i don't think that it's fair to say that there's no strategy and no policy. we may have different views as to what we would add to the strategy or the policy, some on one side want to do the lng that senator murphy doesn't think is going to make a difference because they can't -- ukrainians can't receive it. you know, others would like to more militarily engage the ukrainians. some of us, including myself, think we could be a little bit more forward leaning even though i comment the administration who acted first. no other country in the world in response to what happened in the ukraine acted as quickly as the united states of america. now, i think, you know, we can have different views as to what is the standard that we would ultimately like to get to, but i think it's unfair to say that this administration did not act

in a precipitous manner, in a to timely manner, i should say, that was very significant. took all of putin's circle, putin standing in the middle, and it went boom, boom, boom, boom, boom. and if you don't get the message what that means, you have to be more than blind. now, i think it's also fair to just for the record -- i know sometimes it's easier to whip witnesses and to ask them to get to points that are either beyond their pay grade or for which a policy is evolving that they are not yet there. there are 28 nations in the european union. became very clear to me at dinner with chancellor merkel the other night that as much as we would like them to see -- be more forward leaning, they're going to get there on their time frame. now that's a challenge.

that's a challenge. we have a $40 billion marketplace with russia. the european union has a $500 billion marketplace with russia. in terms of effect, there's no doubt that having the european union be alongside with us in this effort is going to be critical to the ultimate pain we want to elicit so that putin will change his calculus. i think people of goodwill on both sides want to get to the same goal, preserve ukraine, have it be able to move forward with its election, be able to exercise its own freedom and its people to exercise its own judgment for the future. we may disagree on how to get there, but we share that goal. so i do appreciate this panel's testimony. i appreciate the insights. i know that there is going to be in ten minutes or so a

classified briefing that i understand the secretary, assistant secretary will be at as well as others. we still have a panel to have here which i think is very important. i'll get there a little later, but i will have my staff there at the beginning of it. looking forward to hearing what you have to say and we look forward to a continuing engagement as we move forward. thank you with the appreciation of the committee, this panel is excused. let me call up angela stent, the director of the center of georgetown foreign school of service and david cramer the president of freedom house. i appreciate both of you having the staying power to go through 2 1/2 hours before you got to testify, but i think both of your testimonies are very important to the dimensions of what we're considering. and so we'll have you come up as our panel is leaving, and i would urge members of the press or the public who will want to

try to get any of the panelists who are leaving to do so outside of the hearing room. both of your statements will be fully included for the record. i'd ask you to try to summarize them in about five minutes or so so the panel can engage in a conversation with you. and, dr. stent, we will start with you. >> mic. >> sorry. thank you very much, chairman menend menendez. ranking member corker, members of the committee. thank you for giving me this opportunity to testify before you today at a very critical time, and i'm going to very briefly cover three topics, russia's goals in the ukraine crisis, the current situation in ukraine, and u.s. policy going forward. it's important to understand that the current ukraine crisis is the latest iteration of a

problem that has bedeviled the u.s./russian relationship since the end of the cold war, namely, that four resets that we've had since 1992 have founded because of conflicts over the situation in eurasia. russia believes that it has a permanent right to a sphere of privileged interests in areas that were historically dominated by or allied to it, and that neither nato nor the european union should encroach on its neighborhood. and of course the united states and its allies do not accept that. since crimea's annexation we are living in a dangerous gio political reality. the active support of the separatists in eastern ukraine that are systematically destabilizing the country, these actions are part of a broader russian challenge to the legitimacy of the entire post cold war order. president putin has torn up the 1994 buddha pest memorandum guaranteeing ukraine's

territorial integrity in exchange for ukraine renouncing its nuclear weapons. putin has reserved the right for russia to protect what it calls come patriots and other parts of the former soviet union whenever they feel threatened. russia's actions challenge the nonproliferation regime. even during the soviet era there were rules of the game that both sides observed. now no one knows what those rules of the game are anymore. and so what are russia's goals in the ukraine crisis? in the short run as we've heard, the kremlin wants to undermine the may 25 election in ukraine. there is already a creeping civil war in eastern ukraine as groups of separatists as we've seen seize municipal buildings and declare that they'll hold their own referendum on may 11th to secede from ukraine. in the longer run, russia clearly in the best case seeks a permanently neutral ukraine with

a loose federal structure that will weaken the central government's ability to impose its control over its eastern regions and maximize russian influence there. now a couple of words just about the situation in ukraine. unfortunately, in the past 22 years ukraine has not succeeded in modernizing its political institutions, society or economy sufficiently to create a strong, well-functioning state. and how difficult it has been is just if you compare ukraine to poland. in 1992 ukraine and poland had the same per capita gdp. today pole land's per capita gdp is three times larger than ukraine and it is, of course, a thriving market democracy. the current ukrainian interim government is in acute need of substantial assistance both in default and to help it deal with its recent raising of gas prices by 80%. it needs political support to

move towards and successfully hold the may 25 election and it will need much more guidance and support afterwards as it implements constitutional reform which it's recognized it needs to do. as we've seen in the past few weeks ukrainian military and law enforcement agencies have found it extremely challenging to reimpose control over those areas seized by the armed separatists in the east and these law enforcement groups will need to be reconstituted in a much more effective way. so these are a huge, enormous challenge that kiev will face in the next few years. finally, a few words about u.s. policy. it is in our national interest to support a strong independent ukraine with effective institutions of modern governance that can live in piece with its neighbors, both to the west and to the east. and we should follow -- we should focus on three major objectives. and these were already outlined by secretary nuland. first, to give robust political

economic and logistic call support to ukraine and to help it recover from its assault on the sovereignty and the economy. the second objective should be to reassure our nato allies that despite the challenge to the post-cold war euro atlantic security order that russian actions pose, that despite these the alliance remains committed to the robust committed defense of all of it. they're trying to call into question the validity of article five particularly in the baltic states. the third u.s. objective must be to deter russia from launching a military action in the ukraine through supporting the separatists who are rendering eastern ukraine ungovernable. in addition to the punitive measures which we've heard about, particularly the sanctions, we also do need to leave open the door at least for diplomatic solution with russia, were the russians interested. crisis management is very

important. the deteriorating situation in ukraine, it is possible that local groups could take actions that trigger a more wide ranging armed conflict. there are a lot of historical analogies made. i think about the one leading up to the outbreak of war in 1914 where you had some similarities. although it appears that the current sanctions have not changed russian policies yet, they may have a longer term impact on the domestic economic situation in russia. we already heard about that. the russian finance minister his self has forecast that there's going to be probably negative growth rate this year and going forward and the outlook further down the road for the russian economy is much more negative. in the longer run, we're going to have to work with our european allies to restore the sense of stability and predictability that existed when we believed we had moved beyond the cold war with russia and another immediate goal has to be to work with europe to reduce its dependence on russian energy supplies and, therefore,

reducing its vulnerability to russian pressure. so in conclusion, mr. chairman, russia has broken the rules of the game by annexing territory from another country, supporting groups that are challenging its sovereignty. we will have to think about new rules of the game. we will have to devise these going forward. and this will require a u.s. recommitment to a robust offense of europe, of a europe that aspires to be whole, free and at peace. thank you. >> thank you. mr. cramer. >> mr. chairman, ranking member corker, members of the committee, thanks very much for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss what i consider to be the gravest crisis the international community has faced in decades. vladimir putin's brazen disregard for ukraine's territorial integrity and his threats to defend russian speakers in other parts of ukraine and into other neighboring states represent an assault not only on the very concept of freedom but also on the ability of people to choose

