otherwise. he said that the opportunity had an incredible impact on his career. it was his first industry experience. it solidified his desire to pursue a career in aeros ace. -- aerospace. as we are trying to inspire people to not only work in the field out for the public to understand the benefits of space exploration, can you talk a bit about how the space grant row graham is engaged in getting spacecraft program is engaged in getting people into it but also for the public at large, knowing many of us are concerned about reductions. >> for many who may not understand space grant, every state in the nation has a space grant consortium, and it's headquartered in the

state. it's a dependable source of education for nasa. we have asked them to extend level,ork into they k-12 where they were very comfortable at first, but as a result of working with us on the summer of innovation, which is probably where the young man in school has learned about stem education we now have a consortium. they are making sure it is in their states over a time. >> do you expect that is going to be cut? >> no, one of the things i never have to worry about is weuctions in space grant.

ask for what we think will be required to maintain them. >> i am almost out of time. i yield back. >> i now recognize the gentleman from alabama, mr. brooks. >> inc. you, mr. chairman. i am somewhat astonished by your that shifts responsibility to congress for america's current inability to astronauts into space. this administration made the cancelral decision to nasa's constellation program, thereby delaying america's spaceflight.an this administration made the mothballto mop fall -- our space program and put them in museums. this administration has grown america's welfare transfer over 750 billion

dollars a year, more than 40 times nasa's budget. welfare programs that put a higher priority on buying a collection votes, no matter the funding for nasa or other functions of the government. now i hear testimony this government wants to invest in america. when the space program was forced on this administration by richard shelby and other congressmen, who believed in american exceptionalism in space. with that as a backdrop, russia is engaged in acts of war .gainst ukraine in the crimea n america's response has been sanctions without any hope of causing russia to leave crimea. recent intelligence shows russia

may go beyond and attack eastern ukraine. all of this raises the specter this administration will impose termsanctions, which in -- in turn russia will respond by denying access to the international space station, and they can do that because we are reliant on russia to get to the international space station. to thisescribe committee what nasa's plan is to put american astronauts on the international space station should russia say they are no longer going to give us a ride to the space station. >> congressman, i am not going to engage in a debate about history. if the fact that the decision to phase out the shuttle was not made by the obama administration. made under the bush

administration. washen the space station mothballed, president obama was president of the united states. decisionhave made the to use the space shuttle, or he could have made the decision to keep it available in a state of emergency. he chose not to. >> i was the one who recommended to the president that we face the shuttle out. i would have recommended we phase it out quickly. we were spending $12 billion over the same time that we have spent $12.5 billion. >> let me interject again. you said you were not going to go over history. you were able to divert from my question to history. if russia cuts us off today what isof of vents, nasa's plan? >> we engage in contingency

planning every single day. refusing at the international space station is not something i consider feasible because russia upon the united states to operate the international space station. russia has one thing we need -- access. back to my question, is it your testimony america has no plan? fax this is like asteroids. we have a plan. the plan is commercial crew. this nation has no plan. writtene looked at your statement that says basically we are looking at the end of 2017, which is three and a half years away. is that the plan if russia decides to terminate our access

to the international space station? oni am confident that based my conversation with russian counterparts that they are equally worried about terminating activity on the international space station. i am not going to deal with suppositions. i don't expect our partners will abandon the international space station. >> i see my time is expiring. i appreciate the inside, but if all i hear is that the plan is three and a half years away i have to worry about what happens if russia does cut us off. thank you for indulging me. you.ank let's not dwell on the past. let's look to the future and think about where we want to go. we were informed by the council, but we also plan for the future. just playing off what my

colleague talked about, it's my impression that we also have leverage with regards to the space station. >> exactly. in a partnership, we have that leverage. they have leverage, but the end goal is commercial space travel and moving folks forward. when i look at the building blocks and our conversations previously, we have a long-term goal to have human space travel to mars. you are laying out some steps here and so forth. i had a chance to visit southern california recently, and it does look like they are quickly advancing. they have been able to take supplies up to the space station, and they are now advancing fairly quickly on space travel. can you give us an update on the

partnership between nasa and commercial entities? >> i think we should all be proud that during the time i have been the nasa administrator, we have stood with commercial cargo dependability. we are not dependent on anyone else on getting cargo to space. we are diligently working to bring about the capability and the united states to have a commercial crew capability. nasa does not deal with lower orbit access, or should we, because we have to use that money to execute a deep base -- deep space exploration. block going tog deep space as well as returning? >> there are things we need if we want to go to mars. i hope all of us in this real will agree with me -- in this the will agree with me that

world ultimate goal in our lifetime is to see humans on mars. if i can get the chart up because it would be helpful. in order to get to mars, there are things we don't have. we don't have sufficient for colston to take cargo there. -- don't -- rope pulls and we don't have sufficient propuls there.get cargo we need increased capability and something like solar propulsion. our proving ground is the earth moon system, where we intend to take the asteroid so we can interact with it. we can develop procedures for activity. things we cannot do in lower orbit because that system is different from what we know. i need a proving ground.

the moon is two days away. if something goes wrong there, he can come home. if something goes wrong, the crew is eight months away. apollo 13. the crew survived because it was a loop around the moon and nature took care of it, to be honest. 13-like incident, part of the model blows out right after liftoff, we are going eight months to mars and another eight months or more to come back. we have got to get it right. we can develop life-support systems that are robust. we cannot have a cooling system that fails. ofcannot have the kinds things that happens sometimes in the international space station. that's why u.s.-based nation is used to develop technologies. they have got to be more robust. >> if we stick with wanting to

.e forward and wanting to dream we dreamt big, and we went out and did it. that's what we have to do now. with this goal, we don't know how we are going to get there just yet, but we have to think and wehese technologies, have to start making these investments. is that accurate? wax i would ask people to start thinking about we are approaching 2013. we are getting ready to go to mars. what should we be thinking about now? we haven't even started talking about landers. we haven't started talking about service systems. that's where international service partners are going to be vital.

