administrations and various anticommunist causes, there seems to be a gleeful response to what's happened in ukraine yet e it then gives them purpose in -- a going back and beating up the old enemy. . frankly the soviet union was our enemy because it was directed by people with an ideology that was trying to supplant the rest of the world and doing so in a big way as well as building up their own military. russia is a powerful force in the world which we need to deal with as a major country, a major nation. major countries have their interests. i do not see what's going on in

outcome of the communist ideology but instead you have a very important international power there, russia, that is governed by someone who is looking out for its national interests and who that leadership of that country obviously believes that what was going on in ukraine was contrary to their national interests and that they were not being treated fairly in a way in which a pro-russian leader was removed from office by street violence rather than by elections, which in their o result losing -- what they had was access to crimea and a port for their fleet. that said, i'd like to go back to the original purpose that we came here today, to talk about arms control and how that will

inimpacted by this new shift our relations with russia and i say that no matter what i should have said the bottom line is, it is in recognition that we are now not in as positive a relationship or neutral relationship that we are in two years ago with russia. we were in fact -- things -- our relationship with russia has the tieror ated. -- as deteriorated. whose fault that is, and does the russian government with putin have all the blame or do we share some of it, or was there a power grab by the e.u., that's something to discuss but the fact is we know that relationship has deteriorated. what i would like to ask the panel is, does this mean that what we negotiated with, and i'm very proud of what ronald reagan accomplished in eliminating a

whole classification of nuclear weapons and brought down the number of nuclear weapon this is a threaten the world, does that mean we can no longer work with russia in this area? should we postpone our efforts or pull back from cooperation with the current russian government on those issues? should we then also pull back from economic cooperation, should we declare the space program that we are partners with russia, now to be not something that we believe we can count on and thus we should go the opposite direction? what about that? should -- what are the implications for arms control, what are the implications for cooperating in other areas of ssia and the whole ukrainian situation? >> thank you, mr. chairman. i'll be pleased to answer that question. first of all, i would say that

this administration has made it very clear that it is important to continue to cooperate with russia where we can, where our national security interests coincide, but then when we disagree, we disagree and we make our disagreements very clear. so there's no question that it is in our national security interest to continue to work with russia and international partners in multilateral efforts that are key to global security. such efforts as elimination of syria's chemical weapons, for example. our work together on iran. and i would add also our work together in the arms control field that means continued implementation of -- >> so you're not advocating, the administration and what you're suggesting today a good policy would be not to punish russia in those areas. for what they're doing in the ewe crepe? i would not say punish.

we have a very clear position on the events of ukraine -- >> so we should not let cooperation be a tool then. mr. hartley, could you answer that? i've already taken too much time, i'm sorry. >> yes, sir, thank you for that question. as anita said, we -- terror areas where both we and the russians perceive our national interests to coincide and anita outlined a number of them. one area where we now have a profound difference is over what the -- what the post-cold war european security environment should be, what the ground rules are. coming out of the cold war we had, we thought, some very clear rules based on the helsinki final act of 1975 and other agreements that european borders would not be chamed by force. the russians have undertaken to do that with regard to crimea. we believe that they are

actively involved using their special forces and other agents to destabilize eastern ukraine and it's for that reason, because of this behavior contrary -- >> thank you very much. mr. chairman, again, as we discuss this, china is still in the world and in the picture and i would hope that as we look, as we work these problems out, that we keep in mind that china has to be part of the equation or the world will be less secure. thank you very much, mr. chairman. >> i thank the gentleman. i recognize the ranking member of the subcommittee from california, mr. sherman, for ive minutes. >> this has intock some extent a ukraine hearing and we are honored by the pence of the deputy assistant secretary from the relevant bureau. mr. hartley, has the ukrainian

government been successful in isarming anti-russia militias? >> thank you, sir, for that question. my expertise falls more on the nato, the o.c.e. and bilateral security assistance side. it is my impression that they've made some progress there but i would be happy to take that question for more authoritative response. >> while you take that question, the other question is what are we doing to urge the government kiev to honor and even make less subject to alteration statutes adopted in the past to assure the russian language would be an official language in the south and east of ukraine? what are we doing to say, yes, there may be forces, political

forces in kiev that say let's impose the ukrainian language on everyone, and there may be forces on the other side. i for one understand america's spending its treasure and taking riskers in territorial integrity of the ukraine. i'm an ags no i -- agnostic as to what lang watch -- language should be spoken in the east and i would hate to think we find ourselves exposed to risk and cost because the noncompromising elements reprail in kiev on these issues. ms. freed, what -- has russia put forward any argument this is a we are in violation of any of the arms control agreeps we've entered into with russia or its predecessor government? >> thank you for that question, sir. yes, as a matter of fact, russia, when we issue our annual

compliant report every year, the russians regularly hi come back with some -- >> so they have their own compliance report which may even be issued on time. sorry about that. sorry. go ahead. and what do you think is their strongest complaint? >> strongest complaint, the one i would say, i can't give you all their complaints right new because i haven't looked at them recently but certainly our missile defenses is what they ocus on. >> and which treaty do they believe the missile defense efforts are in violation of? >> well it would be more than likely the i.n.f. treaty. >> ok. now as -- i'm trying to understand what is the legal obligation of russia with troord

interimmediate yalt missile this is a they claim will be used only in naval warfare. is that -- as i understand it, they're allowed to test these missiles from a ground-based launcher but not if that ground-based launcher would be the effective launcher to use in case hostilities broke out. what are they allowed to do on land in order to test weapons that they say are exclusively for naval use? >> sir, quite -- thank you for your question. i'm not prepared right now to go into technical details, the focus -- >> i'm asking what the treaty provides. i'm asking for you to just inform us what the treaty provides. what is the -- what is the united states allowed to do? i'm not asking for a secret here. >> not at all a secret, but let me just briefly state that as i mentioned before we have very

serious concerns and as you have stated that russia is developing a ground launched cruise missile that's inconsistent with the i.n.f. treaty and we have made those concern clears to the russians. >> i am hoping you would make them clear to us. is the mere testing of -- mr. hartley, i don't know if you have a comment on this but is the mere testing of this missile a violation if they can claim that they only plan to deploy it on ships? >> sir, that would go into the specific range and such that it is tested. >> it's being tested for -- it's an intermediate range missile. the question is, is it a naval intermediate range missile or are they creating a ground-based missile? >> i can't get into details here on that topic, i'd be happy to touk -- >> the details i want are, what

are the provisions of the treaty but my time has more than expired, thank you for your time. >> thank the gentleman. mrs. friedt it's taken five years for the state department to reach a verdict on this treaty in my opinion. my question is, are the russians, in our point of view, in violation of the treaty? i see one of only three answers. yes, no, or you don't know. which one of those is the answer? >> sir we're in the process of finalizing the annual compliance report and we'll have a finding shortly. >> so you can't tell me whether it's yes or no you don't know? >> i can't at this point. >> when will you have this report ready? it's like the ranking member said, it's overdue. >> sir -- >> five years it's take ton get a report here, either they're in compliance or they're not. we've got to make foreign policy decisions and we don't know if the russians are cheating or

not. when are we going to get a verdict on the are eport? >> we report on this issue every year on the i.n.f. treaty and at this point, as the annual compliance report is in the process -- >> when will it be finalized? >> later this spring. >> you don't know. a each of you have said that the actions by putin are illegal. you've seen there's some disagreement here as to whether russia can to what they're doing internationally or not. why is the action of russia going into crimea and now eastern europe -- ukraine, illegal in the united states' point of view? you both said it was illegal, so why is it illegal? >> yes, sir. thank you for that question. undertaking the

actions they did, the russians have violated their commitments under the u.n. charter. that's from a legal standpoint from a political standpoint, they've violated -- well, they have broken commitments made under the 1994 budapest memorandum as well as the commitments thurnt ehelsinki final act, among others. >> ms. friedt, do you have any other comments other than what mr. hartley has said on why the action is illegal? >> no, sir, i think mr. hartley is -- has answered the question. >> when i was in ukraine, in recent weeks, talked to other heads of state in the areas, they're not the only country that's concerned about their territorial integrity. mull doe va, other form -- moldova, other former soviet republics, not yet in nato and some that are in nato, are there concerns warranted?