their own political destiny. at the heart of all of this i think is the nature of governments, which matters enormously in the way a leadership treats its own people is often indicative of how it will behave towards others along its borders and on the world stage. vladimir putin oversees a thoroughly corrupt and increasingly authoritarian regime that actively seeks to undermine and offer an alternative to universal values such as fundamental values. putin's regime is diametrically opposed to our rule of law based societies exactly because we treasure freedom, accountability, justice, checks and balances, all concepts alien to vladimir putin. when ukrainians turned out in the streets starting in november leading to viktor yanukovych's removal from power, putin's sense of insecurity and paranoia

rose. hundreds of thousands of protesters over the last few months for more democratic and transparent government and closer ties with the european union pose the most significant threat. putin's our rash shan union vision will not be realize the. putin worried that what happened in ukraine could be replicated in russia itself. thus to prevent a popular movement from taking root in ukraine, putin took root in crimea fabricating he was protecting the rights of fellow russians. putin doesn't give a damn about the welfare of russians inside his own borders. the crackdown since putin returned to the presidency has been the worst since the breakup of the soviet union. staying in power is what drives his actions internally and also across russia's borders. his foreign policy is in many ways an extension of his domestic policy and he justifies

his way of governing russia by perpetuating the absurd notion that the west nato and the u.s. are a threat to russia. until late february ukraine was not facing ethnic unrest nor was it on the verge of splitting between east and west. much too much has been made of a divided ukraine among journalists, commentators even some officials in the west. to be clear, those living in the east, while not huge supporters of the interim government, do not want to be under the russian thumb, they want ukraine to stay united despite the efforts by putin to fabricate these justifications for his actions. the current crisis is the creation of vladimir putin whose goals are to retain crimea, destabilize ukraine to make it unattractive to the west and forts the postponement of the ukrainian elections scheduled for may 25th. this underscores even more as you have said in your questions of the previous panel the importance of keeping those elections to may 25th. now the west has taken some steps but they simply have not

been enough. overall, i would argue the west has been far too reactive to events on the ground letting putin set the agenda. we need to take a more proi active stance to prevent and preempt further russian aggression, punish putin and his regime for the terrible damage they've already caused and seek to return to the status quo ante though difficult as that may be. u.s. strategy should shift to preventing putin's next moves by imposing crippling sanctions against more banks, energy firms and state owned entities. i support broad spec to recall sanctions as well. it is a mistake for putin to move russian tanks across the border as some have been concerned about or for him to disrupt the may 25th presidential election as president obama and chancellor merkel spoke about last friday. he has already done the latter. we have set too high a bar for putin has found other means short of full scale invasion though that, too, cannot be

ruled out by wish to accomplish his goals so i would recommend the following, that we go after more high level officials and business men, including people such as lxa miller, the head of gas prom, the head of fsb, the minister of defense and then i would go after a number of enterprises including gas prom bank, other banks, spirit bank, trans net. novotech, gas prom. by imposing further sanctions now, we might be able to preempt rather than react to the possibility that putin will invade other parts of ukraine or even mall dove va, kazakhstan or stir up trouble in the baltic states. sanctions could be lifted in return for the status quo ante. in response to criticism about the administration's sanctions being too mild, we've heard president obama say that he doesn't want to get too far out ahead of the europeans. i, foo, would like to see a

united front, the u.s., canada and the e.u. moving forward but the simple reality is it is much more difficult for the e.u. to do this given the trade interests they have and given the difficulty of getting agreement among 28 member states. it is easeasier, not easy, for u.s. to take the lead and the lead for sanctions should not be underestimated. there are several steps i would argue in closing, mr. chairman, that we should do to help ukraine as well. and that includes pressing for the elections to take place on may 25th, doing whatever we can to ensure that that happens. aiding local civil society organizations that do election monitoring. assisting democratic institutions so that ukraine doesn't squander yet another opportunity as it did after the 2004 orange revolution. refusing to give up on crimea by demanding a return to the status quo. all too many conversations these

days don't talk about crimea because we're focused now on eastern and southern ukraine. dispersing funds from the international finance agencies is also very critical. so in march during his visit to washington acting prime minister said it's all about freedom. we fight for our freedom, we fight for our independence, we fight for our sovereignty and we will never surrender. if ukraine with western help is able to fend off putin's aggression, then freedom for ukraine and for that matter around the globe will have secured a major victory against one of the biggest threats posed by authoritarian regimes and one of the biggest challenges to confront the democratic communities of nations. this is about ukraine's aspirations to be free, putin's efforts to stop that and the west's efforts to rise to the challenge. thank you. >> thank you both for your testimony. let me ask you, professor, dr.

stent, two things that you said in your testimony that makes me question. one is you talk about a diplomatic solution, and you added if the russians were interested. what is the diplomatic solution? i thought that the beginning of the effort that took place in geneva was an evident are at that and they totally basically went there and said they'd do a series of things and then left and totally dismissed it. where is it -- where is the diplomatic leverage here to get them to act in a different way? i mean, if sanctions to date have not gotten them to deter from some of their actions, including creating greater stability in eastern ukraine, where is the diplomatic leverage here? i know i often hear my friends about diplomatic efforts, and i'm always for that as long as they have some possibility of moving forward at a given point in time because the environment is right. where is the environment for

that? where are the circumstances for that? >> thank you for the question, mr. chairman. i mean, i agree that it doesn't look very likely now. clearly the geneva negotiations were thought as a potential framework for sitting down -- all the parties sitting down and then people fulfilling what they agreed to do. right now that doesn't appear very likely, but i think one should never say that this takes this off the table. i think we heard from the previous panel -- >> not suggest that go. >> -- that it's not taken off the table. i agree. personally, i don't believe that any of the sanctions that have been imposed so far -- i mean, they will -- they are and they will have an economic impact on russia but they're clearly not going to deter at the moment the kremlin from doing whatever it wants to do. so i think we are in a position where we don't have that many levers and if we do impose sec to recall sanctions, things like that, again, those will have an impact but they won't have an impact in the very near term.

so holding the -- you know, holding diplomacy open as an option is something that we should continue to do but understanding that in the near -- in the short run it's not likely to have much of an impact. >> let me ask you a different question. >> yeah. >> you said something about adjusting ourselves to the new rules of the game. i'd like to hear you define that a little bit for me because in my mind just because somebody violates the rules of the game you don't make new rules, you just make sure that if the rules were worthy of being upheld, which is international law, territorial integrity, the rights of people to make their own decisions for their future, my -- that was my sense of the rules of the game. how are you referring to we have to adjust ourselves to the new rules of the game? what do you mean by that? >> thank you for that question. well, what i mean is mr. putin has called into question the agreement in 1991 that dissolved the soviet union. he's obviously called into question the 1994 buddha pest

memorandum. we're going to be living with a russia that has served notice that it can defend its people. not that we should accept this, but we have to understand that our assumptions that we're dealing essentially with a russia that more or less accepts the boundaries of the new -- of the new states in eurasia that were agreed upon in 1991, that it no longer accepts that. so that will require at least first of all with our own allies sitting down and figuring out, how do we deal with this? and then possibly moving forward but, again, this isn't now, this is somewhere down the road. how are we going to deal with russia on this? how do we make sure -- i mean, in a sense what we have to do is contain russia from repeating the ukrainian scenario and some other part of the former soviet union. >> we're not making new rules, what we're saying is there are internationally accepted rules. russia has violated them. they seem to have their own