this is hard. if you look at earth reliant, we cannot get too deep space if we have to come back to earth every time to pick up stuff. we go through this all the time. we need things like cryogenic propellant storage. we don't need that right now. we are in the just-in-time business. the reason i don't spend the money you would like me to spend a 31 tone i don't need metric vehicle. i do need to send my astronauts to lower orbit. hopefully everyone agrees to going to mars. if we do, hopefully everyone agrees we have to crawl, walk, run. we have got to have a proving ground to develop the technology. >> i now recognize the gentleman from california. perhaps a crawl, walk, orbit would be -- how did you know what i was

going to ask? would,s hoping you because i need people to be consistent with what they ask emma and you have been consistent. >> all these great complements. truth. to speak the >> i have two issues i wanted to talk about. one is what you brought up, refueling in space. for the record, not all of us believe that putting people on mars should be our number one goal in space right now. expensive, and making that our number one goal reflects taking away resources from other project that might be more justtant to humankind than what is a symbolic vision of putting a human being on mars, considering we have rovers and

other things on mars already, but let's go to that. we are talking about the option of refueling in space. wouldn't that give us a great deal of leverage to accomplish other missions in space, perhaps on the moon, perhaps other goals we would like to achieve at a much more cost-effective rate because we wouldn't have to rocket that isge going to cost tens of billions of dollars? we don't know that it would be much more cost-effective. to get the kind of people in space, we have talked about this before. the number of flights required to get the number of people in space we need is extensive. while it may cost significantly less, by the time you fly 10, 12

atlas fives or five falcon nines, you have exceeded the so forgetting humans into space, getting large scientific halos into space, you want something like an sos so we don't have to do these venous flybys to jupiter. we want to be able to go direct. sls will give us the capability. in time. we are not ready yet. to develop thet technologies, and we are trying to do that. tasks --ing ground tests right now. we are not going away from it. >> i am watching this. let me say that presents a much more cost effective way of achieving sufficient goals, rather than achieving a goal that is so expensive it would drain other projects in space.

let me ask you this. are you confident that if an object from space that was discovered or there was an object that threatens to cause massive damage on our planet, are you confident that object will be detected and we can deflect it? >> i am highly confident we can detected. if there is an object larger than a kilometer that threatens earth we probably have already identified it, and it's in the 98% that have already been identified. nothing in the next 100 years in that category. if it's less than 140 meters, i'm less confident. i know we have not identified it yet. we are developing the >> we are to do that. trying. the asteroid redirect you should

will inform -- i don't want to fool people. we are not going to save the planet with the redirect mission. it will inform our capability to answer his question and your question, which is does the united states have the capability to protect the public if we can develop something fast future, whene near we fly the redirect mission, that will inform our ability to say, i am very confident we can .eflect anything down for earth it will inform us and give us capability. >> the word can and will are two different things. we will deflect an object that could murder millions of people. >> we will have that capability, i am confident. >> is there an established procedure and chain of command

to take the actions that would be necessary if we do spot this three percent chance that there is a huge object heading towards ,s, is there a chain of command and necessary procedures to make the decisions and get the job done? >> there are procedures in place. there is a definite chain of command. i am going to be traveling to langley research center next week. aery year we practice continuity of operations nationwide or governmentwide, so i will be moving with my chief of staff to langley because something bad is happening to washington. fema becomes a critical player in the role. the national command authority springs into action. the president is the guy who makes the big decisions in the

national security council. nasa is a tiny player. as we continue to do. >> of the near earth object were coming? >> that would be a pending natural disaster, and there are distinct procedures in place for what fema would do with the nation to get prepared. something like a near earth object we don't ethically have the capability like a hurricane to give you a percentage probability it is going to strike new york. it's going to strike earth. to prepare.e >> i now recognize the gentle man from texas. >> good morning. i wanted to touch on russia very quickly. most recently one of the official sanctions because of the ukraine crisis is dimitri, deputy defender.

you have stated if we provide the president's request for a commercial crew, so my question how do we ensure launch capability returns to america? >> the way to assure that is more money. i cannot tell when a company thinks they are going to fly, but all of our partners have given us schedules. sierra nevada has a flight for themselves. i want to say it is 2015 or 2016. the companies are moving as rapidly as they can based on the funding we have given them to be able to fly as soon as they can. i would be hesitant to say we can accelerate it more than a year, but we could potentially accelerated by a year if we were

given adequate funding. i can say that companies are poised. >> the heat of funding, what are the impacts of reducing nasa's education programs -- speaking of funding, what are the impacts of reducing nasa's education program ques? >> has to spend $6 billion on education. i don't think people get it. i spend a lot of times in classrooms. i spent a lot of time on skype because i cannot go to every school. i don't make a trip anywhere, particularly outside the united states that i don't do an outreach event and try to help nations with their stem programs. everyone is concerned about the reductions we see in the office but it's making us hungry to find new ways to

collaborate with other agencies. we did a program with the department of education. the 21st-century and learning program. nasa essentially did the program for them because we can bring astronauts via downlinked tv to the space station. we were paid to put it together. they invested. are learning how to collaborate with each other. i know everybody is worried about losing money. we are finding that synergy among federal agencies is working for us. for ages and every single county 4h is in every-- single county in this nation. compare nasa. we are talking about working .ollaboratively with four h

that is going to magnify the amount of kids we are able to reach with enrichment. i am not worried about our ability to do our jobs. stem outreach we do that every day. opinion, is there any way to evaluate -- >> yes. >> are there real ways to evaluate whether the cuts have an impact on future achievement, or we talk about being able to inspire people who want to reach totain goals as it relates jobs? >> without a doubt. nasa's education program this year is outcome based, which means you have got to have metrics. now we are not allowed because of privacy -- we can't map a child from elementary through college. the department of education can. the national science foundation

can because they are authorized to do those things. with thelaborating department of education and the national science foundation, they can do the metrics that tell us how many kids participated in the summer of innovation last summer 10 years or lawyers? doctors those are the metrics from which use be. i can get it now based on collaborations. it has taken time. we just started something now. i think it has been around for years. we are now seeing factual data, not anecdotal data. >> thank you. i now recognize the gentleman from florida. >> inc. you, mr. chairman. seth andhance to thank

bob for the commonsense, no-cost outreach nasa did to reach who now seem to be enthusiastic. i haven't had a chance to thank you personally for that, and i think it's great. that's how we help spread the message. think anying, i don't of us are where we would like to be with funding. i think we are in a whole lot better place than we were a year ago with sequestration. i am trying to look at the glass half full in that regard. a deep space plan, moon and mars. we also need low orbit options. i know it's tight balancing i hope we will continue to understand we need both and go

forward like that. a concern that i have, he department ofe energy based on the fuel supply. i wonder if you can update me. plutoniumoduced pellets we need. we are still in negotiations trying to help them understand how do they improve their facilities, just the infrastructure needed to prep .or propulsion we have enough in our stockpile to be able to fly the mission's presently on the books for us. but we have to work better with doe to make sure they make improvements to infrastructure so they can efficiently make the s we need.

