generated in moscow while endorsing the deployment of international monitors throughout ukraine. the legislation also supplements the president's efforts to impose sanctions on those responsible for violating ukraine's sovereignty, and territorial integrity, looting ukraine's economy, and violating human rights in ukraine. it sends a clear message to putin and his cronies that russia's reckless actions will have serious consequences. on that note i'd like to commend president obama for imposing sanctions that have already started to impact russian economy, and for leading the effort to suspend's russia's participation in the g-8. finally the bill expresses support for continuing u.s. security assistance to ukraine, and reafirms our commitment to the security of our nato partners in eastern and central europe. mr. chairman, the house recently passed legislation to provide $1

billion in loan guarantees to ukraine, and the european union has pledged $15 billion in assistance. but the most significant element of the international community's assistance to ukraine will be provided by the international monetary fund. the imf is now the most important international body for emergency rescue of countries facing serious economic difficulties. but the future of the imf and our influence within that organization requires that congress pass legislation to put into effect the 2010 plan, to slightly adjust the voting shares on the imf board, and activate the imf reserve account known as the new arrangements to borrow. the imf is not in our committee's jurisdiction, but it is clearly on the interest of the united states that congress act as soon as possible to maintain the imf's critical role in international crises. i'm told that by passing imf reform it will ultimately mean about $6 billion of extra aid to ukraine.

i believe that we need to take a firm stance together and we are doing it with this legislation. i think that russia needs to understand that we are going to boost ukraine, and so that ultimately, the russian aggression will prove a detriment to what they think they've done, rather than give them a plus because of the stealing of territory from ukraine. this will only further our resolve to bring ukraine looking westward, rather than eastward. so we're making clear by passing this bill to the people of ukraine that the united states is with them, and that we are committed to helping them build a more democratic, prosperous, secure and just ukraine, as i said before, looking westward, rather than eastward. so i urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this very important legislation. i thank you, mr. chairman.

>> thank you mr. engel. miss ros-lehtinen had asked for some time for a brief opening statement. >> thank you so much, mr. chairman. this bill is important, because it shows our strong support to the ukrainian people, and it says to all freedom loving friends and allies in the region that the u.s. will not stand idly by as russia bullies its way in an attempt to rebuild another soviet union. the obama administration must get tough against russia by sanctioning more russian oligarchs, by adding more names to the list, revoking the 1-2-3 agreement with russia and re-examining our pntr agreement with moscow. i would also like to thank you, mr. chairman, for including in the bill language to support the iran, north korea and syria nonproliferation act, the language reasserts that the administration must comply with reporting requirements to fully implement this act. language that was aproved by the full house of representatives

last congress by a vote of 418-2. the reports have been delinquent for four years, and that is not acceptable. i would also like to note, mr. chairman, that i have a commitment from the full committee to move a free-standing incsa ledge nation through this year. i thank the chairman for that. and while it is vital that we continue to support the ukrainian people, we must not let this overshadow our venezuelan friends who continue to be brutally oppressed under maduro and his cronies. that's why i've introduced a bipartisan bill. i thank the members of this committee who have co-sponsored it, h.r. 4229 the venezuelan liberty and democratic solidarity act which seeks to hold accountable violators of human rights of the maduro regime and i hope that we can mark up this bill soon, mr. chairman. three more were killed yesterday in venezuela, and one of the opposition leaders maria corona machado was stripped of her

congressional seat by maduro. why? because she had the audacity to come to the united states here in this shining city on the hill to speak in front of the oas, she was denied the opportunity to speak before the oas, and now she's potentially facing a charge of treason for coming to speak here. so i urge my friends and colleagues to hold those accountable who are violating the human rights of, and the dignity of others in venezuela and flothroughout the entire hemisphere. i thank the chairman for the time. >> let's go to mr. brad sherman of california. >> thank you. i think it's important that we adopt bipartisan legislation as quickly as possible, and that we avoid controversial and partisan division and avoid those divisive elements that are only

tangentially related to helping the ukraine. i think it's important that the sanctions provisions give the president flexibility, especially because there are going to be some individuals who our intelligence indicates inside the councils of russia, are trying to push toward restraint. and there will be others in putin's circle who are pushing in the wrong direction. and so we need to calibrate these sanctions person by person, and i think can only be done by the executive branch. putin comes off looking tough and trying to look victorious. but we should point out that he is, in effect, seized the consolation prize. there will be those in moscow who will ask the question, who lost the ukraine? because they had a pro-ukraine -- russian government in kiev, and now they have a pro- -- a russian government only in the crimea. putin backed a klepto crat.