mr. hartley? >> yes, sir, if i may, the -- of course >> i'm talking about concerns of russia coming in and taking over their territory. >> yes, sir. the actions of the russians have undertaken with regard to crimea and what they're doing in eastern ukraine gives deep cause for concern. on the part of those nations. any couldn't that ry that has a russian minority or russian-speaking minority, at least according to mr. putin in his april 18 speech, according to mr. putin's public statements s -- would seem at risk of being at risk of russian intervention. >> the ukrainian government on the interest of russians in the east, there's no definition as to what a russian is.

is it a russian that was born in russia? is it a russian that's moved to eastern ukraine? is it a russian who wants to be russian? there's no definition as to what a russian is. do we have a definition of what a russian is in the eastern part of the ukraine? >> i don't know that we do, sir. >> it means different things to different people. >> that's true. and mr. putin defines it as a native russian or russian speaker. >> the elections in ukraine are coming up on may 26, i believe. i think it's important for stability in ukraine that they have these elections. that they are fair, people vote. do you see, i'm asking you to look 26 days in the future. do you see that the russians may cause a disturbance a crisis to try to postpone these elections?

if they ike to me, cause a crisis, they want to solve a crisis by moving in their troops. are we expecting a possible crisis to try to get these leches postponed? -- these elections postponed? >> thank you for that. i would be hesitant to speculate too far into the future. the conditions are such that that is a legitimate concern. in the negotiation of the geneva statement, the u.s., the e.u., and the ukrainians all urged the inclusion of a sentence that referred to the may 25 leches and the need that they be carried out in an orderly and transparent way. the russians refused to include that in the text of the statementle. the disruptions were already taking place in the ukraine that are bound to complicated the election efforts and we believe

that those -- that the instability there is being fomented by the russians. thank you, mr. hartley, ms. friedt. the chair will yield to the gentleman from new york, mr. meeks, for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. there was a now, beginning where we thought that we'd be entering a new world, we would be able to have with the new stark treaty, not abolishing ewe near -- nuclear weapons altogether, we were moving in the right direction the senate ratified the treaty and the russian federation ratified the treaty. there's a lot of things going on. it seems when we're dealing with crimea and the east, ukraining we've got to balance a number of issues also. our nato allies. i believe that sanctions work but only when they're multilateral sanctions and we do

sanctions individually and not as strong as they would be multilaterally yet a number of our nato allies have concerns and we've got to make sure they're part of whatever we do. we can't separate ourselves, in my viewpoint, from them. nato allies our are tremendously important. some control experts continue to report that russia could potentially withdraw from treaties such as the i.n.f. and that they may further -- any further expansion of arms control efforts will likely make no headway for the foreseeable future system of, some of my colleagues, some of the pun -- i hear some pundits saying, give weapons, more sanctions, very few people are talking about diplomatic solutions. my first question is, do either of you still see, i believe

there's still hope, we should talk and have conversations with nations we don't disagree with. is diplomacy an option here? do you seedy employee macy having an a chance here? or it has no chance? what role do you think diplomacy has in this. >> thank you, sir. we -- we believe that diplomacy is a critical aspect of of this. that's why secretary kerry has had, i forget, six, eight, 10 conversations with the russian foreign minister over the last couple of weeks. that's why he went to geneva to negotiate the terms of the geneva statement that laid out a pathway for de-escalation and so we very much believe that the -- that that is the -- that diplomacy is the way to resolve this, to find a political solution. the sanctions that we're imposing have been imposed only after those efforts have so far

proven fruitless. but sanctions are scaleable, they're flexible. if the russians make the decision that they want to de-escalate the situation and return to behavior consistent with international norms, then we can reslers the sanctions but we -- reverse the sanctions but even as we go forward, taking a harder line on those, we want to keap the door open for -- keep the door open for a diplomatic solution. >> that being the case, try to prevent a scenario that we clearly have, and i do see some of the other regions, whether t's in the caucuses, the baltic, eastern europe, we've got to focus on some of those countries now, i've got friends in those countries, mr. poe may have said something, what should we say to them now?

what should we do? you look at ukraine, its economy was in the tank, some say crimea will be a big burden on russia as it seems right now, but we've economically, what do you see that we can do? you said there are huge concerns right now about russia, in some of these countries about russia coming in. what can we do now before there's any possibility of russia invading? what can we do to help those countries now to ensure them that we're there, that nato is there, what do you think we can do right now? >> thank you, sir. with regard to nato allies, particularly those on -- we've now come to call frontline state the three baltic countries, poland, romania, bulgaria, we have already deployed u.s. forces on land, sea, and air and

nato allies are deploying at this point, principally sea and air assets in a measured way to underscore that the article 5 commitment to collective defense is credible and has teeth. so we are in constant consultation with our nato allies with nato headquarters. >> i want to ask one last question. do you think russia is backing down from its arms agreement with the united states, preparing to have a continued military escalation? that's what some are saying that -- in other words, people are saying that russia is building up and they're strong and kind of daring the united states to have a militariest talation -- escalation for nato to come up and meet them militarily, do you see that's part and parcel of what's going on here? >> thank you for that question. that is precisely why the new

start treaty is so important,s the fact that it's been successfully implemented since it was signed and inspections began in 2011. russians are implementing the new start treaty and it sets the limits on their ability to build up nuclear forces. >> and you don't see them violating that right now? >> no, sir. >> so there's still cooperation in that regard? >> yes, sir. >> and there's a number of other things they're still cooperating with? >> yes, sir. >> the gentleman yields back. >> may i add to that, sir? >> you need to make it brief. >> on the conventional side the russians have been modernizing but -- and it has been a source of some concern but we feel as though the assets available of the nato alliance are sufficient to deter any incursions on nato territory. >> thank you, mr. hartley. the chair will recognize the

gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. perry. >> thanks, mr. chairman. ladies and gentlemen, appreciate your time. ms. friedt. the state department is aware that russia may have been in violation of the 1987 intermediate range nuclear forces treaty while negotiating the new start treaty. the first question is when, as far as cu -- as far as you understand it, did the administration first learn of the possible violation of the i.n.f. treaty by the russians? was it in 2008? >> sir, the -- the treaty -- the ratification of the treaty did not -- it was, at that time russia was inch e.menting the treaty successfully. at this point i would prefer to go into closed session to deal with the circumstances, spe specific dates and specific questions you asked. >> ok, then, let me ask you this. when the president was overheard

talking to medvedev at the time he said that after the election he could be more flexible. this is in the context of members of congress being concerned about our national security posture and our ability to secure our nation in light of adversaries and enemies if you want to call some folks that. what did he mean by that? what do you think he meant by that? >> what i can say here is that the united states and this administration will only pursue arms control agreements that are in the united states' national security interests. and that is something that this administration, that the president believes. >> if we know or suspect with some credibility that our partner in negotiation is cheating, at the time we're negotiating a reduction in our capability, how is that -- and we don't take that into account and we continue to march forward with our reduction, how can -- can you explain to me how that

is in our best interest? >> sir, as i mentioned in my statement this administration takes compliance with arms control treaties very seriously. during the negotiation of new start treaty, we took compliance with arms control treaties into consideration. >> but knee -- but we knew or suspected, we suspected while we were negotiating the treaty that they were cheating and we've continued forward and it's fine to continue forward with negotiation, we, as far as you know, and as far as russia is concerned, based on your testimony, have upheld our end of the bargain. we still don't know, according to your testimony, we won't know until late they are spring and by the way, spring is almost over, the extent of their cheating. i recognize and act knowledge the sensitivity of the dates. i'd be happy to talk to you in closed session about that but my concern is we're unilaterally disarming america while we know or suspect with some certainty

that russia is cheating on their end of the deal and i still don't understand how that's in our best interests. >> thank you for that question, sir. the united states -- arms control is in the united states' national security interest. >> it's in our interest when we're controlling theirs, or they're controlling theirs within the paradigm as well as ours. but it's not in our interest when we're controlling ours and they're not controlling theirs to our satisfaction in accordance with the previous agreement, would you agree? >> sir, we take compliance, this administration takes compliance of arms control very seriously. i'm happy to discuss the specifics in closed session. let me say with respect to the treaty, that was a carefully negotiated agreement based on the nuclear posture review, that was a document that received interagency, very close study by then secretary gates and by then

chairman of the -- >> but did they have the knowledge at that time because we -- again, maybe you want to move to closed session but it's my understanding that we didn't report our suspicion our or knowledge of their breach of the previous treaty while the negotiation was happening to our nato allies. did our negotiators, did secretary gates, did he know at that time while he was in agreement with this accord that we had a very strong suspicion that they were cheating on the previous agreement. >> sir, i would like to take you up on your offer to do this in closed session. >> all right. then moving on. based on recent actions in crimea, do you think the american people should trust the russians to adhere to a bilateral, multilateral arms control agreement? nd if so, why?