fuel, but it's old, and it needs new fuel to make it good. >> they are not in the process of destroying any or getting rid of it or using it for anything other than space? fax i don't know the answer to that. >> will you find out? i would like to have that assurance it is not being used elsewhere. >> i would. for the record, i don't know. >> any other comments you would like to make about keeping on track? >> it's a balance. i come to this hearing, and i feel better about where we are than ever before. chairmanto commend the and ranking member because of the way they are working together. we have got to do better. i don't want to sit here and say what was the responsibility of

the bush administration, what was the responsibility of the obama administration. what's done is done. we can't undo that. difference for the future. none of us are going to be sitting around here in charge. i have some young people who had to leave mid-level leadership programs. young and growing leaders, and they wanted to see how we do this stuff. deep space exploration is hard. we cannot jump to mars. we have to develop technologies. we have got to be confident our system is going to work. that is why the chairman asked about the mars flyby. it's great, but it doesn't do anything in terms of deep space exploration. and i have survives, doubts. that's why i'm not a fan of a one-time mars flyby.

apollo was, and it was awesome, we never stayed on the surface of the moon for more than days. if we are going to the surface of the moon, we better stay there for months or two months or we are going to learn anything about the effect of less than one gravity on the .rain >> do we agree that unless at some point there is the ability to leave this earth, the survival of our species is threatened? >> i am not a fatalist, but we knew deep -- we do need to learn how to be a multi-planet species. days -- you and i won't see it, but one of these days our son is going to burn out. it would be nice to become a multi-planet species by them and we are just on mars. by then people will be living in other solar systems because the

solar system will go away. we have got to get beyond. says, you areer thinking about mars. i am going way beyond that. she's right. when the sun gives out, this solar system goes away. qwest we have to think about planting trees -- >> we have to think about planting trees for other generations. space is truly the only investment we make for future generations. >> i agree. >> i now recognize the gentleman from arizona. >> take you. .- thank you part of what i want to have a quick dialogue about is just the mechanics, how you set priorities and decision-making and those things.

you have a lot of voices and people tugging on your coat saying, we want this or we want that. that was like sophia, really coming online in the last .ix months or so is that correct? >> sephia has been under development for probably 10 years. and tobeginning to fly fly well. >> internally, when you are doing prioritization's or mechanics, tell me the review on how you prioritize a program like that, that you have . decade of time and money >> i forget what they call their counsel, but every year they get the wise people of the science community, and they evaluate our programs to see, what i have asked them to do right now is we

have a lot of programs that have been flying for a long time, long past their planned lifetime. they are expensive. we have to pay for those. what we areritize going to get from our portfolio, we try to make sure we have a balance. sophia ended up in prioritization -- sophia was down here. you talk about other sources very similar to what sophia gives us. unique asset. >> i don't want to put words in your mouth. it may have been a year or so ago, but you were actually a fan of sophia. >> i am a fan of anything that has wings. memechanically, share with the internal process under your authority on how they would

sophia and how it ended up where it is. >> we would go to the science community and ask him based on from ourxpect to get budget, what do you want to continue to operate, and one thing i keep cautioning is if we are going to put new systems online, if we are going to bring that wetter sensors have today, what are we going to become? >> does that more of a conversation of let's enhance what we have, or is it more to cancel? >> you never say, what are we going to cancel. the question is how do we within our budget and provide responses to the scientific objective set by the outside by advisory committee, set by congress.

>> right now you understand your budgetary request. tell me where sophia sits. >> low in that. >> it is low priority. >> it is not low priority. i should not have said that. comparison with other projects, sophia did not rise to the level where we decided we were going to terminate another program. we have options with sophia. what the 2015 budget is going to be. we could end up with enough money. we have not stopped flying sophia. everyone is panicking. we are working with our german partners to find ways we can enhance sophia for the rest of this fiscal year. we may not put it into upgrade, for example. >> when you are doing your initiatives and

those, i am trying to get an understanding of how something like this falls. andf you look at our list the opportunity growth security everyone ofalmost them is something in existence right now and i am trying to bite down risk. congress grant our request. that is buying down risk. >> do you think the germans would be willing to take on more of the heavy lift on the cost? >> that's one of the alternatives. to be candid, they don't seem to be willing to do that. >> if we put their flight first on the airplane. >> we are looking at all alternatives for sophia. sophia is a joint object. assume allble to

responsibility for sophia. my skill set.side space station. unmanned?an it go curve,e is a maintenance i am curious if there is a data point. >> if you really want me to tell you how long we can go -- >> let's say it set up there for 36 months. >> if you had it up there for 36 months unoccupied, the ammonia that was annt out, emergency. that was a contingency for which we had to do a contingency spacewalk. if there is no crew, that doesn't get done. you talk about leverage. everyone is excited because the

russians have leverage on transportation. when you talk about navigation, communications, power, the united states has significant leverage. >> i am so sorry. i just looked at the clock. i was having fun here. thank you for your patience. >> great question. >> we welcome the gentleman from new york. >> there is nothing wrong with .aving fun >> around here there is. >> i question surrounds the chart you have already shown and andn exploration roadmap the authorization bills in the senate and the house as well as that we needvirgin -- minority version that we need to help us. this does not address the

requirements for the surface of the proficiencies the house version asked for. it doesn't include information on plan intermediate destinations or potential risk of emigration approach is required by the bill. it does not include a description of an extended human toward enabling missions to orbit. until the administration provides detailed information including how it fits into a broader exploration architecture, i assume congress is going to continue to view some of these projects skeptically, which brings the question. nasa's budget request includes $180 million for the mission. i was in here, but i

have been informed you told the committee to review would be done over the summer, but now it's been a year since the mission was announced. nasa has not completed the review. i was told last week he released a broad agency announcement for information and held an open for him yesterday to solicit even more input. when is nasa going to have a plan the committee can review, and how can you be sure the mission is in fact a stepping without a roadmap? >> my estimate would be over the next year we will continue to refine the concept. potential waysig we can do it right now, and that's what we are evaluating. that's why we continue to go to the industry, academia, and

entrepreneurs, trying to determine whether we want to use a small -- small is a relative term, where we grabbed the asteroid and thrust against it or whether we go to a large asteroid and take a large boulder from it. determine the specifics of the mission. we are into propulsion. we have identified that as a ardle to being able to do redirect mission. is what we are going to use for cargo. would say the more information you can provide to congress, the more likely you can get by. if things start to slip or commitments are made and not met, i think you can understand

it is viewed problematically. yesterday when nasa presented to the scientific ofunity, it was the opinion some that it was a broader set of information than has already been shared with this committee or with congress. in a priority setting i would encourage nasa to give us more are than we asked for so we not feeling as though we are left out of the loop or we are not important, because you can .nderstand the result >> i appreciate and intend to respond to that request. i am told we have been regularly briefing with the redirect mission. if that's not true, somebody shake their head, and i will go back. >> i think the staff should be shaking their head no, because

somebody asked me to probe this because they don't feel like it has been so. >> they have not been getting any information or not been getting sufficient information? >> not sufficient. if you are not getting sufficient information you might as well not. it's insufficient information it's because we don't know. if it's no information it's because i am being misled. >> i don't think anyone would suggest it's no information. insufficient information means decisions can't be made. >> it means we don't have enough information to make an informed decision. that's all it means. >> i would encourage you, the more information you can get to this committee, the more likely you will see. my i will go back to comments earlier. there are big things happening. i would encourage people, part