doctrine which they agree they can pursue, we don't accept that. we will have to deal with the new realities of a russia that no longer wants to play by international norms. >> how do we get them to maybe change their mind. >> okay. >> now i'm in sync. mr. cramer, you're very forward leaning on sanctions and there are very few people in the congress that have been as forward leaning on sanctions as i have because i believe they're a tool of peaceful diplomacy. there are very few tools that are available to any country in diplomacy abroad. first of all, international opinion, to the extent you can move a country or leader but virtue of that international opinion. secondly, the use of your aid and trade to induce a country to act in certain ways and then the denial of aid or trade, which is basically a sanction as well as other elements beyond aid and trade, which is access to markets either by financial

institutions or whatnot. so i am generally of the belief that if you don't want to do military actions, which certainly we are not talking about in this case, then you do have to think about how you use your sanctions robustly. the one question i have for you is if you use -- if you -- if you do the blunder bust, forsake of metaphor, and you put all the sanctions out there, is there not the consequence as well that putin will say, well, i've already been sanctioned for everything that i possibly can be sanctioned, let me get something for it? let me go into eastern ukraine and ultimately take over? i mean, there is always a calibration element here and so at some point it is a question of providing enough deterrence and consequences that you don't want to take the risk. at another point, it's going so far to one direction that the result is that, well, i've

already lost everything, let me get something for it. give me a little bit of thought. >> sure. thank you, mr. chairman. i would start with a list of entities that i identified in my testimony before going to broader sec to recall sanctions, but i wouldn't wait very long to do that. as i mentioned, i think we've been too reactive in doing this -- >> those are -- those are a series of companies and individuals who -- >> yes. >> -- you listed. many of which i've said. >> gas prom. >> so i get that. >> yes. but sanctions, to be clear, are both punitive and deterrent but they're also psychological. and the point of them is for the target of the sanctions to think that if he or she continues down the path that he or she is on, that they're going to get hit with more sanctions. so it's not sufficient though to come out with the kinds of sanctions i would argue the

administration has so far because the because as a number of you mentioned the ruble went up and the stock market went up as well. the expectation was that russia was going to get hit with harder sanctions than what was announced. >> although i think it went up when the europeans announced their set of sanctions, which were less than maybe the russians -- >> i think i can go back and check. i think monday afternoon the market in moscow went up. we announced -- the e.u. announced that it would sanction but it didn't announce until tuesday against whom. on what putin might do, i have nothing to lose. there's always that possibility. i would argue that putin is not all powerful. he's certainly powerful. he's like a chairman of the board and he needs the approval of the other members of the board around him. i would argue that the -- those members of the board have not signed up to a scenario in which they lose all their ill-gotten gains because of sanctions in the west. they will say to putin, we actually want to ben fill the. we want to be able to go to the west. we didn't sign up for this.

that's a calculation. i can't sit here and promise you that that will be the outcome but since the -- >> those -- those other members of the board that you described for the most part, they are his oligarchs, he made them oligarchs. >> they did. he's one had himself. there was a story in "the new york times" eight or nine days ago saying that the u.s. knows where putin's money is. i hope we're going after it. i think it shouldn't be too long before we put putin on the list. that might get his attention. i think one of the things he is most concerned be about and one of the reasons he wants to stay in power at any cost is he doesn't want to lose what he himself has gotten and he doesn't want the people who have supported him and are around him to lose what they've gotten either. it's a thoroughly corrupt, rotten regime and i think what it values more than anything are the assets that it's stolen over the years and if we threaten

those assets, that it might force a recalculation on putin's part, or at least those around him. >> senator corker. >> thank you, mr. chair bhirman thank you for your testimony. dr. stent, mr. cramer was pretty forward in his opening comments about the importance of what has happened, that it's dramatic what russia is doing relative to the neighboring countries and pretty dramatic since 1991 since the agreements that were put in place then and in 1994. i think, you know, you've witnessed today that the united states is really only willing to do so much. i think that's pretty evident. someone said earlier that this is far more important to russia than it is us. i liken it to maslo's letter to him. it's food, clothing and shelter and to us it's a different level

of i guess perceived level of interest of the citizens of two countries. from your perspective, how important -- how dramatic has what's happened in -- how important is this to the united states and how big of a thing, if you will, from a global stability standpoint is it that russia has embarked upon? >> thank you for the question, senator. i think if we look back in the past few years you could say that this part of the world was important for the united states but it hasn't be been a top priority just because we had other priorities we were concerned with, like syria, like iran, like afghanistan, and before that iraq. and so i think we've come somewhat late to the focus on what was happening in this region. i think that before last november we european union, because it was negotiating with ukraine, was,

you know, bearing the burden of these negotiations. now i think we've understood what russia has done certainly again by violating agreements that was signed particularly in 1994 by violating, you know, principles of international law, annexing another country country's territories that this is very significant and it's a problem for us. but still as you've said and people were testifying today said this is in russia's neighborhood and it's not in our neighborhood. and we're a long way away, and we have many other international crises and issues that we have to deal with. and therefore it is inevitable that this ranks number one for russia and it doesn't for us. and that's something that we have to deal with as we try and formulate an effective policy to try to get russia to step back from this. >> so you used the word effective policy. just in listening to your testimony and much of what's been said here, i feel almost many people, hopefully not

everyone, but many people accept what has happened -- what is going to happen as a fet feta compli. >> i think that at the moment it's very hard to see what we could do in the next months to deter russia from, you know, continuing to interfere in eastern ukraine. i see this as a crisis that's going to go on, hopefully there will be an election on march 25th and it will be recognized as legitimate by most of the population. but that doesn't mean that the next day the separatists are going to leave the buildings and hand over their arms. so i think we need a longer term policy strategy. and that could include the sanctions and some of the other measures, you know, helping build up capacity in ukraine. but this is -- there are no easy solutions to this. there's nothing in the short run, i think, that's going to

deter mr. putin. >> you get the sense that the administration has come to the same conclusion and that's why they're basically sort of talking big, if you will, but don't really believe that there's anything they can do to change putin's behavior? >> well, i think the administration is obviously implementing sanctions. they're doing that. they are, again, with reassuring our nato allies, which is very important at least to deter russia from thinking that it could maybe move beyond ukraine certainly to the baltic states. so we're doing -- the administration's doing a number of things. but i think it's probably doing as much as it believes it can given the limitations no one is prepared to use military force in a conflict like this because it involves a very large country with thousands of nuclear weapons. >> as part of that longer term strategy you would agree that having a european strategy, i think you alluded to the fact that we were late to the game and basically focused on other things, but having a european strategy that focused on strengthening nato that did

focus on punishing russia with sanctions but also hardening and strengthening ukraine, maldova and georgia would be a good thing for us to do? >> i think that's all we can do and we have to persuade our european allies if they've woken up in this crisis that if they have a problem they should be more willing to spend on defense. and that's going to be very difficult. >> i agree with that. i know the chairman made comments on the front end. hopefully all of us can work towards that end. mr. kramer, do you agree that in essence where we are today we're at a place that there's really nothing we can do to change russia's behavior and they're going to continue to either through military force or doing what they're doing right now they're going to have their way in eastern ukraine? >> senator, i don't agree with that and i think it would be contrary to u.s. interests to take that position. ukraine is critical to a decades' long vision of a europe whole, free and at peace, which dr. stent referred to at the end of her testimony.