>> sir, this administration believes in trust but verify. verification of arms control treaties is very important. >> let me ask you one final question work due indulgence, mr. chairman. if we find out and prove, in the springtime, if it's determined and you report that they had indeed cheated for lack of a better phrase on the previous treaty, the previous agreement, what will be the ramifications? >> sir, i'm not prepared to discuss this at this point. when the report is finalized -- >> thank you, mr. chairman, i yield. >> the gentleman yields back his time. the chair recognizes the gentleman from florida, mr. owe hoe for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and i appreciate your testimony today. why do you think russia has become so emboldened here going back to august, 2010? as far as invading other countries.

that was a simple question, i'm sorry. >> thank you, sir. if only there were simple uestions in this life. it is of course difficult to know precisely why the russians and mr. putin have taken the actions they have. there are factors related to history, factors related to concern about the influence that a successful democracy and market economy on its border by a land, a country that used to be part of russia might have on the part of the russian empire might have on the rest of the population of russia. >> let me go in a different direction here. as you said, there's no simple questions but the answers aren't often simple. o you see the 2010 treaty with us reducing our weapons to 1,550

and the administration's willingness to reduce further cus to 1,000, do you think that's emboldened the rugs, mr. putin and the russians? >> thank you for that question, sir, no i do not. >> do you see russia viewing us as weak, indecisive, not willing -- our credibility has been damaged if you go back over the course of the last two or three years new york red lines, no red line regimes must change, we never said regimes must change, not fulfilling the missile defense system in poland and putting a stop to that, do you think they see us as kind of being weak and not with strong resolve? >> sir i do not see u.s. foreign policy as weak. >> ok. how about you, mr. hartley? >> no, sir. i agree with anita. >> so with what's going on in

venezuela and our own backyard, with what china is doing drawing an arbitrary no-fly zone with syria and iran and iran is closer to a nuclear weapon, we are told that iran would have enough material to develop five to six nuclear bombs within four to five months, i see -- what i'm seing from where i'm sitting, what i read, is the lone superpower that bill clinton talked about that america could no longer afford to be, becoming weaker, everybody else is becoming emboldened. i see people flexing their muscles buzz of our weakness and lack of resolve that we have. where do you think this will lead? where do you think russia will end up? will they go into other areas? where there's a large russian-speaking population. do either of you see that? >> we see that there's a risk and the russians have influence

in those areas but it is our policy to exact a coast -- a cost from the russians for their behavior that's in violation of international norms. >> and do you feel the sanction this is a we are talking about, that we've done, do you think they'll have any impact on russian's agrecian? purpose of sanctions is to try to influence russian behavior, it's meant to bring it back within international norms. >> how is that working so far? s. friedt? >> i couldn't -- >> if i may, sir. this could be a long process, sir. >> but again, do we have compliance with other nations? are they putting strong sanctions in place too or is it just us doing this unilaterally? >> yes yesterday -- yesterday as we announced our third round of sanctions we were joined by the g-7 which includesa pan, canada,

and four other major e.u. members, but the entire e.u. also joined. you could -- we could -- the nor wee johns, who are not part of the e.u., also adhere to e.u. sanctions. we have a broad international coalition that is focused on bringing russia back into compliance with international norms. >> let me ask you, do we have troops on the ground in ukraine right now? >> sir, we do not combat troops, i mean, it depends on how you define it. we have a defense attache, we have defense officials the pentagon that visit but the simple answer is no. >> mr. chairman, i yield back. thank you. >> the gentleman yields back. a couple more questions from the chair and then i'll give the ranking member time if he wishes. will the russians give crimea

back, mr. hartley? >> sir, we're doing everything we can to encourage that. >> i know we're doing that, but are they going to give it back at the end they have day? will it be part of ukraine or russia? >> it's our policy that it remains to ukraine and should return to ukrainian control. >> so you done know. how about you? >> i agree with mr. hartley. >> you don't know. the kidnap watchers. who kidnapped them? >> they weren't election observers, it was a team composed of eight europeans led by thiermans and they had five ukrainian escorts with ep them. they were kidnapped by a pro -- by pro-russia individuals, a pro-russia group in eastern ukraine. >> what were they doing in eastern ewe rain? you say they're inspectors, of what?

>> they were there under the vienna document, all 57 nations that are participating states in the organization for security and cooperation in europe to include russia have agreed to a set of measures that are intended to build confidence among the partners, among the participants. part 1 mechanism of that is our nspections that each -- each participating state is obliged to receive a certain number of inspections every year but they can also offer voluntary inspections. >> so they went over there for inspections of what? >> they were there to inspect ukrainian military installations and deployments but also to -- >> they were kid napped by russian sympathizers? >> correct, sir. ? last question. is europe slow-walking saxes because they're concerned about the fact that many of them are totally dependent on russia for

their energy and that russia may then just retaliate? is that one of their concerns about sanctions, mr. meeks asked about the europeans and their not being too supportive as we hoped in this. is that part of the reason, or do you know, mr. hartley? >> both we and the europeans are looking for ways for sanction this is a will maximize the impact on the russians while minimizing impact on our own economies and businesses so it is fair to say that that's a consideration for the europeans, sir. >> all right, thank you. i yield to the ranking member if he has any more questions. >> i want to thank both of our witnesses for their participation. any other questions any members of the panel have will be put in writing and we would expect a response from you. thank you for being here.

the subcommittee is adjourned. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014]

>> on the next "washington journal" a discussion on suicide prevention. our guests are john madigan of the american foundation for suicide prevention and mary jo gibson. then forler u.s. ambassador to iraq christopher hill talks about iraq's elections and the country's stability since the withdrawal of u.s. troops. and later our spotlight on agazines features deana fine maron about a recent "scientific american" article about the history and safety of e-cigarettes. you can join the conversation on acebook and twitter. >> we're back with senator ron johnson, republican of wisconsin. 38 other gop lock pickers

have signed -- lawmakers have signed on. let's start with ukraine in this latest round of sanctions, the fourth round. is it enough? not, butobably sanctions are going to be difficult to have an effect, anyway. it is difficult to target sanctions that don't also heard western interests as well. you'll never have european signing onto really strong sanctions. do in easternd to europe and ukraine is have a more robust strategic response, first of all recognizing what gives vladimir putin strength. you have to bust up the monopoly in terms of the supply.

customer really ought to be in control of the situation. here we have the supplier and control. we have to open up world energy greatestn the single strategic move the u.s. can make is open up our supports with things like lng. let's approve permits for lng terminals. andave to capture demand stop wasting it. let's make that available to europe. is probably the single greatest long-term strategic move we can make. vladimir putin is massing tens of thousands of troops along the eastern border. he has agents in eastern ukraine already. he arty has a mini invasion. we need to show some military strength. it is simply not enough. i'm not recommending tens of thousands, but we certainly should be supplying ukraine with some defensive weaponry so they can defend themselves. host: you think we should be

arming ukrainians? guest: absolutely. the people rising up in the streets thing slaughtered by a soviet-backed government. when they are now asking to be able to extend themselves the needed help. host: 20 say about those who were polled by usa today who said sanctions against russia but not arming. guest: i disagree. i think sanctions will never have enough teeth where it will hurt russian interests as bad. we will never have the types of sanctions. you need sanctions in the types of countries it can right back.

it is much more difficult against an economy as large as russia. nobody is calling for u.s. or nato combat troops on the ground to engage, ob are talking about divided -- providing things like antitank weapons and to change the calculus. the ukrainian people are chance to stabilize -- their government to stabilize the country. host: i want to ask you about what secretary of state john kerry said about committees peace process. one of your colleagues said senator kerry should step down. the comment was probably unfortunate. it basically betrays the that we on the west

should blame the u.s. first. until we get that concession out of palestinians, i think all of these peace negotiations, i don't see how they will ever bear fruit. it is unfortunate. again, obviously, israel is not an apartheid state. it really was a stupid comment. should he step down as senator cruz recommended?