of getting ready is having a vehicle to take a crew. you will see a o'brien. --s a spacecraft. -- o'brien orion. it's a spacecraft. you will see components under construction. that's real hardware. we are not talking about drawings anymore. of getting toart the asteroid redirect mission. that may not he sufficient, but that's all we have is hardware. if that's not sufficient, i don't know how to do better. >> thank you. my time is expired. >> that's fine. great questions by all the members of the committee. this time you aren't going to get off without a second round of questions. i will open it up for myself. ups is similar to the follow

with commercial cruise. last year the associate administrator said 90% of all the development costs for the commercial crew is being paid the american taxpayer. we know the commercial crew contract is going to be similar to what the cargo was, anywhere from 7 billion to $11 billion. or greater. we are just taking you mentioned if we don't get the funding the schedule will slip beyond 2017. is there anything nasa can do to entice these companies to put more skin into the game? >> i am confused by the number you just gave. our total expenditure, unless my charts are wrong, the total yearsiture over the five i have been an nasa administrator from the taxpayer is we were appropriated $782

.illion, and we obligated 780 >> i am talking commercial crew. >> i am talking about the value of the contracts these companies are going to receive. a $11 million. the estimated value for flying cargo and crew, so i am saying we are basically paying 90% of the development cost. is there a way to get them to money into the program? >> they do. mentioned earlier when you said how have we managed to stay on schedule that you haven't given us what we asked for. it's because the companies have given more than they would normally pay. we only paid them what we have. i would have to go back. we are be surprised if

paying 90% of the cost of commercial crew development to this date. i would be really surprised. >> that's from a hearing we had september 14, 2012. i am told the information is proprietary, but i will take that for the record. >> this time i recognized the ranking member. >> i do want to follow this up because earlier i thought you had misspoken when you said the industry participants of the commercial crew program were providing more money than nasa. that doesn't seem to be the information we have. is it possible to provide the amount eachth the of the industry participants is putting in with nasa so we can see that? otherwise i think all of us are under the impression that the

taxpayers are providing the bulk of support for commercial crew. wrong? >> i will take that for the record. >> i don't think we have coordinated our question for you, but what you can hear is concern around the asteroid retrieval mission. i wonder if you would be prepared by a date certain to provide the committee with a roadmap and an analysis of the various options there would be with different types of technology for this plan to mars . some of us have thought, maybe the moon makes sense as a test bed. for others the iss and others the asteroid retrieval mission and may be some other youination, but when would

be able to provide a roadmap with the analysis comparing and the technology that would be derived for the committee? that we my impression have two matrices. ,ne shows human performance human concerns. the other shows technology gaps. i have been looking at that for a couple years. i thought we made that available for the committee, which shows these are things we are accomplishing on the international space station. these are things we will accomplish with the asteroid redirect system. i will make sure we have shared those matrices with your staff and with you. >> what about lunar? here is what we are wrestling with. we have different ideas about what makes sense, but you are providing us with a real roadmap that outlines technology

and may be says, here is our scientific analysis of why this makes sense over the other. it would help us make a more informed decision from a budget perspective and from an wehorizing of of what it is need to look at. i think the questions you have heard on the committee though to it would help the chairman and i very much to have that on hand. it would help for you to say, here is a date certain by which nasa can give that to us. i want to incorporate that date to do authorization because then we can evaluate what makes sense going forward, and that deeply impact budget. don't leave the moon out because you can hear concert. quest we won't leave the moon out.

>> we will leave the moon out. the reason we don't talk about that is because there is no technological advantage to go to the moon. there is no advantage accept money. >> in providing something to this committee, it would be very helpful to have that analysis, to have a scientific basis for also to have and the buy-in collectively from the community about the direction. i think if we have that we would make some very important decisions. hoping theo caution, , if you are talking about the science community, hopefully by and will never happen. the lunar community.

they are not in favor of anything. now we are talking about ideologues. >> give us an analysis and let us know who is for and against. what nasa needs is for this committee to be on the same page about the direction. that will help you as much as it will help us. >> now i recognize the gentleman from alabama. mr. brooks. >> enqueue. you.ank back to the issue of russia and the ability to get to the international space station, what would be the consequences if within the next year russia chooses to deny us access by no longer allowing us to hitch a ride on their rockets? >> as i mentioned before, we

provide navigation, and wouldions, power, probably -- i hate to deal with conjecture, but the partners would probably have to shut the space station down. thinking the russians would continue to operate the international space station, it can be done. station is shut down for an extended time? >> i will go to the president and recommend we terminate because without the international space station i have no abilities to do the .evelopment everyone agreed if we want to do this global roadmap to which 12

different nations sign up, we have to have the international space station. that's the reason the president said, i will agree to extend it. i don't want anyone to think i orion if i don't have the international space station. >> let me make sure i understand the sequence of events. if the russians deny us access to the international space station, it's your testimony that because of the services we provide you would have to shut it down, and if the international space station is shut down you would see no reason to have the space launch system or a o'brien, so is it fair to infer you would so is it -- or orion, fair to infer you would recommend those be shut down? >> i don't know that the

russians denying us access -- you are assuming they come to us today and say, we are not going anymore, and we are not going to help them get home. i don't think those contingencies are going to happen. >> i understand. there are probabilities involved. >> i don't accept that. >> i am one who believes in planning for all contingencies. effort tolike the acquire an asteroid. i don't think the odds of an asteroid hitting us are very big , but that is an interesting mission because of the risk associated with one of eventually hitting the earth and are having the capability to eventually work that. the russians may not shut us off from access to the international space station. all they have to do is deny us the ride. if they are willing to attack other nations it doesn't seem ealm ofthe r

possibility that they would deny american astronauts access to the space station. however, if the space station was shut down for a time, can it be resuscitated? >> anything can be done. assumptions.g for >> i am asking for your assessment. >> i will take that. in termsno either or rion andnd o commercial crew. i don't know how many ways to say that. >> you answered my question. the chairman will give me another minute. >> if i don't have commercial crew and i can get to lower orbit i don't need sls and orio n.