he lost the ukraine and now he's trying to look like a winner in the world and a winner to his old people by seizing one province wrongfully, because that's seizure was wrongful we have to impose sanctions to show that we are dedicated to the concept of territorial integrity and the rule of international law. but our ultimate focus has to be on preventing russia from trying to take more and demonstrate that there will be massive sanctions that will undermine the putin regime if he goes further into the ukraine. we also have to call on the government of key ef to do everything possible to refute putin's charge that this is a regime of the winners. this cannot be at a time of national crisis anything other than a government of national unity. we need to see the ukrainian government do all that it can to involve those who were elected, and there was a majority, in the

party of regions. those who are open to the use of not only the ukrainian language but the russian language and those who are willing to continue to consider federalist principles, and the devolution of power to different regions, all to show that this government in kiev is not going to represent just madan, just western ukraine, but even those russian speakers in the south and the west. finally as to energy exports from the united states, that over a period of decades might lower energy prices and affect the revenues of saudi arabia, iran, moscow and others. but i don't think that a country like the ukraine that does not have a single lng import terminal is going to be affected in the short or medium term by

whether we export natural gas. i don't think we're-while technically we could export petroleum we will be importing far more petroleum than we export for many years to come. so there is a brewing controversy on whether we should drill, baby, drill, and export some oil and maybe more natural gas. i'm hoping that our focus today will be on things that affect the ukraine in the short and medium term and i yield back. >> just to recognize myself for a minute, i very much agree with the gentleman from california on his point for all ukrainians to contemplate this issue of national reconciliation. it is at this time that ukrainians in the east, the south, the west, all really need to figure out how to send a message that all ukrainians are welcome regardless of language, regardless of ethnicity. on, however, the issue of gas,

we have already seen hungary and poland. we've seen the ability, the use of a gas lines, that exist in eastern europe with the reverse flow of that gas to send 2 billion cubic meters last year in to the ukraine. the ukraine is in this tenuous position, and frankly, russia's annexation was made easier by the energy grip it had. the fact that if we get energy or gas in to eastern europe, that we can use existing pipelines to get it to the ukraine is an important consideration. now, clearly, it would take time to ship that gas but at the same time markets tend to move instantaneously with information and if we telegraph the message that that is our intent then we already begin to see the impact of that on the futures market of

gas, gazprom, really, is the state controlled gas company that putin has used to cut off the supply to ukraine. and earlier this month, it did this just as it did in 2002, and 2009, gazprom recently, i read in the financial press, is now saying it's going to double the price ukraine pays for natural gas, which would really cripple the economy there. so that is why mr. sherman, that is why i raise this as a consideration, a geopolitical tool here that could be used in order to send the message that we've got a strategy in order to undercut the ability of putin to do this. do any other members seek recognition? >> mr. chabot. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to commend you and the staff for getting this timely legislation on ukraine before the committee this morning. it's very important that the congress map out a strong

position on president putin's acts of thuggery and i know we can count on the solid support of this committee today on h.r. 4278. i also want to express my strong support for the resolution affirming the importance of a taiwan relations act as we commemorate the 35th anniversary of the tra, let us rather that our diplomatic relationship with the people's republic of china is premised on the expectation and the principle that the future of taiwan will be determined by peaceful means. finally, mr. chairman, i strongly support h.r.s. 418 which raises awareness of the ongoing violence and discrimination of the minority rohingya muslim population in burma. the resolutions call for the u.s. and international community to hold burma accountable to end its blatant persecution of the rohingya population comes at a critical time. so i thank you for bringing these very important issues up this morning, mr. chairman. i yield back my time. >> go to mr. meeks. >> thank you, mr. chairman.