millions of americans are losing health care, millions are. we're the only small group of americans to get the special tax preferred treatment of contributions. that's unfair and should be reversed. president obama had no legal authority to change the law that way. there's nothing in the constitution that grants the president the ability to enact, amend or repeal laws, yet that's exactly what president obama is doing dozens of times, not only with the affordable care act but basically trying to enpack -- enact cap and trade policies. this president south of control in terms of extra constitutional types of actions he's taken and

this case is meant to be a landmark case to highlight and bring back into balance our checks and planses of the three branches of government. host: how to get your? guest: we bought some in wisconsin privately. the fact that the plaintiffs are unmade the eligible for coverage is not enough by itself to establish standing to challenge the regulation.

guest: i am being forced to engage in a scheme that host: so you, since you bought your insurance privately, you are not being harled by this. >> but there are harms we are claiming. guest: it's shown that it's harm to feel a member of congress when he's getting unequal treatment that created a wedge between himself and his constituents. there's three specific harms we are claim bug that's the legalisms of the case. this is about something far more important than that and of course that's what president obama is doing right now. you've got an executive that's engaged in this executive activity where nobody can show specific harm. one of the amicus briefs said if we take this to its logical conclusion, a president could come in and basically cuts everybody's taxes in half. it harms nobody.

i don't think anybody believes that the president has that authority but that's exactly what the president is doing time and time again, amending, changing , suspending all these aspects of so ba macare, also failing to enforce immigration laws. trying to enact cap and trade when congress refuses to enact it into law. that's what's at the heart of this case. a law professor here in washington gave powerful testimony to the house judiciary committee saying that president obama has crossed the line. we're in a constitutional crisis and we have to have judicial review of this unilateral government by this president. >> how do you plan to pay for this lawsuit? >> i was given two choices, pay for it personally or through my campaign fund. i was willing to do it personally but being able to raise money through my campaign, i can do it that way.

guest: i didn't think anyone would be crazy enough to pay for it personally but i think this is such an important issue i was more willing to do so. host: your colleague from wisconsin, republican john sensenbrenner, has urged you to not proceed with the suit saying it was -- this is in "the washington post," a fruitless attempt to stop the law. he apparently called ate frivolous lawsuit and an unfortunate political stunt. >> he came out with the press release before i filed the suit he made a lot of noise over a couple of day bus the he found out the public pop lair i have to what i was trying to do and i hope now he understands it's not just about this narrow regulation on the special treatment, it's more about the overall constitutional issue which is why i got 12 senators, 38 house republicans to join in that lawsuit and by the way, we're going to be issuing a letter to all my colleagues, it

went out this morning, encouraging every republican and every democrat in congress to stand up for congressional power, to push back on this executive. this is a unique moment in history. we have an opportunity with this lawsuit to try to reclaim the power that congress has lost over decades that really threaten our freedom, threaten our constitutional form of government. host: r.n.c. getting behind your suit as well. in "the washington post" they ote this -- you are using your to fight the suit hich will help identify donors for your campaign which is good because risk usually swings democratic in presidential election years. >> if i take the funds given to my re-election and use them for a lawsuit, they're not available

for my re-election. this isn't a campaign strategy, this is a deeply held belief that i have that we are losing our very delicate constitutional balance and there's an issue that must be addressed now and so no, this is an important issue. this is not frivolous, this is not a stunt, this is a serious constitutional question. >> on the next "washington journal" a discussion on suicide prevention. our guests are john madigan of the american foundation for suicide prevention and mary jo gibson of the congressional spouses for suicide prevention and education. then former u.s. ambassador to iraq, christopher hill, talks about iraq's leches and the country's stability since the withdrawal of u.s. troops. later our spotlight on mag seebs features dina fine maron about her recent article looking at the safety and history of e-greats. -- e-cigarettes. you can join the conversation on

facebook and twitter. we're joined by staff reporter for cq roll car to talk about michael grimm's arrest. has pleadeded -- he not guilty. he was arrested on a 20 count federal indictment which includes charges of mail fraud, wire fraud, and tax fraud. what is the back story here? tothe back story is, prior coming to congress, congressman graham opened, operated and owned a health food store called thalicious. authorities allege that he doctored the books, had a second set of

payroll numbers to disguise employees he was paying under the table. he filed false tax returns, he knowingly hired undocumented he basically withheld close to $1 million from the government over the course of a for you. year period. there is a two-year investigation by the justice department into another matter, allegations of campaign finance fraud. the news media started reporting last friday that an indictment to becoming yesterday for congressman graham, i think the was that we were going to hear about the campaign finance allegations. this is totally separate and

caught a lot of people by surprise. sure how long has been going on for this point. . congressman graham could push for a speedy trial. he might want to wrap this up before november elections if he thinks he is innocent. he wants all the facts on the table. he can push for that. the other option is to take you more deliberate approach. this is a complex case. currently -- it could be to everyone's advantage to move forward. graham is all for taking another chance. he could be reelected in the fall with his constituents still not knowing whether he's guilty or not. whilecan remain in office under indictment and he can run for office, is that right? >> yes, he can.

people have done it before. rick lindsey in 2008 said he wouldn't resign and would run for reelection after he came under federal indictment, but ultimately he chose not to run for reelection when the pressure became too great. if someone like william jefferson, who also in 2008 was under indictment. that was one of the biggest upsets of that election cycle. michael grimm, a republican of new york. our viewers may find that name familiar. he got into a heated argument with a local reporter. remind our viewers. yeah, that was around the time of the state of the union.

reporter wase actually asking graham about the finance fraud allegations. congressman graham did not respond well to that. he felt he -- he said now he and taken by surprise by this reporter. he threatened to throw them off the balcony of the rotunda and said he would break him like a boy. a bit of flack for that. he did apologize and the new york one reporter said he accepted his apology. that was definitely what he was most famous for perhaps until yesterday. what has been the response from the gop leadership? guest: we're going to find out what the formal response from the gop leadership is. everyone was telling me after a

two-week recess, the leadership really needs to talk about what to do and have a united front. everyone was very quiet yesterday. there was a scheduled press conference at 10 p.m.. is there weekly press conference , political scandal or not. he will surely be asked about this by reporters during a question-and-answer session, if he doesn't bring it up first on his own. lastly, congressman graham can speaker boehner if he can be removed from the financial services committee. it was a goodwill gesture michael grimm's part. him spoke to the press. that is what we have so far. host:

>> tomorrow's "washington journal" a discussion on suicide prevention. our ques -- our guests are john madigan of the american society for society prevention and mary jo gibson of the congressional spouses for suicide prevention and education. one former ambassador to iraq, christopher hill, talks about situation since the withdrawal of u.s. troops. and our magazine segment features dina hill maron who wrote for scientific american about the safety and history of e-cigarettes. you can join the conversation on facebook and twitter. coming up tonight on c-span, secretary of state john kerry marks nato's 65th anniversaried on the importance of transatlantic relationships. treasury secretary jack lew

talks about the economy and sanctions against russia. later secretary of state john kerry warned russia that washington has allies. the story from rotors -- reuters indicates secretary kerry says russia seems to change the security landscape of eastern europe. united states and our allies will stand together in support of ukraine. spoke at the atlantic council. his remarks were about 20 minutes.