go to my final , andion, there was a study it concluded in part that income inequality contributes to the classless society. it has come to my attention that the study also states this work was partially funded through grant and that nasa contributed $26,000 to a study on income inequality. money that spending should be related to space income inequality issues? >> nasa did not request such study. we have not reviewed sets ready. the study was done at the university of maryland as an offshoot of a study we did

request on another subject. we don't control what a principal investigator chooses to do if they can get additional studies in. nasa funding. in are you telling me nasa doesn't is beinghat the money spent on? >> and investigator performs the study we request, and if they choose to amplify the study with additional information or additional data for their own use, we don't prohibit them from doing that. it is not endorsed or requested by us. >> but paid for by nasa. >> time is expired. at this time i want to ask unanimous consent to enter into the record a letter. at this time i recognize the gentlewoman from oregon. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and thank you for staying for

another round of questions. follow-up on international cooperation, which we have talked about a lot in this subcommittee, and we'll all appreciate the importance of it. had discussions this morning. what i want to talk about is in light of the proposal to shut down sophia, what are the risks of international partners coming to view nasa as not a reliable partner? what has been the response from the international community when they found out about the proposal? so far had been the germans because that is our principal partner. before we announced the budget, dr. berner and i had a long telephone conversation, and that's where we decided we would working groupired to look at options for sophia.

a final decision on sephia has not been made because we don't know what the 2015 budget is going to say. as congressman brooks we would then have to phase out. >> to follow-up, even though germany may be the only partner that has expressed concern, what kind of message does that send to the community? have you had any response from others about questioning why this might happen. everyone was up in arms when we announced we were having to step back from the initial alomar's.on x times were better. we were going to provide launch vehicles for the 2016 mission. when the 2013 budget was about to come out, i talked to the

european partners and said we have teams in paris. this was leading and christmas. i said this doesn't make sense. we have teams working on all of this stuff. i don't know what the budget is going to be. i cannot allow the teams to keep working toward something we not support. give us time. let us look at the budget. then we will determine what happened. we couldn't provide the launch vehicles we had promised. they negotiated in russia as a partner, and agreed they would do that. we agreed we could hold up our end of the bargain on communications package. a very important scientific package. they go through the same thing. when they don't make a payment, it doesn't make the front page of the new york times. >> i asked you about earth science.

i would ask you about monetary science. could you talk about the continued cuts being proposed for nasa science programs, and whether that is consistent in light of the work that nasa plans to take on the 2012 rover? are holding to a planetary havece portfolio that we brought for a long time. we have to find ways to do missions when budgets are reduced. our budget has been reduced over time. the president requested a certain amount. the misappropriated has always been less. that is forgotten by most people. we have taken the of appropriations and figured out alternative ways to do things.

sometimes you have to cancel it. we have canceled very few missions in the time because we have found alternatives. >> thank you. i yield back the balance of my time. >> the general millon -- the gentlewoman yields back. >> may get a copy? could you remind me? i get all kinds of -- >> we will get you a copy of the letter. >> is a good or bad? >> both. >> they want more money. >> do they like europa?

[laughter] thank you for your testimony. committee may the have additional questions for you. we will ask you to respond for those in writing. open.cord rule main the witness is excuse. the hearing is adjourned. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013]

[no audio] what the gentleman from iowa. >> without objection.

>> mr. speaker, it is time to take the mask off this institution. it is time to expose the check writing scandal i like to call robert gay. it is time to bring honor back to this institution. nine months ago i stood on this floor with other freshmen and took the oath of office. it was probably one of the last few minutes. to go home to my district and to have people laughing at congress, laughing at congressman. laughing at the institution. it brings dishonor on all of us. i was at a pizza hut this weekend with my son mark and my daughter sarah. a gentleman from the booth behind me asked are you going to pay for this with a check? that is not the kind of jokes

that we need. we need to expose this. announce the list of names. >> the chair would like to warn the gentleman he is not supposed to use exhibits, which he did. the chair should have caught it. >> find more highlights from 35 years of coverage on our facebook page. graded by america's cable companies. brought to you today as a public service. >> the internal review team investigating the george washington bridge closures in new jersey has concluded that governor chris christie did not know about it. and played no role in the lane closure decision. you can see the news conference at c-span.org. here is a little of the briefing.

governor christie had no knowledge beforehand of the george washington bridge realignment idea. inplayed no role whatsoever the decision with the implementation. we further found no evidence that anyone in the governor's office decides bridget kelly knew of this idea in advance, played any role in the decision, or the implementation. was that after the decision to implement the alignment, while it was going theand in the aftermath,

members of the governor's office , some of them, became aware of the alignment. we are told this was a legitimate study. we further found that as the potentialew, mother's involvement, appropriate steps were taken to try to determine if anyone else in the governor's office was involved in the lane realignment decision. when those appropriate inquiries were made, bridget kelly lied to her colleagues. even reached out to subordinate and asked them to destroy a

potentially incriminating document. we further found it was not 8 when documents that had been subpoenaed were first revealed. that david while staying and bridget kelly have act.cipated in this the decision of the implementation to realign the george washington bridge. we found based on our investigation david while staying is the person who originated the idea and orchestrated it. they had the material motive for

implementing that decision to in some way target fort lee. we are not able to answer every question. we are not able to answer what the ulterior motive was. we can say that the evidence doesn't establish that all .errier motive was to target evidence.ontrary governor's office and christie campaign knew as early 2013 that he would not be endorsing the governor for reelection. by his own account, they continue to have good relations with the christie administration.

as recently as may. we further find that when the governor became aware that bridget kelly, in his office, had been involved in the lanes,n to close these took appropriate action. he made a public commitment before the investigation that he was going to release findings to the public. he directed us on the day we were repaired, which is the

first time i ever met governor christie. to find out what the facts are, whatever they will be. to report them back to the governor's office, and to make recommendations as we saw fit to address the problems so something like this never happens again. that is what we have done in our report. c-span. for 35 years, bringing public affairs events from washington to you. putting you in the room a congressional hearings, briefings, and conferences. offering gavel-to-gavel coverage of the u.s. house as a public service of private industry. cable tveated by the industry 35 years ago and brought you as a public service. president obama's meeting

with pope francis. in 15 minutes, house debate on a no that would provide aid to the ukraine. and sanction russia for its intervention. house members consider a bill that would temporarily delay cuts in medicare payments to doctors. the doc fix. >> a couple of live events c-span numeral two. a new america foundation form on marijuana legalization. that is 9:00 eastern. womenjane speaks to the in international security conference. the u.s. supreme court heard arguments this week on whether or not appropriations have religious rights that exempt them from part of the new health care law requiring coverage of birth control for employees at no extra charge. the case involved to family and companies that provide health

insurance to their employees but objective covering certain methods of birth control they say work after conception. president obama met with pope francis today at the vatican. mr. obama stopped in rome after earlier meeting with european leaders before continuing to saudi arabia. this is 15 minutes. >> welcome, mr. president. >> t

>> welcome to the vatican. >> very nice to see you, thank you. >> thank you. how are you, sir. how are you? thank you so much. >> a wonderful visit with my daughters, thank you. >> very nice to see you. wonderful to be back, thank you. >> good to see you. >> very nice to see you. thank you. >> how are you? thank you. >> mr. president.