ukraine is in the heart of europe. it borders russia, it borders members of nato and the e.u., the spillover effects of a conflict breaking out worse than what we've already seen could entail article five commitments if it were to spread to nato member states. the implications of this i think are enormous. russia has annexed territory and we have not seen this in europe since world war ii. does the budapest memorandum, which has been mentioned, which involved russia, the uk, the u.s. and ukraine in an exchange for giving up ukraine's nuclear weapons, the other three signatories promised to respect territory, integrity and sovereignty. one of those signatories has violated that agreement. there's no treaty implications, there's no article five obligations, but if we don't respond and come to ukraine's defense through providing military support and the necessary means by which ukraine can defend itself, then i do have concerns about what signal that sends to other countries

that might be interested in acquiring nuclear weapons. or countries that may be trying to pursue them but decide we're not going to give them up because we saw what happened to ukraine. i think the implications of this are absolutely enormous. and this is being led by a leader who i would argue on the one hand is acting out of weakness. he is paranoid and insecure. he was terrified by what happened in 2003 and '04 with the rose and orange revolutions in georgia and ukraine, and yet at the same time he thinks right now weak as he may be he's stronger than we are. that he has the upper hand. i think it's critical for us to change that thinking and those dynamics. >> thank you both for your testimony and for being here today. >> senator murphy. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. thank you both of you. i wanted to continue along the line of questioning with you, mr. kramer, because this is all an exercise in priority setting, for this committee, for the administration, for the secretary of state in terms of

what he talks about with our european allies when he's across the stable with them. and i, too, was impressed with the gravity to which you ascribe the crisis. you, i think, referred to it as the greatest crisis that the united states has seen in decades. which strikes me as surprising because to me the world is not aligned any longer around who's with the united states and who's with russia, who's with the west and who's with the east. there are paradigms that matter much more to us than that. who has nuclear weapons, who does not, who's aligned with shia, who's aligned with sunni? those seem to be the things that should be first and foremost. this doesn't strike me as the gravest crisis we've seen in decades. it's important. it deserves all of the time that we're spending on it. but why do you believe that this is of all of those crises that

are facing the united states today that this is the most important? >> senator, thanks for the question. my organization freedom house has documented eight straight years of decline in freedom around the world since the previous administration in which i served. russia is one of the leading, not the only, but one of the leading authoritarian regimes that is actively and aggressively pushing back against efforts to advance freedom and human rights around the world. we see it not just along russia's borders. we see it in syria where russia not only blocks u.n. security council resolutions but arms, aids and abets assad's slaughter of the syrian people. so the threat that russia poses goes well beyond ukraine. it is a threat that is global in nature. it is not to say that we can't cooperate with russia in some areas. there are some areas where we have common interests, but it is -- i come back to the point i made earlier. it's the nature of the putin

regime that really significantly inhibits our ability to cooperate. and if left unchallenged, i worry about putin's appetite. i worry how easy crimea was, the annexation of crimea. and i worry toboro a stallinous phrase may get dizzy with success, crimea was easy, i'll try my bet at eastern southern ukraine, stir up trouble with transeastern maldova, i'll show the eu and nato that i can even cause problems in those member states. when we get to that point -- i think this is why it's the greatest crisis, we have obligations that if we don't fulfill the nato alliance is finished and our credibility as an ally is irreparably damaged. >> and i think it just speaks to the end that we are trying to

effe effectuate. we may try to prevent that line from being crossed. the invasion of ukraine or crimea is not the greatest political crisis that we face, but the potential next steps should we not take actions to draw a line certainly may be. i want to ask very specific question about facts on the ground. we didn't talk a lot in our opening panel about this may 11th referendum that has been called in i guess donetsk and lagonsk. what do you know about what we should fear or not fear about that referendum about how active the russians may be in trying to make sure that there is enough turnout so that it has some veil of legitimacy? we're talking about a week from today how much of our focus should be on may 11th rather than on may 25th at this point?

>> i didn't refer to may 11th in my testimony, senator, because i think it's a joke. the notion of holding a referendum on such short notice under such conditions i think isn't even worthy of mention. i think not even ukrainians will take it seriously. russia might recognize it. if they do, that to me is yet another reason to move ahead although i frankly, again, as i said, wouldn't wait for that. if i -- can i just take one minute to respond to the first point about the baltics? i think it's less about russian tanks crossing the border into latvia. as we've seen, it isn't so much tanks crossing into borders. putin has found other means and methods by which to destabilize these states. in 2011 a cyber attack from russia there's now much more thought given to what the western nato reaction would be

to a cyber attack against a member state. i applaud the administration for beefing up the defenses of nato allies, but i do worry that if putin psychologically thinks he has gotten away with ukraine, that he will then test the waters in other places. and that's why i think this is so critical. >> i think that's a very fair point. i think you have to ask why is he doing this in the countries he's done it in. and the answer is partially because they have not yet made the decision as to whether to join nato and the european union and he's trying to prevent that. so the question would be whether those kind of provocations are as necessary or as useful to him in countries that have already made that decision. but i think it's a very important distinction to make because we clearly see that he doesn't believe he needs to send tanks in order to gain influence, in order to stimey behavior contrary to russian instincts -- >> senator, can i?

yanukoyvich even has made the decision. ukraine was expecting to sign those agreements from the eu until under pressure from putin and also backing down from the case he decided to do a u-turn. that's what triggered the protest. ukraine had made its decision and putin saw ukraine's moving toward closer ties with the eu as a threat to him and his vision for a eurasian economic union. >> ms. stent, you share mr. kramer's views. >> on may 11th. >> oh, on may 11th. i think there will be something on may 11th. and i think there will be, you know, groups -- as in all cases like this you have a small active group of militants who think they can call the shots. the majority of the people in the eastern part of ukraine don't want to join russia and they want to be in the ukrainian state. i think there will be some kind of vote. i'm assuming those people who vote will be supporting the separatists and declare they

want these regions to be independent, join russia, i'm not sure what the questions on the ballot are. i'm not sure that we've seen that. and russia will no doubt come out with some statement about it. i don't take this very seriously, but i think it would be a way of further destabilizing ukraine. and i think what the russians want is not to have the may 25th election either held, or if it's held regarded as legitimate. this would be part of the arsenal in sort of de-legitimizing the may 25th election. >> smart mccain. >> just to follow-up, what do you think the odds are that the may 25th election will be held? >> i mean, i think from what we've heard today it will be held. i think it would be very difficult now for either the separatists or the russian supporters to prevent it from being held. the question is will people in the eastern part of ukraine be so intimidated that they won't be able to go to the ballots -- to the polling places and vote.

there will be an election, but i'm not sure how many people in the east will be able to vote. >> senator, i think if i had to bet today, the election will take place. i think it will take place under very adverse circumstances. but i think ukrainian authorities are doing the best they can -- >> so kiev and other parts of ukraine, but very impossible in eastern ukraine and maybe increasingly difficult in odessa? >> absolutely. i think holding a credible election in the eastern parts of the country now is seriously challenged. there's also the issue of crimea which all too often gets forgotten. there are the crimean tartars and the ethnic ukrainians there, roughly 40% of the population in crimea. what happens to them? how are they going to be able to participate? they are disenfranchised from their country. >> well, since they've been

taken into russia then maybe election won't even take place there. >> i think -- i don't see how voting could be held in crimea. i think that's exactly right, senator. >> so when does vladimir stop? >> unless he came out today, there is an interesting fact which is he has not been in public in the past five days. there was a tape of him meeting with a governor, but the suspicion is that that was taped a while ago. if you remember back in 2000 with the sinking of the submarine, he disappeared for several days. he has an odd way of handling crises. i'm not suggesting he's hiding under a bed or something, but it's an odd way to lead a country through a crisis. maybe -- and this may be wishful thinking on my part, he's starting to think he's bitten off more than he can chew. but i don't think we should count on that. i think we should be anticipating more of his steps in trying to preempt them rather