and i want to thank you, and ranking member engel for coming together, and speaking with one voice. i think that as we talk about what's going on in the ukraine now, it is important that there is unity, and that we try to speak from the united states' point of view, with one voice, from both democrats and republicans, because the issue involves, or is important to all of us, and that we look at those areas of which are our common denominators so that we try to deal with those matters that we can come to an agreement on. likewise, i think it is also important, and i think that the president of the united states has been doing a good job in making sure that we are not speaking with one voice, as the g-7 is currently meeting, and operating, that that also, that we have to listen to the voices of our nato allies. because, if it's just something done on a bilateral area, and

not a multilateral area, then that then differ identifies us and it weakens us and the resolve to make sure that -- that mr. putin doesn't go further or look to divide us from our allies. so it's important, as conversation and the president's negotiating it, we're doing certain things, that we take into consideration our nato allies and their position and how far that they can go and move, and we lead in that direction. because, you know, but you know, the dialogue and the conversation. but if ever we get to the point where we say that we don't care what they think or how it affects them, then it will affect us also in a negative way. it will affect the leverage that we have on mr. putin. so we've got to make sure that we are mindful of, you know, where our allies are, especially i know i've talked to some members yesterday, from the german parliament, and they have deep concerns in regards to mr. putin moving forward and wanting to make sure that we stay in lock step. they stay in lock step with the united states. they have some other problems

also, and they want to make sure that those are listened to, that we work to the. and i think what i've heard by the president talking about that if there's some further movement by mr. putin, then our allies are ready to escalate the sanctions and we should be ready to move forward and tighten those sanctions in that regard. but, i just, you know, want to be mindful, you know, it's easy to say sometimes, to go to war, to send weapons or do that, that's the easy thing to do. it's the hard thing to do sometimes to sit down and try to figure out how we stay in line with our allies and work to the. i hope that they do that. i hope that we do that. just as it's important for us to stay together and come together, it is important for us to make sure with our international allies, and to that regard, you know, we talk about, you know, our colleagues to the west. it's important for us to be re-engaged and reinvigorate those relationships. and so, as we talk about the ukrainian issue, we've got to make sure, i couldn't agree more

with what you said mr. chairman, and what mr. sherman said about the ukrainians coming together, it is now time for them to unite, to speak with one voice, also, that's tremendously important. it's important for us, also, to make sure that right now, not waiting until another time that we engage with the moldovans and the georgians, and the people from azerbaijan and all of the other countries in the region that we are talking to them and they know that we have an interest in their overall well-being and their economy and in their democracies. let's not wait until there's something else that happens, and then we all of a sudden are jumping in. let's show, and i think that that's what this bill does, it shows that we're going to stand by the ukraine, we're going to try to help them with their economic circumstances so that they can stand on their feet, and improve their democracy, it sends the right message, i believe thereby it will send the right message to our allies in the region. that is tremendously important. and again, i end as i started, mr. chairman, because we could get in to a lot of other debate

here that could dive a us. but you and mr. engel have chosen not to do that. you've chosen to focus on what brings us together and i think you should be complimented for that and i yield back the balance of my time. >> thank you mr. meeks. we go to mr. row buck. >> mr. chairman, i am afraid i will be opposing, again, probably the lone voice in some of these debates, opposing this measure, and i do so in great despair. as to the direction of what is going on in our country today in relationship to russia. i worked for many, many years and you my life at risk several times, i was not in the military, but put myself at risk in order to defeat communism. i spent my whole life trying to defeat communism. we were not trying to defeat, we were not trying to become hostile to the people of russia.

we were against the soviet union, which is not russia. now we have a situation in which there is a, obviously, a distinct difference of national interests. and instead of trying to play a constructive role, it appears that we have opted out, instead, to fan the flames of hostility between our two countries. there are many people who i worked with over the years who are stuck in the cold war. they cannot sit by and understand that russia has its national interests, as we have our national interests. and try to find ways that we can work together, in peace, and friendship, understanding that we are two great powers that have national interests at stake.

i do not, in this particular debate, if wee are to be listened to, and to be -- and try to find a peaceful solution, the russians have to respect that we are there trying to find a solution, not trying to utilize this controversy as a means of defeating them and pushing them into a hole because after all they're russians and they're thugs and they're gangsters, and of course our people are -- would -- have never committed such crimes as sending an army into crimea. i'd like to commend my good friend congressman engel who worked very closely with me when we backed the kosovars right to self-determination and supported the bombing of serbia in order to protect those people's right of self-determination.