>> wonderful to meet you. thank you so much. thank you.

> thank you very much. > thank you so much. [inaudible]

>> this is made with timber that built the first cathedral n the united states. > thank you. [inaudible]

[inaudible] >> on the next washington

journal, america is united for separation of church and state, and also more of the southern baptist convention ethics and liberty commission to discuss the role that faith and religion play in politics, public life, and civics today. and the christian science monitor contributor christina about thealks widespread use of heroin in the u.s., especially the suburbs. join the conversation on facebook and twitter. >> one thing that do not become known until the late 1980's, when the leading fbi scholar found it through some files that he applied for through the freedom of information act, and that was something that had taken place from 1940's until 1966, when the fbi for that time

had a formal relationship with the american legion in which , 180,000 members of the american legion regularly filed rape ports with the fbi -- regularly filed reports with the fbi. americans had no idea that kind of informing was taking place. 19 71, a group broken to an fbi office in pennsylvania and stole every document in the building. that story sunday night at 8:00 on c-span's "1&a." >> the u.s. house and senate thursday passed bills that would provide $1 billion in loan guarantees to ukraine and impose sanctions on russia. there are differences in the bills that will need to be reconciled before a final version is sent to the president . over the next 50 minutes, house

debate on the bill. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. royce: mr. speaker, president vladimir putin's decision to forcibly annex crimea was based on his calculation that the price would be bearable. now, in fact, russia is susceptible to pressure. 70% of all the exports of russia are from oil and gas. 52% of the budget that goes to the power behind mr. putin's military and his government comes from that monopoly pricing on natural gas. that supplies the budget for russia. that is what gives him the power to manipulate the situation, the monopoly over gas that he has in eastern europe with respect to ukraine. if we want to check aggression from russia, we must push back

and we must work together quickly, not only to confront this monopoly circumstance that exists there but also to quickly impose tough sanctions on president putin and on those who have been his accomplices in carrying out this aggression. diplomatically, our european allies have helped to eject russia from the g-8 and have suspended all other engagement with russia until this crisis is peacefully resolved. economically they have also imposed sanctions, including asset freezes and visa bans against many russian leaders. our targets must include government officials as well as those who hold no formal position but who nevertheless exercise great influence over

president putin's policy and have supported aggression. that includes the so-called people who have amassed enormous wealth through corruption and through other illegitimate means. we must make clear that if they do not end this crisis that they have deliberately created, by the way, or if they choose to go even further, then we and our allies will ratchet up the sanctions pressure. we must also move quickly to strengthen ukraine by reinforcing its sovereignty, its independence and territorial integrity and assisting the new government to meet the enormous challenges it faces. this bill provides assistance to strengthen civil society in ukraine, to combat corruption, to help recover assets stolen by former ukrainian officials, to reform the police and the

justice sector, to promote the independent media, to strengthen ukraine's defense and help prepare for the runup for the presidential election which is scheduled now on may 25. and i will add that in several weeks i will be leading a delegation, bipartisan delegation from this house with mr. engel to the ukraine, and i will add that his forefathers, in fact, come from the ukraine, and we will be there to meet with the parliament, the leadership, the electorial commission in advance to that election. this bill also directs the assistance already approved by the house to help get the ukrainian economy back on its feet, including by promoting fundamental economic reforms in the country. those tough reforms will be essential. mr. speaker, moscow is using propaganda to soak confusion

and fear and unrest inside the ukraine right now which then exploits to justify its actions. to counter that effort, this legislation enhances funding for radio free europe, radio liberty and the voice of america to expand broadcasting in the russian language, in ukrainian, in totter, in order to provide the accurate news and information on the ground across ukraine. no amount of aid will help ukraine if russian propaganda rules the day. another priority must be to end russia's ability to use its energy reserves to blackmail ukraine and other countries including many of our nato allies. russia supplies 100% of lithuania's natural gas. well, it might not be that surprising, then that lithuania pays the highest price per gas of any country in eastern europe. 2/3 of poland's gas.

energy sales earn russia not only dollars but they earn russia influence because russia, in the dead of winter, has turned off the valves. russia's state-controlled gas company threatened to cut off supplies to ukraine earlier this month, as it did during the winters of 2006 and 2009. gas prom has stated that it is preparing to double the price that ukraine pays for its natural gas which could crumple the country's already weak economy. now, we have a powerful tool to counter this pressure, one that is just waiting to be used and that's our own energy reserves. we must remove restrictions on the export of u.s. crude oil d natural gas into eastern europe. we have in fact a letter to the speaker of the house from the heads of state of poland, of the czech republic, of

slovakia, of hung ari -- hungary, asking us. listen, at the end of the day, if we do this, we end the flaring of gas here in the united states because of the glut. we're able to help our balance of payments. we'll help reduce our deficits. it increases russia's deficit it's, frankly. it produces jobs here in the united states, but it comes at a time when vladimir putin has decisionmakers in eastern europe with respect to his power on monopoly over gas. lifting frankly these self-imposed sanctions on ourselves in terms of not exporting our excess gas, would not only boost the u.s. economy and create american jobs, as i indicated, but would reduce the energy revenues that comprise

52% of the budget for the military and the government in russia. we must break putin's energy grip over ukraine and eastern europe. this is a strategic issue. i am pleased, by the way, to have worked closely with ranking member eliot engel of new york, and with all of the members of the committee to produce this strong, effective and much-needed bipartisan bill. and i look forward to its passage today and to working with our senate colleagues to have the president sign the bill into law as soon as possible. mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. engel: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. engel: i rise in strong support of h.r. 4278, the ukraine support act, and let me begin by thanking the chairman of our foreign affairs committee, mr. royce, for his

strong leadership on ukraine. as always, he's working with us in a bipartisan and constructive manner. it's very important -- on this very important and timely bill and i'm pleased to be the lead democratic co-sponsor. i'd like to thank my other democratic and republican colleagues on the foreign affairs committee for their important contributions. the united states has long been a steadfast supporter of the democratic, prosperous and independent ukraine. and with the people of ukraine now in dire need of assistance and under imminent threat, there's never been a more critical moment to show our support. president putin's invasion of crimea is a flagrant violation of international law and russia's commitments to its neighbor. the phony and illegal referendum that putin orchestrated at the barrel of a gun has resulted in the first outright annexation territory in europe send sins the end of world war ii, and now putin is amassing troops on the border, threatening to seize more ukrainian territory and