than react to them. >> ms. stent? >> senator, i heard mr. putin today on the radio saying that the cia invented the internet and that russia now has to have new controls on the internet because this is a cia plot. so he may not have appeared in public, he hasn't gone away. >> something i've thought for a long time. [ laughter ] well, i thank you both very much. i think that's a $64 question, but i would make an argument when you look at what actually in reality the punishment that he has received so far versus what he has accomplished so far, and it's hard for us to put ourselves into his shoes, but if i were him i couldn't help but be encouraged by the course of events so far. >> senator, i agree with that. and, again, weakness and

strength are relative. and i do worry that he feels that he is stronger than we are. that he is in the driver's seat. and he's setting the agenda. and so i do share your concern. and in his interest is to have those elections postponed so he can continue his claim that the interim government is illegitimate, took over in a coup. and i think we have to do everything we can to make sure those elections take place. it's in the best interest of ukraine. >> yeah. >> thank you. thank you both for your insights and your testimony. i think it's very helpful to the committee. we appreciate it. this hearing's record will remain open to the close [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] paste glass-steagall act after fdr came to power was a very clear line between the

speculative versions and itvices and the deposits took them the services it provided to regular individuals and small businesses. there is a very clear distinction. the bankers and the population were both on the side of fdr and -- stable.me sable contrast that with what happened in the wake of the 2000 a crisis which has been a much more expensive crisis for the general , for the actual unemployment level and not the tagline. for what was lost to individuals throughout and relative to the bailout and subsidies that had been given since. dodd-frank came along and did nothing remotely like dissecting speculation from depositors and traditional banking act entity.

>> a look at the relationship between 1600 pennsylvania avenue "afterwords,"t on book tv this weekend on c-span 2. online, the book club selection is "it calls you back" by former gang member luis rodriguez. week we'll take a two resolutions on the irs targeting of conservative groups. what will the house vote on this week? >> two things they will vote on, one is a resolution to hold lowest learner in contempt of congress. another is a resolution urging the department of justice to appoint a special prosecutor in the irs matter. >> what has been ms. lerner's

reaction not only to this citation but in general to the committee? maintain herues to innocence, something she has been doing since about a year ago and that's part of the reason why she's in the sixth that she is an right now. she has steadfastly refused to talk to the particular committee that has demanded that she testified. >> you wrote a piece in "the wall street journal" with her attorney's reaction. lawyer, holding her in contempt would be un-american. what did the attorney mean by that? >> he is harking back to the mccarthy era when congress would bring people into to testify before committees who did not want to testify, they would seek to invoke their fifth amendment privilege, as ms. lerner is doing now.

occasions, they would try to hold them in contempt and there were a lot of court cases that resulted from that. lois lerner's attorney is trying to compare this to mccarthyism. >> the house will vote on this this week. assuming it passes, what does ?hat mean for ms. lerner is it something the senate would have to take up as well? >> each chamber gets to control. this resolution, the contempt resolution would go to the department of justice and the justice department is basically required by statute to present this matter to a grand jury. the statute does not say anything will about whether they would have to do anything.

it could be that this is as far as it goes at least publicly. the house also has other ways of getting this matter before a court. they could go to court themselves and try to get some .elief from a court it's unclear whether they will try to pursue that remedy. >> on the other issue, the resolution being brought up on appointing a special prosecutor, a special investigator for this irs case. what's likely to happen there? it's hard to predict what the agency will do with .hat demand republicans are concerned that one of the prosecutors that has been working on this matter so gave some not insignificant amounts of money to president obama's election campaigns in

the past. they also did a fair amount of investigative work showing some that had not been brought to attention. it was denied by crossroads gps, the very big republican leaning that was spending a lot of money on campaign ads. republicans feel they have some new evidence here that a are trying to showcase. whether any of that will rise to the level that the justice department would have to act on, that is really a difficult mix

of legal and political questions that we cannot really answer. >> you can follow john mckinnon com.witter or online at wsj. thank you for the update. >> republicans in the house will hold a vote on a contempt of for loisresolution lerner. she has declined to testify before congressional panels regarding to the agency's handling of applications for groups applying to nonprofit status. there will be a vote on whether to appoint a special counsel to investigate the irs. live coverage here on c-span. >> everyone is coming to the new york worlds fair. if they're coming from the four

corners of the earth and from five corners idaho. they are coming down from maine, athens, tokyo, kokomo, rome, , illinois.g, aurora from 295 in the bronx and the .raveling teachers from kansas the wilsons got here at last. there is the symbol of the fair, .he great unit sphere they find a machine that demonstrates the law of averages . by chance, the wilson's meet and join up for sightseeing.

♪ >> this weekend on "american history tv," to the fair as they worlds fairhe 1964 sunday at 4:00 p.m. eastern on c-span 3. collect the white house released a new assessment on global climate change tuesday. then a report on sexual assault of the military. mckeon.emarks from buck glass-steagall act that was passed after fdr came to power was a very clear line between the speculative version of services and things that a

bank could do and the deposits they took, the services they provided to regular individuals and small businesses. there was a very, very clear distinction. the bankers and the population were both on the side of fdr. things became stable for many decades after that. happenedthat to what in the wake of the 2008 crisis which has been a much more extensive crisis for the general economy, for the actual unemployment level, not the tagline unemployment level. for what was lost of individuals throughout and relative to the bailouts and subsidies that have been given since. dodd-frank came along and did nothing remotely like dissecting andulation from depositors traditional banking activities. >> a look at the relationship

between 1600 pennsylvania avenue and wall street. sunday night at 9:00 on "afterwords," part of book tv on c-span 2. the online book selection is "it calls you back," by former gang member luis j. rodriguez. join others to discuss the book online. >> a new assessment was released on global climate change finding the earth has been getting hotter and sea level continues to rise. the report claims climate change is already affecting people and calls for more action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. this is just over two hours. >> good afternoon, everybody.

i'm director of the white house office of science and technology policy. it's my honor to be able to welcome you all to the white to launch this extraordinary event. course, to talk about the release of a third national assessment of impact on the united states. exists. this is the 20 page overview. this is the 140 page highlight. the 800 page document is live on www.globalchange.gov. thereare invited to go but not while today's speakers are talking. the assessment that we are launching today is distinguished by laying out with unprecedented comprehensiveness disaggregation, detail, and clarity how the climate is changing across the united states disaggregated by eight

geographic regions and also by various crucial sectors of the economy, agriculture, >> it basically is letting americans know how climate is changing where they work and live, what impact that is having on things they value and how this picture is expected to involve going forward and a substantial emphasis on what is happening. this is actionable science. this is a theme the president has also emphasized, information that people can use to take appropriate action to reduce their vulnerable to climate change and to participate in the actions to reduce the emissions that are driving climate change around the world. i think the findings of this extraordinary report about which we will be saying considerably more really are

the loudest alarm bell to date signaling the need for urgent action so that we can combat the threats and the risk we face from global climate change in this country. >> now almost a year later, a lot has happened in executing on the commitments made in the climate action plan. the president has directed the environmental protection agency and the department of transportation to develop fuel economy standards for heavy duty vehicles. the department of superior has announced its permitting of the