what do the people of crimea want? i don't think anybody in here will disagree with the fact that it is clear the people of crimea would rather be part of russia than be part of a pro-european, or european-directed ukraine. well the people of crimea, just like the people of kosovo, had their right of self-determination. or should have. i think russia was wrong. i think putin was wrong in trying to send in a military force. i think that clouded the issue. but the hypocrisy on our side of suggesting that trying to suggest this is out and out aggression for the people of crimea, to have their will to be part of russia, is a little bit overwhelming. i remember just more recently than kosovo, i remember didn't we support south sudan breaking away from sudan? yes, we did.

let's, you know, let's be just in our criticism. yes, putin should not have sent in those troops. but this was a -- and again he should not have had the right -- he shouldn't have had the wording they had on their referendum in crimea. they could have had an adequate wording on the ballot. and yes they should have had the osce in to determine what the people of crimea want officially. but in our heart of hearts we know that the people of crimea, especially those of us who have been there, ten years ago i visited crimea, they all spoke russian. now, what is that? it's an historic reality unfortunately, because stalin murdered so many people there, and ethnic russians moved in. we know that. and we're sorry about that. but self-determination is based on people who live in a given territory, determining their future.

and in this case the russians are supporting the people of crimea's right to determine where they want to go. and we are opposing that, and making it sound like it's naked aggression, and doing so at great, i say great damage to the long-term security of both the united states, and russia. russia and the united states should be best friends, because we face the same ultimate enemies of radical islamic movement that would murder our own people, and yes, an emerging china that hasn't had one bit of reform at all. yet we have placed russia, sanction after sanction on russia, that has had dramatic reform, whose churches are full, yet we give china what, we give china technology, we gave them subsidies, we give them

recognition and yet they murder religious believers, even as we do. and we ignore that. the double standard that we have for russia has been aimed at pushing them in to a hostile relationship with us and i oppose that whole concept. thank you very much, mr. chairman. >> we go now to mr. connally of virginia. >> i thank the chair. i'm astounded at the apology i have just heard from my friend from california. reform? i think not. apparently once a kgb agent, always a kgb agent. mr. putin seems to have learned nothing from history. other than there is power at the end of the barrel of a gun. to cite russian speakers in crimea as a rationale for one of the most audacious power grabs

in the 21st century in europe no less forgets history crimea was settled by stalin by russian speakers. and they -- and they expelled and executed the native population of crimea. and this so-called referendum in crimea was also done at the barrel of a gun. russia's interests weren't threatened in the crimea. the new government in kiev never abrogated the treaty that allowed russian privileges, naval privileges, through 2042. the ukrainians didn't occupy russian military stations in the crimea and around the region, it was the other way around. for the united states, and its allies, to allow this naked aggression to go unaddressed would be truly an abrogation of

our moral responsibility, and turn our back on what we should have learned from 20th century history. >> would the gentlemen yield for a question? >> if i may continue for a second. we need to stop talking about he better not go no further. i'm stuck at crimea and i hope my colleagues are, too. it's wrong. it cannot be allowed to stand. and we must make him pay a price. and the difference between now and stalin is that his economy is integrated into the global economy. the ruble will fall, the stock market will pay a price, investment will suffer, because we're going to help make it so. until he relents. until they pay a price that's so great, systematic, comprehensive, in think economy, that he will understand that we no longer operate by the rule of the jungle in europe. or indeed anywhere on the face of the planet. not with our blessing. not with our apology.

so i strongly support the legislation in front of us, mr. chairman, and i respectfully but forcefully disagree with virtually everything my friend from california has just said, and i now would yield for a question. >> the question is, i would take it that you also opposed america's support for the people of kosovo, and the south sudan for their self-determination? and could you cite any polls that indicate that the people of ukraine -- or excuse me of crimea, every indication that i have seen from the experts indicate that they overwhelmingly want to be part of russia. do you have any polls that indicate any different? >> well, you've asked several questions. i decidedly see kosovo and south sudan as distinctly different. both