inciting more violence and conflict. putin's destabilizing and dangerous moves threaten not only ukraine but other states in the region, including mull efensea and -- muldova and georgia. the entire international community must take a stand against putin's naked aggression. this legislation reaffirms our strong support for the people of ukraine at this critical time. it authorizes assistance for ukraine as it attempts to right its struggling economy, increase energy security, strengthen civil society and prepare for democratic elections this spring. it supports ukraine's efforts to recover missing assets, to bolster the rule of law and to professionalize its law enforcement. it supports additional broadcasting to ukraine and chairman royce has been a champion of that, and other countries in the region to counter the dangerous and hateful propaganda coming from the media outlets and it

endorses the deployments of significant numbers of international monitors throughout ukraine, to help reduce tensions and ensure security of all ukrainians. but legislation sends a clear message to put inl and his cronies that the land grab and reckless actions will have serious consequences. it supplements the president's efforts of violating ukraine's sovereignty and international integrity, looting the economy and violating human rights in ukraine. here i'd like to applaud president obama for imposing measures which have already impacted putin's inner circle. for taking the lead in suspending russia's participation in the g-8 and coordinating actions with our european partners and others throughout the world. finally, the bill expresses support for continuing u.s. security assistance to ukraine and reaffirms our commitment to the security of nato, security of our nato partners in eastern and central europe. mr. speaker, the coming days,

weeks and months will be very difficult for ukraine. its leaders must continue the process of reconciliation and reach out to all regions of the country. they must scrupulously reject minority -- respect human rights. it is important to respect minority and human rights, and they must make the hard decisions and take the difficult steps that will return their country to political and economic health. and they must do all of this in the face of opposition and likely provocations from putin and his cronies. but as they do so, they and the people of ukraine should know that they have our support. by passing this bill, we are making clear that the united states stands with ukraine, that we are committed to helping its people build a more democratic, prosperous, secure and just state for themselves and their children. you know, if we continue to work with ukraine and continue to help ukraine and turn them westward rather than eastward,

then putin will have lost. he may have a land grab in crimea, but he will lose the rest of ukraine, and we should be doing everything possible to make sure that our european allies are working closely with ukraine offering them the incentives they need so they will look westward and not eastward. i join my colleagues, i urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important legislation and reserve the balance of my time, but before i do, i want to say foreign policy should be bipartisan whenever possible. i think this is bipartisanship at its best. we send a clear message to the people of ukraine that the united states stands with them. it's not a republican or a democratic stand. it's an american stand, and i'm proud to be part of it. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york reserves -- mr. engel: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. royce: yes, mr. speaker. i yield one minute to our

respected majority leader, the gentleman from virginia, mr. cantor. the speaker pro tempore: the majority leader, mr. cantor, the gentleman from virginia, is recognized for one minute. . mr. can'ter: i thank the gentleman from california. mr. speaker, i rise in strong support of the ukraine support act. vladimir putin's recent annexation of crimea stand in direct violation of ukraine's sovereignty and international law. his aggression may only continue unless we in america along with our allies respond with strength. newspaper reports indicate that putin may not be content with swallowing crimea whole, and that he is now amassing troops on the border with eastern ukraine and may soon have his eyes on moldova. the eyes of the world are on the united states and our e.u. and

nato partners. adversaries and allies around the world are watching to see how we respond to this outrageous provocation. to see whether we mean it when we say putin's actions are unacceptable. it is vitally important that the united states in conjunction with our e.u. and nato allies send an unmistakable signal that this aggression will not be tolerated. together we must be prepared to exact a significant cost for russia's behavior, and that mr. putin's actions will be met with the firmest of resolve. this bill is a first step towards supporting the ukranian's and our central and easternure peaian partners and imposing a truly significant cost on moscow. but it is only a first step. we must fundamentally reassess

our assumptions about russia and acknowledge that putin himself scrapped the administration's policy a long time ago. we need a new strategic that under-- streanl that understands putin for who he is, not -- strategy that understands putin for who he is not who we wish him to be. we need a new grand strategy. we need a foreign policy that stands up for our allies and stands up to our adversaries. we need a prioritized defense in our budget so that we maintain a military that can respond promptly to contingencies around the world and that instills fear in our enemies while reassuring our allies. mr. speaker, i hope this bill, modest though it may be, will prove to be the first step on a long march to restore america's defenses and alliances. now more than ever the threats to the very fabric of the

international system require an america that leads. i want to thank very much the gentleman from california, chairman royce, and ranking member engel, and the rest of the committee on foreign affairs for their bipartisan work for all of their efforts on this issue. and i urge my colleagues in the house to support our friends in ukraine by passing this bill. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia has yielded back. the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. engel: thank you, mr. speaker. i now yield three minutes to a very distinguished member of our committee, the gentleman from virginia, mr. connolly. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia is recognized for three minutes. mr. connolly: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank my friend. i also congratulate the ranking member, mr. engel, and the chairman, mr. royce, for their bipartisan leadership on this critical, critical resolution. mr. speaker, apparently once a

k.g.b. agent always a k.g.b. agent. mr. putin seems to have learned nothing from history other than that there is power at the end of the barrel of a gun. to cite the fact that there are russian speakers in crimea as a rationale for one of the most audacious power grabs of the 21st century in europe no less forgets history. let us not forget that crimea was settled by stalin when he excelled and executed the native tartars, this was also done at the end of the barrel of a gun. russian interests were never threatened in the crimea after the revolution in kiev. the new government in kiev never abrogated the treaty that allowed russia privileges, naval privileges, through 2042. the ukranians didn't occupy military stations in crimea and around the region. it was the other way around. but 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 backs on the very lessons we should have learned from 20th century tragic history. mr. speaker, we need to stop lking about the -- i'm stuck on crimea and i hope my colleagues are, too. it is wrong, it cannot be allowed to stand, and we must make him pay a price. and the difference between now and stalin's time is that his economy is integrated into the global economy. the ruble will fall, the stock market in russia will pay a price, investment will suffer because we will help make it so unless he relents. until they pay a price that's so great, systematic and comprehensive, that he will understand that we no longer operate by the rule of the jungle in europe or indeed anywhere else in this planet. not with our blessing.