50th renewable energy related project on federal lands during this administration. the department of energy has issued multiple new energy efficiency standards. they have announced seven new climate hubs to help farmers and ranchers adapt their operations to the change in climate. the administration launched in this room and not long ago, a climate data initiative bringing together extensive government open data with strong commitments from the private and philanthropic sectors to develop data driven planning and tools for the climate data initiative. the results are coming together. all of the information that the study has developed will be available on the web again in user-friendly accessible forms to provide people with the information they will need to reduce their vulnerability. as you all know, the president

has instructed the environmental protection agency to develop standards both for new power plants, which have already been put out there. soon there will be standards proposed for discussion on existing power plants and their emissions of heat-trapping gases. this is a lot of progress. we announced a couple of months ago a new strategy to reduce ethane emissions that involved methane emissions. along with a set of standards to characterize how well we are doing. then what progress is supposed to look and today's events are another big step. as i think probably everybody knows, a critical piece of the

president's climate action plan is ensuring that we continue our steady pace to strengthen the science that informs and underpins the actions we take to address the threats from climate change, and ensuring that as we do that, we pursue the insights and information that are most immediately relevant and useful to the people who need that information. we are talking about the folks who are on the front lines of climate change, the coastal property owners, farmers, fisher men, city planners and water resourcers, and others whose longer term planning needs to be informed by the best data available, knowledge about what is happening today in climate change, what is likely to come down the road and what can be done to reduce vulnerability. this assessment we are releasing today, as you may imagine from its extraordinary

length, 839 pages on the web, is a virtual encyclopedia of that information. it was four-plus years in the making. it was produced under the auspiceses of the exchange research program. 13 federal agencies and departments involved in that. leadership came from nnoah. the heavy lifting by a 60-person advisory committee. the writing committer included 300 people. i wouldn't want to count how many reviewers. one of the most extensive review process s in the history of government reports. at that extraordinary effort that included government from all levels, from academia and non-profits and business has produced this exceptionally detailed accounting of what

climate change is already doing in every geographic region of the united states and the most affected sectors of our economy. the single most important bottom line that shines through all these hundreds of pages is that climate change is not a distant threat. it is something that is happening now. it is affecting the american people now in important ways. summers on the whole are longer and hotter with longer periods of extreme heat. wildfires start earlier in the spring and continue late into the fall. rain is coming in heavier downpours. people are experiencing a change in the length and severity of seasonal allergies, and agricultural and water resources have been growing. climate change is not uniform. it is having different impacts in different parts of the country. that is why it is so important

that this study has been able these impacts regionally. when president obama launched his climate action plan, he made clear that the information in this new climate assessment would be used, and it will be used, to inform the efforts at the federal, state and local levels to increase preparedness foreagainst climate changes that can no longer be avoided. it is not just a bad news story about all the impacts that are happening. it is a good news story about the many opportunities to take cost effective actions to reduce the damages. i want to acknowledge a number of folks, including the stakeholders in this room, who have gathered to hear about this and who will be crucial actors going out and promoting,

prop gating and implements the findings of this report. we thank you all. but i do want to thank four key individuals without whom this report would never have come to fruition. kathy sullivan, the administrator of noah and under secretary of commerce, who you will hear from for their key partnership. i should mention her predecessor, jane, who regrets she cooperate be here. i spoke with her last evening, and she handed the reins over to kathy sullivan from jane's earlier involvement in this extraordinary effort. again, without noaa's partnership, this study would not have been completed. geri, the chair of the advisory economy, affectionately called

the nacadacfac. he ensured rigor and sign tifpk endeavor every step of the way. kathy jacobs, who was the first executive director of the assessment, whose vision and dedication really made this the most trance parent national climate assessment ever and kept the trains running on time for more than two years. kathy was a great contributor. and then kathy's successor, fave yen, who seamlessly picked up the ball and saw this report over the finish line with dedication, focus and competence. to those folks and the entire climate assessment team, the 300 authors and more numerous reviewers, we owe them a big vote of thanks, and i want to lead that. [applause]

>> i asked each of you to carry it back and share it with your constituencies and your communities. this is in a sense a new beginning of this effort to reach out all across the country and innocent advise and organize the kinds of actions we need. tell folks to visit globalchange.gov. ask them to share that information further and invite them to share stories about what they and their communities are doing by using the # actonclimate. now i will wrap up and strap on

my master of ceremonies hat and proceed to the introduction of the next speaker, who is none ther than dr. geri mallilow. given the enormous amount of work he had to put in, he is the leading scientist of the marine biological laboratory in wood's hole. he just about a week ago received the distinction of being elected to the u.s. national academy of sciences. accept my thanks and my congratulations, and please accept the podium. [applause]

>> first let me thank you all for being here. this is a long-awaited day for member of the members, authors and all of our partners. it has been a team efforts, and we really appreciate all that you've done over -- i think it has been almost four years, not just two. thank you very much. let me begin by repeating the headline that john issued for the report. climate change, once thought of as a problem for the future, has moved firmly into the present. the take-home message is it is happening now, and we need to pay attention. it is affecting us in our pocket books, on our land in every region of the united states. it is changing the lives of farmers, mayors, engineers, town planners, truckers and

foresters. this national climate assessment looks exclusively at the united states, breaking it down as john mentioned, into eight distinct regions. in contrast to ipcc's global assessments that look at north america as a single region. the national climate assessment digs deeper than global and national averages to reveal specific regional impacts that matter to people every day. this report is about what is happening to people in this country. with five more years of observed data since the last assessment -- and by the way, a few of us, tom karl, tony and i , rosina, have been with this assessment process since the beginning. we have tracked its progress. this new report reveals specific climate-related changes and cumulative impacts already occurring in every region and in economic sectors

such as health, agriculture, energy, water and transportation. the report also reveals linkages of the impacts in cross-sectors. this is something new. for example, reduced water availability in an already arid region can increase competition for water resources among uses such as irrigation, electricity production and the needs of the ecosystems that sustain us. this effort of beginning to think about connections of cross sectors is something we hope will continue, because it is absolutely a critical area for study. this assessment is the result of a remarkably inclusive national process, a lot of that thanks to kathy. author teams were made up of top experts from around the country and elsewhere.

we had one australian member on our team as a matter of fact. thousands of people were involved, participating in listening sessions, providing technical inputs and producing and reviewing the report, including reviews by the national academy of sciences and other scholars, federal agencies and the public. the multi-year process was guided by an i want federal advisory committee that include experts from universities, federal, state and local government agencies, and industry, including monsanto, chevron, con do-phillips, and zurich insurance. this committee reached unanimous agreement on the report's contents after very serious consideration. all americans will find things that matter to them in this report, from impacts in their own regions, to those elsewhere that affect the air we breathe

splies. ood, water and e are bearing the costs of these effects. for decade we have been collecting the dots. now we have connected those dots. the picture is clear, and it is stark. climate change is bringing serious challenges to our way of life. but that is only the beginning of the story. as john mentioned, there are opportunities, and there is a lot that can be done about it. across the country americans are already taking action. the good news is that many of the actions taken to reduce climate change and its impacts have a variety of additional benefits for our health and economy. it is not too late to change our emissions path and reduce

future climate change and its impacts. the choices we make or don't make today will shape our future climate and the sustainability of our way of life. now, i want to spend several minutes highlighting a few examples of what's new in the 2014 national climate assessment. this is a question we have been asked a lot by our friends in the press. the latest scientific analysis using satellite data since the early 1990's show that sea level rise has accelerated in recent decades in some areas of the globe, including our atlantic coast north of cape hatteras. ith so many of our cities on low-lying coastlines, this matter is of tremendous importance. for example, 2014, the one-feet sea level rise that new york