>> good afternoon, everyone. delighted toslead have secretary kerry here who has been such a great friend for years already. secretary, as the administration grapples with what was called the most serious challenge to the international system since the end of the cold war, your presence here is a powerful message. it is also a testament that uf cap the promised you have made when you accepted the atlantic council global citizenship award. weould like to say that anticipated you would become secretary of state. celebrated the

decision of president obama to put you in this position. tackled the toughest strategic challenges of this position. back then when we gave you that award, you pledge to put the transatlantic relationship at the forefront of u.s. foreign policy to meet today's global challenges. you did that with the understanding that "the obituary of nato has been written and rewritten for more than two decades, but our alliance remains the cornerstone of security on both sides of the atlantic." we have witnessed your tireless efforts where you have taken the promise to the front lines. you a been a powerful voice for sovereign and secured ukraine. you reiterated this promise when you call for transatlantic renaissance at this year's munich security conference and reminded us of the task of building a europe is not complete. with that, join me in welcoming

one of the great american public servants of our generation, of our times, a strategic thinker, a creative diplomat, a patriot and the 68th secretary of state john kerry. [applause] >> after that, i thought i would stand up and say i accepted the nomination. [laughter] fred, thank you very much. very generous comments. thank you all for the privilege of sharing some thoughts with you at this both timely and very important gathering. it is my privilege to be here and i am particularly happy to be here with so many of my colleagues, both are foreign ministers and defense ministers who are here. we had a chance to chat briefly. we have been meeting reagan -- regularly along the trail and i

have come to admire and respect clarity ofm for the their vision and for the way in which they have been in these issues. i love the new digs. responsibleose over -- who are responsible. for yournk you so much leadership and the tremendous work that is being done at the atlantic council lately. the success of this particular theerence, but also, groundwork you have been laying and the focus you have had on the criticality of the nato relationship, european relationship which -- thinking back to comments of the near past about old europe and new europe and things that have been floating out there over the last few years, this discussion is

even more timely and relevant. a number ofrks different milestones that are really worth remembering. beginning with the fact that it is 65 years cents secretary of state dean hatchets and and his european counterparts came together and signed the north atlantic treaty. amazinglyn 25 years since the fall of the berlin wall. wall, as we know, symbolically and literally divided east and west europe. it has been 15 years and 10 years and five years since then that nato has welcomed new warners into the post-cold era. as anhave expanded organization, as nato has

expanded, i think it is safe to say we have also expanded democracy, prosperity, and stability in europe. opportunities new in order to be able to advance security even further and we have spurred economic growth around the globe. nato's newestr, members have proven their mettle in ways that we hoped for but necessarily were not able to predict with certainty. today, i can tell you i have seen it first-hand. we have had occasion to travel and we know what has been achieved in afghanistan. where our allies in central and eastern europe had served alongside us and others with distinction. on occasion, not just making a sacrifice, but asking very young soldiers -- their young soldiers

in making the ultimate sacrifice and that perhaps more than anything else can you find -- can define an alliance. in addition, over the nato haslong history of security,to promote more to promote prosperity, and more to promote freedom than any other alliance in human history. it serves us well to remember the words of president eisenhower who said about nato when he was talking to our nato allies. he said, we can take satisfaction from the past, but no complacency in the present. as we come together then to reflect on 65 years of partnership, perseverance, protection, we also have to take

a look, a hard, cold, sober look at the clear threats that regrettably still exist. not because of some inherent continuous push over these last years but frankly because of a fairly, it appears, uniquely, personally driven set of choices that are being made. after two decades of focusing primarily on our expeditionary missions, the crisis in ukraine now calls is back to the role that this alliance was originally created to perform. that is to defend alliance territory and advance transatlantic security. the events in ukraine are a wake-up call. our european allies have spent more than 20 years with us

working to integrate russia into the euro atlantic community. it is not as if we really haven't been -- bent over backwards to try to set a new course in the post-cold war era. we have pursued serious bilateral engagement. we invited russians to join organizations like the wto, the nato russia council, but what russia's actions in ukraine tell russiahat today putin's is playing by a different set of rules. through its occupation of crimea and its subsequent the civilization of eastern ukraine, change thes to security landscape of eastern and central europe. we find ourselves in the defining moment for our transatlantic alliance and

nobody should mistake that. we are prepared to do what we need to do and to go the distance to uphold that alliance. our strength will come from our unity. the strength of our alliance always has come from our unity over the course of 65 years. push backwe have to against those who want to try to change sovereign borders by force. together, we have to support those who simply want to try to live as we do or as others do. i remember being in kiev and a man came up to me and said to me i just came back from australia and i have to come back here and be part of this. people living so here can live the way i saw in australia. devices's era of mobile and smart phones, everybody is

in touch with everybody all of the time. that sense of aspiration and possibility is something that fills the imaginations of young people all around the planet. together, we have to support those folks who want to live free, making their choices about their own future. together, we have to continue our strong support for ukraine and we can do that through economic assistance and we can do it through support for free and fair elections, for constitutional reform, for anticorruption, and for the mobilization efforts. together we have to make it absolutely clear to kremlin that nato territory is inviolable. we will defend every single piece of it. article five of the nato treaty must mean something and our allies on the front lines needed and deserved no less.

obviously, there have to be consequences for those who want to put to test what is been been the norm of international relations and the goal of international behavior ever since world war ii. two weeks ago, i traveled to geneva with my counterparts from russia, from the eu, and from ukraine. number of steps that needed to be taken in order to de-escalate the situation in ukraine. i will tell you we had a very candid conversation. , foreign minister lavrov agreed that we needed to be reciprocal and the steps that we need to take. both sides needed to do things in order to move forward. i will tell you that i was directly in touch with prime fullter and gave him the

download on those things that were legitimate expectations out of that and he went to work immediately. immediately. so it was from day one, ukraine undertook to implement both the spirit and the substance of what was laid out a midget -- in geneva. he set out to do so and they did vacates and buildings. they immediately begin to remove the barricades. even now in the last 24 hours or so, they vacated an entire building because that was a specific complaint of russia. they have proposed a substantially specific amnesty bill in order to follow through on the amnesty to protester so they can leave buildings with a sense of security about the justice system. they with held their -- with held their legitimate right to use their power of the state to remove people from buildings. instead, stood back and canceled

their ct operation over the course of the easter weekend. they actually took a trip, the prime minister himself, out to the region to indicate a willingness to listen to people in order to shape the constitutional reform and in to open upct, again the dialogues which even today they are pursuing throughout the region in order to discuss how to do so reform. -- constitutional reform. that is what refrain did -- ukraine did. meanwhile, i have to say to you, not one single step has been taken by russia in any public way that seriously attempts to live by the spirit or the law of what was assigned in that agreement. they have not announced publicly to their people that they need to come out of the buildings. they have not engaged with the osce to negotiate people out.

every time you have a conversation, it is pointing the finger at what the ukrainians have been doing without even tallying up what they have done or knowledge and -- acknowledging their own. fair to say that escalated the crisis even further. there is strong evidence that i laid out several days ago of the degree to which russian engagement exists directly and has been building up over some time. yet, what do we hear regrettably? what we hear are the outrageous people thatcertain the cia somehow invented the internet in order to control the world. or that the forces are defined -- occupying the buildings armed to the teeth, all wearing brand-new military uniforms with the same xavier -- they continue -- insignia,

they somehow want to assert their people that these people moving in disciplined moving buildingsto take over and build -- and bring the local separatists in to occupy the building while they move onto another building in an orderly fashion, they assert that these people are merely local activists seeking to exercise their legitimate rights. as we have made clear, those kinds of claims are absurd. they defy any common sense. they defy the facts. worse, they are an indicator of the disingenuous dissembling, the policy of complete fiction that is being pursued in an effort to pursue their own goals and their own ends.