not with our apology. so i strongly support the legislation before us and urge my colleagues to join with all of us in telling mr. putin, we will not stand idly by with history doomed to repeat itself. i yield back to the gentleman from new york. thank the speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia has yielded back. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. royce: mr. speaker, i yield three minutes to the gentleman from new jersey, mr. smith, chairman of the foreign affairs subcommittee on africa, global health, global human rights, and international organizations. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for three minutes. mr. smith: mr. speaker, i rise in strong support of the ukranian support act. i want to thank my friends and colleagues, chairman royce and ranking member engel for introducing this comprehensive legislation to support ukraine and its urgent effort to meet its current crisis, including building up its democratic institutions. mr. speaker, russia's land grab in crimea violates the core principles of several bilateral

and multilateral agreements and treaties between ukraine and russia. the buddha pest memorandum, the united nations charter, as well as the hell sinka -- helsinki final act. this includes strong sanctions against russians directly responsible for the aggression. h.r. 4278 also authorizes targeted sanctions against ukranians involved in undermining the democratic processes and provides assistance to the ukranian government for identifying and recovering stolen assets. it is after all these criminal officials, including and especiallyiana could he vitch -- yanokovich who have so harmed the ukranian people. another key provision of the bill provides support for ukraine's democracy and civil society and i want to recognize the importance of supporting as well the faith-based groups and organizations that played such a prominent role, particularly on

the humanitarian side, in supporting the movement for democracy and the rule of law. the ukraineian democracy movement is in charge part a religious movement. orthodox and catholic clergy for example were prominent in the protest, and the drama of priests carrying icons, confronting soldiers became as much a symbol of the democratization movement as anything else. again when people were wounded, when people were being dragged away, it was the clergy that tried to step in to mitigate the violence against them. let me also point out that a catholic news service article that just hit the wire points out that members of the ukranian catholic church are fleaing cry me -- fleeing crimea to escape threats of arrest and property seizures. the situation, quote, remains very serious and we don't know what will happen. the new government here is portraying us as nationalists and extremists.

a parish representative-elector in crimea. he said that officials from the russian security service, or f.s.b., had called him in for questioning about his community and asked whether or not he recognized the new order. he pointed out that one priest in particular was actually beaten by russian forces, and again members will recall, i remember during the 1980's when i first came here how so many within the church, including orthodox church, were beaten, sent to the gulag because of their religious faith. this could be the harbinger of a new wave of repression against people of faith. ukranian catholic church by way of reminder was one of those churches that was outlawed during soviet times, and now we see the same kind of reputation of that kind of repression. this legislation is a clear step in the right direction. no peace of legislation is -- will do it all. we have to appeal to the russians to stop this. but again cease the persecution

of people in the crimea. the speaker pro tempore: the time of the gentleman from new jersey has expired. the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. engel: thank you, mr. speaker. it's now my pleasure to yield three minutes to the democratic whip, the gentleman from maryland, mr. hoyer. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. hoyer: i thank my friend, the ranking member, mr. engel from new york, and i thank mr. royce, the chairman of the committee, for bringing this bill to the floor. and working in a bipartisan fashion to affect an objective that i strongly support. i thank both of them for their work. the ongoing russian aggression against ukraine is unacceptable. in a gross violation of international law. i agree with president obama that russia's acting from a position of weakness, however. strong nations do not invade and annex territory from their smaller neighbors by force. and strong nations do not suppress the free expression of ideas and the voices of dissent within their own society.

those are the hallmarks not of a great nation but insecure bully. great nations are those that stand together to reaffirm the principles of liberty and international order. great nations are those that commit to peaceful diplomacy while protecting free and open debate among our citizens. the american people continue to stand with the people of ukraine, mr. speaker, because we believe they have a right to join the nations of the world that are free and able to shape their own future. that is why through this bill we pledge our support as the new government in kiev works to stabilize its economy, provide security to its citizens, and ensure that all ukranians are afforded the opportunities that come with vibrant, democratic institutions and basic freedoms. that is what this bill offers the people of ukraine. what it offers president putin and his associates is an opportunity to end their

misguided, unjustified, and illegal incursion in ukraine's internal affairs. because it affords them a choice, mr. speaker, that here the international law and end their aggression or face increasingly punitive sanction that is will further isolate russia from the global community. the one item miss interesting this otherwise strong bill, unfortunately, is ratification of i.m.f. quota reform. i hope the house will take action on that piece soon. however, this is a good bill. we ought to support this bill. we ought to pass this bill and send mr. putin a clear message that the united states congress and the nation we represent will not stand for russia's actions and that we are ready to help ukraine reach for the future it so richly deserves. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman from maryland yields back. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. royce: mr. speaker, i yield three minutes to the gentleman from california, mr. rohrabacher , chairman of the foreign affairs subcommittee on europe,ure asia, and meerging threats -- eurasia, and emerging threats. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california, mr. rohrabacher, is recognized for three minutes. mr. rohrabacher: mr. speaker, i rise in opposition to this legislation, and i realize that i am a lone voice, or almost a lone voice in this discussion today. i see this legislation as a bipartisan green light to reigniting the cold war. unfortunately, many of my friends and colleagues, both colleagues today and my friends from the time when i spent in the reagan white house, seven years, many of these people feel that the cold war is not over. that it never did end. they are more comfortable with

that -- with treating russia as if it was still under communist rule. well, putin is not a communist leader. putin is a nationalist who loves his country. and he's looking out for the national interest of his country. for us to try to demonize him and try to suggest that he is doing this like he did in the cold war, and k.g.b.,ets, is not doing the cause of peace any good in ukraine, a democratically elected president, this is what started this whole slide in the wrong direction toward the type of confrontation we are having today, that a democratically elected president was removed from power. this precipitated, and that was a democratically elected president who is more inclined towards better relations with russia, he was removed from power and then the russian government under mr. putin decided to ensure the people of

crimea the right to self-determination, because even secretary of state kerry has verified and testified before our committee that the people of crimea obviously want to be part of russia. this is not a power grab. this is defending their right for self-determination. . certainly the people of crimea have the right to make that determination, judgment as the people of kosovo had their right to leave serbia behind. our military action there to try to protect the right of self-determination of the kosovo people, it cost many, many lives and this russian military move, which is called this power grab, has resulted in the loss of one life. that is in stark contrast to when we bombed bell grad, we bombed serbia. now, this should not be -- we should not permit ourselves to

reignite a cold war, we should make sure shah we realize that the actions that we are taking here, suggesting the united states must rush in and be the arbiter in every one of these type of conflicts, is only stretching our budget, but in this particular bill, we are going to, what, put our name on a loan of $800 million to a country that we're going to have to borrow the money from china to get. the united states can no longer afford to write every -- right every wrong in the world and be the arbiter. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. rohrabacher: we'd be ash traiting in the wrong -- ash traiting in the wrong direction. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized. >> i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. >> i thank the gentleman. mr. royce: part of our problem here is with president putin's definition of what is the russian nation in his speech. when he says the russian nation is divided by borders, he is sending a message that with

respect not just to crimea, but other areas throughout europe, that russia may be staking a claim. and here's the difficulty. in crimea, yes, the population today is majority ethnic russian. but there was a time when -- before joe stalin moved a wide segment of the population into beria and before the force collection, there was a time when the majority population is very different than it is today. 56% of those ethnic -- of that ethnic group perished. but this is a problem that we also have in eastern europe and in eastern and southern ukraine. because you had some eight million ukrainians also perish during stalin's rule and ethnic russians came into that area as a