city had experienced, meant that the floodwaters from sandy surged further inland and did more damage than they otherwise would have. kansas statal flooding is affecting other east coast cities on a regular basis. occasional flooding has become freak went and in others, it has become chronic. responses to chronic flooding can become expensive. miami beach is planning to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to reengineer storm drains to carry away sea water that backs up in the city. the links between climate change and sea level rise are clear. as heat-trapping gases continue to build up in our atmosphere, the oceans are absorbing more than 90% of the extra heat trapped in the system. the causes of -- this causes

ocean waters to expand. in addition, mountain glaciers are rapidly retreating, adding water to the oceans. the sleeping giant, however, in the sea level rise has been ice in the major ice sheets of green land and antarctica. the latest science shouse us that the giant -- shows us that the giant is no longer asleep. both ice sheets are quickly losing mass. how quickly they melt over the coming decades will determine whether we have an additional one-foot sea-level rise or four feet or more. another change brought about by human-induced warming is the increase in heavy downpours. this is clearly an area in which recent observations have born out our previous projections. our scientific understanding told us that a warmer

atmosphere would hold more moisture, and we have measured that, and indeed it is happening. we also predictled that the ncrease in smeerk -- atmospheric water vapor would cause more rain. some areas have seen very large increases in the rain. even areas that are projected that are projected to see decreases in total amounts of annual rainfall are expected to see significant increases in portions of that rain coming in very heavy events. another thing we have seen is that the areas that have had big increases in brings have also had increases in flooding. river flood magee dudes over the last 90 years have decreased in the southwest and increased in the great plains, parts of the midwest, and from

the northern appalachians into new england, we are also seeing increased flooding. the map on the screen shows increasing trends of floods in green and decreasing trends in brown. the magnitude of the floods is lated to the size of the triangles. global warming also means that our nation has gotten hotter on average, with some areas seeing bigger changes than others. but it is not the average that we notice so much, but rather the extremes. in recent decade, we have had fewer really cold days and more really hot ones. that has had many important impacts. one of these impacts has been on the amount of energy we use to heating and cooling. first the good news. we have needed less energy for heating. now for the bad news. we have needed a lot more energy for cooling. heating energy comes from natural gas, heating oil, wood,

electricity and other sources. but cooling is all electricity. that means some of the big new peaks in demand for electricity for air conditioning in the future are going to present serious challenges for our electric utilities. the new information in the assessment advances our understanding of the challenges that climate change presents for the american people. the assessment provides americans with firm -- with a firm sign tifpk foundation upon which to build wise responses for themselves, their communities and the nation. thank you. [applause]

>> john has been called away sooner than he thought. i would like to ask gary and the panel to join us up here on the podium, and we will begin with a short set of statements by each of the panelists. then we will take some questions from our stakeholders. gary, i am going to turn this over to you. >> thank you, jerry. thank you all for coming. our first panel talks to specific findings in the third national climate assessment. i think what you will take away from this is that this panel confirms the specific that indeed every

american will find things that matter to him or her in this report. with that, i will ask each of the panelists to introduce him or herself. you have three minutes. >> thank you, gary. i am a professor at the university of illinois. i was involved in the assessment in a number of different ways, including heading the chapter, co-leading the chapter on the climate science causing our changing climate. i am going to talk a little about that evidence that the climate is changing and why we see human activities as being the primary cause of that change. first of all, there are many indicators that the climate is changing. each of the last three decades has been successfully warmer

than any preceding decade since 1850. over-all the world has seen an increase of 1 1/2 degrees fahrenheit increase since the late 1800's. the u.s. has seen a similar temperature increase over this period. most has occurred since 1970. the most recent decade was the hottest on record nationally and world record. 2012 was the hottest year on record in the continental united states. all areas have experienced warming. but the extent of warming has not been uniform. in general, temperatures are rising more quickly in the north. average annual brings in the u.s. has increased, although there are pour differences. trends of some types of extreme weather have increased. prolonged periods of high temperatures have increased on my occasions. heavy downpours have happened more off in the niece, midwest

and great plains. some regions like the southwest and southeast have seen an increasing trend for droughts, while others have seen and increasing trend in floods. natural drivers of climate cannot explain the recent observed changes. they are not due to the sun. they are not caused by natural cycles. the majority of the warming on the global scale in the last 50 years can only be explained by human emissions especially the burning of fossil fuels. this conclusion that humans are the primary driver of climate change is based on multiple lines of i want evidence. one is the fundamental understanding of how certain gases trap heat. how the climate system responds to increases in gases, and how other human and natural factors inclunes climate.

another reason is that -- comes from reconstructions of past climates, using evidence such as tree rings, ice cores and corliss. these show that global surface temperatures over the past several decade are clearly unusual. with the last decade warmer than any time in the last 1,300 years and perhaps longer. another is using models. natural factors like the sun and volcanic activity would have tended to cool the earth. other natural variations are too small to explain the amount of warming. only when the human influences are included do the models produce the information we have. thank you. >> thank you. my name is tom. i am the director of noaa's national climactic data center and chair the research exchange program. today i am going to try and

paint a picture for you of expected changes in climate based on the present path of greenhouse gas emissions. much of this information i will talk about is based on improved climate models, particularly compared to previous assessments. we have more models with higher resolution, more physical processes represented. let me just highlight a few aspects of future climate expectled by the end of this century. first for temperature, it's going to be hotter. on average about eight degrees fahrenheit warmer. the re that to the warmth, increasing warming temperatures we have seen on the order of a degree and a half from the turn of the century. temperature changes of up to 15 degrees warmer in alaska. there will be fewer hold

extremes and more hot extremes. there will be fewer frost days with the frost season increasing 30 to 70 days. for brings, the moist areas will get wetter on the order of 10% to 30%. the arid areas will get drier on the order of 10% to 20%. as a result, soil moisture will be reduced in much of the country, particularly in the southwest and central u.s. both due to less brings and hotter temperatures, increasing evaporation rates. to go along with this, the number of consecutive dry days are expected to increase, while gametime the frequency and intensity of dream -- of extreme brings events is expected to increase across much of the continental u.s., up to four times more than what we see at present and as much as six times greater in alaska.

the environment for severe thunderstorms is expected to become more favorable in the future. the most intense hurricanes are expected to become stronger and more frequent with rainfall rates increasing on the order of 20% near the center of the storms. no sea level, global sea level rise is expected to increase on the order of one to four feet, with even greater rises where land is subsiding. for sea ice, summer sea ice is expected to disappear by 2050 of this century. the bottom line, the current path we are on will result in a climate that is far different than anything this nation has experienced. >> thanks, my name is radley. i am happy to speak to you about the findings for the northeast region. in the northeast we have seen sea level rise of about a foot on average in the past century.