the russians claim the government in kiev is a legitimate -- you legitimate -- imate.tm but it is a power -- they came to power. own party deserted him because he deserted his country. illegitimacy,s you would step out of the way and encourage an election that is set for about three and a half weeks from now on the 25th of may and you encourage that election to take place. doingd, they are everything in their power to undermine free and fair elections. they claim eastern ukraine is be violent for monitors to there. when it comes to the armed pro-russian separatist, the ones

that are perpetrating the violence, they do absolutely nothing to prevent them from taking those prisoners and hostages they have taken. they allow them to be paraded in front of the press. we see no evidence at all that russia is actually pressured these groups in order to release any of these people or change course. , i say this with a certain element of sorrow because of all of the effort and energy that has been expended to try to create a structure by which we would behave all of us differently. representing the best hopes and aspirations of all people on the face of this planet. that is what all of our predecessors worked so hard to achieve setting up a structure of rule of law, international law, and multilateral mechanisms by the time we try to resolve these differences. as a result for all these reasons, yesterday, the united

states announced additional sanctions on more russian individuals and entities. we have also restricted export licenses for high-tech items that could be used to bolster russia's military capabilities. these steps and other steps that we have taken over the past few months are already forcing russia to pay asked the price for its actions to create this instability. i mean that. you just have to look at the ratings on the bonds. look at the capital outflow. you look at the gdp numbers that are trending downwards. this is having an impact. as long as russia decides to continue to fan the flames rather than help but them out, we stand ready with our partners to do what is necessary, not to necessarily punish them, but to find a way forward that restores this process we have worked so

hard to honor through the years. the russians have a clear choice. lead ukraine in peace and work with us together to create a strong ukraine, ukraine that is not a pawn pulled and tugged at. a ukraine that could be a bridge to both. with the ability to have an open trading mechanism on all degrees, 360 around ukraine. whatever path they choose, i can guarantee this -- the united states and our allies will stand together in support of ukraine. this crisis is a wake-up call for all us to accelerate the other work we have been doing to promote a stronger, more proper -- prosperous transco lannett -- transatlantic community. we can i continue to allow allied defense budgets the shrink. not all allies are going to meet

the nato benchmark of two percent gdp overnight or even next year. ares time for allies who below that level to make credible commitments to increase their spending on defense over the next five years. if we are going to move the line in a positive election, this has to be an alliance wide effort. two, if we want a europe that is we have toand free, do more together immediately with a sense of urgency to ensure that european nations are not dependent on russia for the majority of their energy. in this age of new energy markets, and this age of concern about global climate change and environ overload, we need to be able to rushed to the ability to make europe less dependent. if we do that, that will be one of the greatest single strategic differences that could be made here.

we can deliver greater energy independence and help to diversify energy sources that are available to the european markets. we can expand the energy infrastructure across europe and we could build up energy storage capacity throughout the continent. invest in the to underpinnings of our economic partnerships. together europe and the united states, two of the largest markets in the world. we could seriously strengthen our economic ties and accelerate growth and job creation and serve as a buffer to any negative impacts of some of the steps we need to take if we move on both sides of the atlantic rapidly to complete the transatlantic trade and investment partnership. that agreement will do more to change the way we do business and some of our strategic considerations that any other single economic step that we can take with the sole exception of

the energy independence. so, i just close by saying to all of you that this moment without reaching for any hyperbole because the moment is serious enough that it doesn't require that -- this moment is about more than just ourselves. the fact is that our entire model of global leadership is at stake. if we stand together, if we sit -- if we draw strength from the example of the past and refused to be complacent in the present, i am confident that nato, the planet strongest alliance, can meet the challenges. can take advantage of the opportunities that are presented by crisis and we can move closer to a europe that is whole and prosperous and at peace and free and strong. that is our goal and we look

forward to working with their fellow ministers and each of these countries to achieve it. thank you for letting me be with you. [applause] >> the senate is expected to vote on whether to move forward with debate on raising the federal minimum wage from $7.25 an hour to $10.10 an hour over two years. republican leaders are planning to filibuster president obama's proposal to raise the minimum wage when it comes up for initial test votes tomorrow. they are pushing for a vote soon on the keystone xl pipeline instead. said cloture will not be invoked. jobsuld cost 500,000 citing a february study by the congressional budget office. next, treasury secretary jack

lew testifies about the economy and sanctions against russia. followed by a house hearing on russia's nuclear initiations -- negotiations. >> i know you can give me grief from time to time but we work around the clock try to help you do your job. really. makesther administration thousands and thousands of internal memos and official documents available to your daily enjoyment? this is a representative sample. you will have the mall tomorrow. -- them all tomorrow. here is a memo to leon panetta. yi, maxwell house coffee is on sale this week for $3.49 a pound. here is one for $10,000. you can have a private meeting with vice president gore to discuss reinventing government and for $20,000, you don't have to go. [laughter] was thedonnell

president's first choice to be here this evening. nasty andew citing a brutal confirmation process. [laughter] i wasn't even the second choice. dennis miller was the second choice but he got bought out. isn't that what the confirmation process is all about here in washington? weeding the truly qualified to get to the truly available. [laughter] >> watch this year's white house correspondents dinner live saturday night. president obama and jewel mckale -- joel mchale headline the event before an audience. our coverage starts at 6 p.m. eastern with the red carpet arrivals followed by the dinner live saturday night on these been -- on c-span. a look at suicide prevention.

john madigan of the american foundation for suicide prevention and mary jo gibson of the congressional spouses for suicide prevention and education. former u.s. ambassador christopher hill talks about elections and the country's stability in iraq. our spotlight on magazines features a scientific american on the history of the cigarettes. you can see washington journal at live every morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern here on c-span. at 10:00 tomorrow morning, the from the ciaeral and justice department testify on information sharing leading up to the boston marathon bombings. homeland security meeting, it is live at 10 a.m. eastern on c-span 3. >> i stand here with my

colleagues from the arizona delegation both senate and house. we are very close friends of congresswoman gabrielle gifford. to remember a trap -- a tragic event that took place three years ago today. on january 8, 2011, at 10:10 seconds, 19 19.6 people, including congresswoman gifford and myself were shot in tucson, arizona. this event was democracy in action. a member of this body, the people's house, was meeting one-on-one with her constituents. six wonderful people died that day, including my friend gabe zimmerman. my go to guy from the congresswoman staff.

haven and southern arizona definitely not been defined by that terrible act. defined by how our community responded. the compassion, the love, the prayers, and the goodwill that poured out has helped all of us heal our broken hearts. and bring some good out of that horrific day. organizations have been established to help with the educational needs of children to prevent bullying and to reduce the stigma of mental illness and improve those services. gifford continues a remarkable convert data recovery, her perseverance and determination give hope to others and she is a true inspiration to the country and to the world.

you might have noted that earlier today she jumped out of an airplane and took a tandem dive with other skydivers. this woman's resilience has no bounds. sadly, in the last three years, other communities have been struck by similar senseless acts of violence. the most fitting memorial would be to take action to prevent another such tragedy. as the shooting survivor, a grandfather, a member of congress, i am determined to do so and i know many others in this body and in the senate have the same aspiration. let us never forget the six people who died that fateful day. nine-year-old christina tailoring -- taylor green. dorothy morris.

u.s. district judge john role. my friend and colleague gabe zimmerman. i would like to ask for the house to have a moment of silence and remember it's of these good people. >> members would rise and observed a moment of silence. >> find more highlights of 35 years of house floor covered on our facebook page. c-span, created by america's cable companies 35 years ago and brought to you today as a public service by your local cable or satellite provider. >> treasury secretary jack lew told congress sanctions on russia are taking their toll and the u.s. and its allies are ready to take additional steps.

secretary lew testified before a house appropriations subcommittee. about the deficit and tied him and spending. this is an hour and 20 minutes. well, good morning. good morning. the hearing will come to order. welcome members of the subcommittee and to our witness, jack lew, from department of treasury. mr. secretary, glad you're here to consider the president's 2015 budget request. we also welcome yesterday's announcement about the many new treasury sanctions against individuals and businesses undermining ukraine's stability and sovereignty. we expect the department to use its power to both fully and forcibly against those who threaten ukraine's security. mr. secretary, i know you're pleased that the deficit dropped to 4.1% of gdp last year. but the deficit is still the

highest it has ever been, both in real and constant dollars, other than the four past consecutive deficits that exceeded a trillion dollars. under this administration. so that string of trillion dollar deficits is why the gross federal debt last year exceeded 100% of the gdp. and will remain there, it looks like, for the rest of this administration. and i doubt that you or the president should be pleased about this legacy. so, when we look at the mandatory spending in the president's budget, it's estimated to grow from $2.5 trillion in fiscal year 2014, to $3.6 trillion by the fiscal year 2019. and by then the gross interest payments on the debt alone will exceed $750 billion, which will dwarf our defense spending. and because of that, it troubles me, and i wonder why the

administration didn't propose any serious entitlement reforms to prevent this further intergenerational inequality. so i hope that you will work with the budget committee, and the authorizing committees, to give the next generation the opportunity to forge their own way forward rather than saddle them with the debt of our grandparents -- of their grandparents and their parents. and over in the appropriations committee we've driven down discretionary spending every year since fiscal year 2011. and i'm a little concerned that more progress has not been made on the mandatory side of the ledger. the department's own budget request also raises some questions. the request seeks to, number one, add more than a billion dollar increase to the irs. it seeks to authorize language to pay certain irs employees bigger salaries and bonuses that are actually allowed under the civil service system. it seeks to eliminate language

enacted in the omnibus to prohibit the irs from targeting groups for additional scrutiny based on their ideological beliefs, and to prohibit the irs from targeting citizens of the united states for exercising any right guaranteed under the first amendment. it also seeks to eliminate language requiring the videos produced by the irs to be appropriately reviewed. requesting a billion dollars more, eliminating prohibitions against targeting that were negotiated by this committee, and proposing a new rule for the 501(c)(4)s before investigations by congress and the department of justice have been completed will not build trust in the irs, the department of the treasury, the federal government, or over all government. so, i think that if you were to explain how the inappropriate criteria came into use, how they were allowed to be used for years, that's what we need to

bring back some trust in the irs, and make sure the irs can administer the tax code in a partial and nonpartisan manner. similar to the department's 2012, '13 and '14 budget requests, the department is seeking discretionary spending for the irs above the spending caps by relying on discretionary cap adjustments that are not part of current law. absent a change to either the budget control act, or the ryan murray agreement, $480 million of the irs request is both pointless, and meaningless. if the $480 million is of importance to the administration, then the president would have found a way to pay for it from the $1.14 trillion allowable under the ryan/murray rather than use a gimmick that the budget committees have rejected for the past three years. in addition i'm interested to hear from you today an update on

the final regulations to implement the foreign account tax compliance act, which will take place on july 1 of this year. the so-called fatca has far reaching impact on u.s. based companies as well as foreign companies with assets in the united states or clients and i'm concerned with the amount of time that's going to be available to comply with these regulations when the final rules weren't released until the end of february and that's going to give a lot of the global companies less than five months to comply. again i want to thank you, secretary lew for being here today. i'd like to turn to ranking member mr. serrano for his comments. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i'd like to join you in welcoming secretary lew before the subcommittee for the second time. you lead a department with a variety of missions important to our economy, our government, and our nation as a whole. the treasury department plays a central role in promoting

economic growth, and opportunity through programs like the cvf-5 fund, ensuring financial stability through dodd-frank, enforcing our tax laws fairly and managing our nation's finances. your budget request for fiscal year 2015 promotes all of these things, most of the agency is held to pretty austere budget levels. but there are significant requests in investments at the irs, which is the largest part of your budget. and those requests and increases are much-needed. as i said at our hearing on the irs a few weeks ago, almost $1 billion has been cut from their budget over past -- the past four fiscal years. and we should not be -- as a result of reduced service and an increased tax cap. since that hearing, we have even more evidence of the negative impact that these budget cuts are having on the irs. a recent gao report found that the budget cuts to the irs instituted over the last few

years have resulted in reduced enforcement, and reduced taxpayer services. this comes on top of reports that irs audit rates are at their lowest level since the 1980s. as it currently stands these cuts have had the perverse effect of promoting noncompliance for those who want to cheat the system, while at the same time, deterring people who want to file their taxes currently from getting their questions answered. your budget request for the irs attempts to reinvest in the agency, restore those losses, and reverse these wrong-headed incentives. on a different topic i'm a strong supporter of the community development financial institution's fund, which has helped promote vick investment and traditionally underserved areas. i understand that you're proposing a small decrease in the fy-2015 budget request for the cdfi fund. although i hope we will get to discuss this in more detail i'm particularly concerned by a separate proposal within this

request to eliminate the bank enterprise award program within the cdfi fund. i have heard numerous concerns about this idea from various stakeholders and just recently visited a cdfi that has been able to do great work in my district with funding from the b.e.a. this is part of a program that's long-standing and i don't know that it makes sense to try and eliminate it at this time. secretary lew there remain great challenges for your agency in the year ahead with the continued implementation of the tax provisions, of the affordable care act, the ongoing stewardship of our economic recovery, and the need for further investment in key areas. we will work with you to ensure that you have the resources to accomplish all of these goals, but you know you and i have worked together through this appropriations committee and other committees many times before. i have great respect for you and for your abilities and we hope that we can continue to have

that as we move forward. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. i'd like to now recognize chairman of the full appropriation committee mr. rogers for any opening statement that he might like to make. >> chairman, thank you for yielding. having marked up our first two bills, in full committee before we broke, that's the earliest since 1974, the adoption of the present budget act. so we are well under way with the fiscal '15 process and mr. secretary we're pleased to have you with us this morning to discuss the president's budget for treasury. like the chairman, i have some very significant concerns. about the request. we worked on this committee in a very bipartisan, nonpartisan way for the most part, to construct bills that comply with the budget control act, and the ryan

murray agreement the administration's request for treasury seemingly cast these statutory budget caps has cast them aside as merely suggestions. we obviously understand that it's more difficult to operate in these constrained budget environments, but, these challenging times calls for leadership and tough choices. not a $480 million gimmick that the congress has patently and repeatedly refused and rejected on a bipartisan basis. it's sort of like deja vu all over again. in contrast, the fiscal '14 omnibus package is a prime example of what we can accomplish by working to the under regular order. this committee was able to provide every facet of the

federal government with adequate, responsible funding while continuing to reduce federal spending totally $165 billion in cuts since fiscal '10 as we collaborated to reduce spending on the discretionary side of the ledger, i would be absolutely remiss if i did not if i did not echo the sentiments of chairman crenshaw and others in calling for some leadership from this administration, and your department, specifically. on the problem of mandatory spending. that squeezing aside everything else. today, mandatory spending as you know accounts for two-thirds of federal spending. but i came to congress, 1980, '81. we appropriated two-thirds and now it's just the reverse. and it's zooming.

we've managed to control discretionary. we've reduced discretionary over the last two, three years. but in the meantime the mandatories are zooming skyward and crowding out everything that you and we want to do on the discretionary side. and i see no leadership out of the administration, particularly treasury about trying to wrestle the mandatory growth to the ground, mr. secretary, unless we do something, it's going to completely eat us alive along with the interest on the dealt. from transportation projects, medical research, housing assistance, criminal justice, everything else, including military, are going to be shoved aside. second mr. secretary, i have some very strong issues with the

posture the administration has taken towards coal-fired generation in developing countries. i simply can't support many of the policies emerging from treasury in that regard. simply put these policies are bad for domestic industries in america and they're bad for areas in the developing world, in dire need of a reliable low-cost energy source. to be blunt, the u.s. environmental protection agency have thrown up roadblocks at every turn to diminish our domestic producers' ability to mine coal and burn coal. in my region in southern eastern kentucky these regulatory attacks have resulted in some 8,000 miners laid off in just the last several months. men who were making a very

skilled wage. 80,000, $90,000 a year, now trying to find a job at mcdonald's. unsuccessfully. and trying to support children and families. because of the regulatory attacks from this administration. like salt on an open wound, treasury has now sent a clear message that the u.s. should no longer be in the business of exporting coal. your department issued new rules last year and now the united states will vote against financing any new cole power plant by the world bank unless it's in one of the poorest countries where the project uses carbon capture technologies that are not readily available even in the u.s. these policies deny our companieses ability to provide developing countries with more efficient technologies.

and they encourage these countries to look at investors with lower vineal standards, particularly china. i would even go so far as to say these policies show the administration is in denial about the reality of expanding energy access to the poorest nations. for example, i do not understand how the administration can possibly meet its goal of providing more power for african countries if coal is left out of the equation. i hope that you can help us understand that. finally in response to russia's continued threats against ukraine, we want to hear about the administration's efforts to support our friends. and allies, particularly yesterday's announcement of additional sanctions. unquestionably the u.s. mist send a strong signal, and demonstrate leadership in the

international community that such acts of aggression in violation of ukraine's territorial sovereignty are unacceptable and should not be allowed to continue with impunity. mr. secretary we look forward to hearing your testimony. welcome to the committee. >> thank you. i'd like now to recognize miss lowey who is the ranking member of the full committee for any opening statement she might have. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and i'd like to thank you, and ranking member serrano, for holding this hearing, and to my friend, secretary lew, thank you for joining us today. we are, indeed, fortunate to have a person of wisdom and talent in your position today. mr. secretary your fiscal 2015 budget requests $13.8 billion to support the department of treasury. as you note in your testimony, businesses have added more than

8.9 million jobs over the last 49 months. and the economy and housing markets continue to improve. and yet, much more must be done to provide access to capital and get people back to work. taxpayers need clarity in the tax code and responsiveness there the irs. the budget would address the funding shortfalls at the irs, which amazingly have resulted in 39% of phone calls going unanswered in fy-2013. this is unacceptable, the american people deserve better, i am pleased that your budget would address this deficiency. i'm also pleased to see that the budget proposes to extend the terrorism risk insurance program for tria, this vital program

which is scheduled to expire at the end of this year, provides a fed cal backstop for insurance claims resulting from acts of terrorism. if tria were to expire, infrastructure investments, and capital projects throughout the country would come to a halt. my friends on the other side of the aisle often say the government should not be in the business of doing the private sector's job, as there is no affordable and accessible terrorism risk insurance program in the private sector. tria is very much a federal responsibility, and tria should be reauthorized without delay. unfortunately your hearing before the subcommittee on foreign state and operations could not be rescheduled. i want to take the opportunity now to reiterate my strong support for imf reforms.

the imf is an excellent tool to help stabilize struggling economies, and protect our own financial institutions from getting directly involve d in bailouts caused by foreign financial emergencies. we need to maintain our leadership within the imf, expand its lending capacity, and support the code of reforms in order to protect our own economic and security interests. i also want to commend your department's work, specifically under secretary cohen's office in disrupting terrorist financing networks and enforcement of sanctions against countries such as iran, and north korea. in particular, sustained implementation of these efforts must remain the backbone of our iran policy. especially while new korean negotiations continue. i hope to hear what additional economic actions and sanctions

the administration will seek if negotiations with iran fail to yield an agreement permanently denying iran nuclear weapons capability. before i close i want to apologize not because of lack of interest, but i have another hearing directly across the hall, so thank you, again, for appearing before us. >> thank you. now i'd like to recognize the secretary for his opening statement. your written statement will be made part of the record and if you could limit your oral testimony about five minutes it will give us more time for questions. so the floor is yours. >> thank you, mr. chairman. ranking member serrano, members of the subcommittee and thank you for the opportunity to speak about the treasury budget. i appreciate your cooperation on rescheduling the hearing, and i'll keep my opening remarks brief. let me start by saying what an honor it is to work with the dedicated men and women at the treasury department. they're talented public servants who are focused on strengthening our country and they performed

with excellence under quite difficult conditions over recent years. and i want to thank them for their service and commitment. the president's budget addresses the fundamental challenges our nation faces. and the requests for treasury is part of that comprehensive strategy. this request will allow the department to help maintain a strong economy, sensibly manage the government's finances, foster a greater investment in american communities and small businesses, protect our national security, monitor risks to the financial system and promote conditions that support economic growth and stability at home and abroad. over the past five years treasury has met its responsibilities efficiently and at a lower cost. today's budget request builds on that progress and includes even more ways to reduce costs and achieve savings while offering carefully designed proposals to increase the department's effectiveness. for instance we're seeking a second round of funding for the state's small business credit initiative which has been enormously successful in strengthening small businesses across the country. we're working to reduce the risks from cybersecurity attacks by helping to improve the financial sector's resilience to

such attacks, and investing in treasury's own defenses and infrastructure. and we're requesting sufficient funding for the internal revenue service so it can provide the kind of quality service that american taxpayers deserve. as we consider what's in the best interest of taxpayers, it's important to note that it's been 5 1/2 years since fannie mae and freddie mac went into conservatorship. now is the time to reform our housing system and i'm encouraged that the senate banking committee is making bipartisan progress on this very complex issue. since the financial crisis treasury has played a central role in designing and implementing the most comprehensive reforms to the financial system since the great depression. one major piece of unfinished business is housing finance reform and we need legislation that protects tack payers, ensures continued guidespread availability of consumer friendly mortgage products like the 30-year fixed rate loan and provides liquidity during times of economic stress and facilities the availability of affordable housing in an explicit and transparent manner. before i take questions, i'd like to talk briefly about ukraine. the united states and the

international community have made it clear that we will continue to stand with the ukrainian people during this critical time. that's why we're united in our effort to impose costs on russia for its unlawful and provocative acts. on monday the united states responded to russia's latest actions with additional sanctions, which will increase the impact we've already begun to see on russia's economy, from u.s. and international sanctions. we urge russia to pursue a diplomatic solution to the situation, especially as ukraine moves forward with presidential elections next month. finally, we continue to vigorously enforce our highly effective iran sanctions regime. as a result earlier today we sanctioned individuals and entities for providing support for the government of iran and evading oil sanctions and facilitating iran's ballistic missile procurement. with that let me thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today, and i look forward to answering your questions. >> thank you very much. members, we're going to try to conclude our hearing in an hour and a half, so we'll observe the five minute rule.

and we'll have as many questions as we can possibly handle. let me start mr. secretary by a follow-up question. when commissioner kuskin was here with the irs, we asked a lot of questions about this proposed 501 c four regulation, and he told the subcommittee that he didn't think that the draft would be finalized before november and i wonder is that -- is that your view, as well? >> mr. chairman, i've said on a number of occasions that there are many steps from where we are now to the final rule. there is -- there have been extensive comments, as you know, roughly 150,000 comments. there's a process for reviewing them. there's going to be a need for the administrative process to go step by step, as revisions are reviewed. so, i think his estimate of the time frame is consistent with our expectations. the challenge is to have a conversation about what to do to

limit the discretion in this area so that we don't ever see the kind of problems that we saw that were reported last year. >> do you think, i know that you mentioned 150,000 comments, that's a fairly large number, maybe historic. but will there be, do you know yet whether there will be any further hearings when you have that kind of comment? >> well, i expect that there will be further comment. you know, further opportunities for public comment, both on the written material that's issued, subsequently. and potentially with hearings. >> it's hard for you to say when you think it might be finalized. >> i think it's going to take awhile. i've been very clear about that. the goal here is to get this done right. this is a very controversial and complicated area. the proposed rule made clear that there was an active request for comment. so, we weren't surprised by the comment. we -- the rule is not even complete in every regard because it says there are some areas

that without comment it would be very difficult to pave the path forward. so it was meant to open a process. i would just point out that last year when this whole issue came to light through an ig report there were a number of recommendations in the report, one of which was to clarify this rule. and the proposed rule was a first step in that process. >> got you. >> we implemented all the other recommendations. >> i appreciate that. let me ask you, i mentioned in my opening statement about the foreign account tax compliance act. that's going after tax evasion. and, it's an extensive regulation. it's going to have a profound and far-reaching impact on our economy but sometimes i think when those kind of rules are proposed, they have unintended consequences. and for instance, i think the concept is that you have -- you don't want people hiding cash offshore, but if you have a noncash value insurance, in other words like property and casualty insurance, that's basically a promise by the

insurer to provide payment to cover a specific event. now in florida, we have hurricanes and we have catastrophic events so people buy insurance, noncash, value insurance, property casualty insurance, reinsurance, and so it seems like they can't be used for the purposes of tax evasion, and i don't know that the irs can see any additional money there so the question becomes, did -- how did they happen to include premiums that have no cash value in this regulation? do you know that? and for instance, did somebody -- because i'm told that these companies are going to have to spend an awful lot of money to demonstrate that there's no cash there, and i wonder if somebody did an economic analysis of the proposed rule before it was -- >> i'm happy to go back and look at this specific issue about insurance. the general goal of fatca is one i know we all support, which is

to make sure that taxpayers cannot evade u.s. taxes or taxes anywhere, by, you know, hiding their income in overseas accounts. it is a complicated area. one of the reasons that we extended the period was to make sure that we had time to enter into agreements with other countries. there was a great deal of interest, in having bilateral agreements. i think it actually has been a tremendous success. as i go to international meetings, i don't like to use acronyms at meetings so i wouldn't use an ack know nip like fatca but in various accents i've heard people saying we need fatca for all. we need a global standard. so we'll work on getting the details right. i'm not familiar with the specific issue on insurance premiums. i'm happy to look at it. >> i think we all think it's a great concept that we want to stop but if you think about it, if somebody is buying reinsurance or property casualty insurance and there's no way to understand it, they