we have also seen temperatures increase by almost two degrees fahrenheit over the past century. these heavy downpours we have heard about are now producing on the order of 70% more rainfall than they were just half a century or so ago. these climate changes are already leading to impacts throughout the northeast and beyond. when we think about the impacts of sea level rise, the central change of that projection that tom mentioned, 2-3 feet, would more than triple the frequency of coastal flooding throughout the neither and beyond even if storms don't become any stronger. the storm in new york city becomes something you expect in the lifetime of a typical mortgage. within the northeast we have critical infrastructure right along our dense coastline. everything from our iconic

transportation networks, i-95, amtrak, commuter rail, the electric gary, substations right along the coast, wastewater treatment plants along the coast, all increasefully vulnerable as sea levels rise. this puts populations at risk. jeopardizes commerce, human safety and leads to expensive repairs as well. as we saw during hurricane sandy, all of these infrastructure networks are connect the. if one part of that system goes down, it cascades into other systems. it is harder to pump water out of a subway station when the electric grid goes down. another important risk to highlight is the danger associated with more freak went heat waves as temperatures rise. we know the very young, the elderly and some of our disadvantaged populations are most vulnerable. as temperatures rise, cities

have unique vulnerabilities. air quality is often poor when the temperature is high and there is a greater ability for it to go out. it is not just the cities that are going to be vulnerable. as temperatures rise, some of the northerly areas who haven't needed air condition as much are increasingly going to be relying on it. intense brings events pose some unique hazards for inland and rural region as. looking at the mountainous part of the northeast, a lot of the human populations, transportation, agriculture is concentrated in aviles. there is a risk of more fluing. whether you are talking about cities or rural areas. more combined sewer over-flow events, a public health hazard throughout the northeast and beyond. it is important to highlight that we have opportunities as

well. the northeast has shown leadership in thinking about these climate risks. we have seen ambitious efforts to begin to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and we have seen steps to adapt to climate changes as well. in general, though, implementation is in early stages. but fortunately, this report offers a range of strategies to help close those gaps. thank you. >> thank you. and everyone. it is a pleasure and honor to be with all of you today. i am kim. i was one of the authors on the human health chapter. i just want to say that when we talk hub health, climate change becomes very personal. we have always thought of climate change as something that happens to someone else. now we know it is happening to us right now. there is a few ways that climate change is fueling some of the most important kinds of extreme weather events that affect people's health. they have mentioned extreme

deluges. in the northeast, where i am from, there has been a 71% increase in the amount of rainfall that comes down in the most extreme rainfall events in the last 50 years. that is already happening. the hospital where i was born in upstate new york was flooded up to the first floor in 2006 by rising river waters after torrential rains. those kind of rainfall events are projected to increase five-fold in the future with climate change, in our children's lifetimes. heat waves were mentioned, fueled by climate change again. extreme heat increases drought risk, wildfire risks. those affect people's health. heat is not just an inconvenience. it it will be lethal. it it can send thousands of people to emergency rooms. another dimension is there are millions of people in our countries who are more vulnerable to the effects of heat and other climate health

effects. that includes millions of people 65 and older, and we are all getting older. our youngest americans, people living in economic disadvantage, people of color, people who already have breathing, heart or lung problems. people who are already struggling to stay healthy are going to find that is more of a struggle as climate change continues. today is world asthma day. there are 26 million people in the united states that have asthma. part of our concerns are that rising temperatures worsen air pollution from ground level smog to fine particles of pollen can trigger asthma attacks. rising temperatures are making the length of time that plants produce that pollen longer. since 1995 there has been a two to three-week increase in the ngth of ragweed pollen production in the central u.s. and canada.

that matters to people who have asthma. but we have huge opportunities to make improvements that effect us all, and the assessment focuses on those opportunities. an example. if we reduce the amount of fossil fuels we use to get energy, we stand to reduce air pollution that we generate from that activity right now. that is a win for health today. two, we get a double benefit because we can reduce heat-trapping carbon pollution emissions. that is a win for our kids, for the future. and three, if we step away from taking every short trip to the school, to work, to business, in cars and substitute biking, walking paths, more public transit, we get a chance for more physical activity. that is triple. we stand to establish all kinds of wins for public health. we are at this crossroads in terms of using the assessment in the body of science we have

checked to make informed decisions about where we go from here and trying to create a future that really has a human face on it and that is healthier and more secure. so i'm really honored to be part of that conversation with my colleagues and with all of you. thank you. >> thank you. am gene, co-author of the agriculture chapter. an overarching them is that crop and animal agriculture producers in this country are already facing challenges from the climate. the agriculture is very diverse with most regions having crobs that are adapted to local conditions. likewise, animal agriculture is practiced where climate allows grazing opportunities, low

discomfort and low disease potential. they have tighten the relationship between agriculture and climate. in the midwest, where i am from, we have more rain coming in the first half of the year and less in the second half. we have a 40-year trend of increase extreme rainfall events that are delaying or preventing the planting of soybeans and corn. there is also a rising concern about the increase in soil erosion accompanying these extreme rain events. california producers are facing a different but analogous set of challenges, including drought and heat impacts on vegetable production. on the other hand, there has been a deadline in the last 50 years in the number of chilling hours necessary for trees -- fruit trees and grapes to maintain high production. cherry trees that required at least 900 chilling hours

between growing seasons no longer meet those requirements due to warmer winters. arts of texas and oak had over 100 days of temperatures over 100 degrees. rates of water loss were doubled, depleting water resources and contributing more than $10 billion in direct losses to agriculture. are trends in preparation likely to continue and become much more severe under the high carbon emission scenarios. these trends are consistent with the global trends of dry regions getting drier and hotter and wet regions getting wetter and more humid. all such trends pose threats to u.s. agriculture. farmers are beginning to connect the dots and recognize

that local climates underpinning their multi-generational livelihoods and rural agribusiness communities are changing. they are forced to see increasingly more costly strategies to adapt to changes in order to maintain profitablity. by mid century under current climate emission trends, it is unlikely that adapt takes strammings will be sufficient to avoid the negative impacts to most u.s. crop and livestock production. thank you. >> thank you. good afternoon. my name is suzann, and it is my great honor to introduce you to the coastal chapter. the essence of the story we are trying to tell is simple. it simply says what happens to our coast will happen to our nation. more than half of the american public lives in a coastal county, producing nearly 60% of gross domestic product.

nine out of the 10 consumer products you used in your home today came through one of our nation's ports. if you put gas in your tank, if you bought seafood today for dinner, well then you are linked to what happens at our shores. it is these and many other facts like that, that make it clear no matter where you live in this country, you will feel the consequences of climate change on our shores. but say you don't live in new hampshire or virginia, or charleston, south carolina, where the streets already regularly flood during particularly high tides. say you don't live in cape condon or or hawaii, where the salt water already pushes into coastal ground water reservoirs that people depend on. or say you don't live in the by uses of southern l.a. where every 24 minnesota twins, one football field of land is lost forever for the combined

impacts of sinking land and rising southeast, then it may come as a surprise to you that climate change longer a hype thought threat. as we speak it leads to speaker mitt ept disruptions for businesses and lives. it is already eans expensive headache for those maintaining coastal roads, airports and sewage treatment plants. sea level rising eroding beaches and wetlands and with them the habitat for countless animal and plant species. as that sea level continues to rise, these issues will grow from an intermitt ept and chronic problem during coastal storms to life-threatsening dangers. in some of our biggest cities like l.a. or houston. or as we saw in sandy, in the big apple. in our chapter we show how the life lines like bridges, energy

infrastructure and water peoples are as growing risk from sea level rise and storm surges. we show how nationally important assets are at risk of being representedly disrupted by storms and floods. and how vulnerable populations are exposed to risk. and how coastal habitats that we love and need are at the tipping point of irreversible damage. we will tell you that coastal managers are beginning to recognize these dangers and working hard to find solutions. clearly there are no simple easy solutions. but then again america didn't become a great nation because it was easy. what they show you is that we can with hard work reduce risks, getting better prepared and work together with foresiket for a -- with foresight for a saver future. thank you. >> thank you all. i have been looking hard beyond

those lights. not a lot of smiles. one of the questions i thought i would ponder and ask my colleagues as we maybe collect some questions from you all, and once you are done, i will actually answer it myself. but in 15 to 30 seconds, what keeps you up at night? >> this is don again. i live in the midwest. i don't live in a coastal area. as bad as all those coastal things suzy was talking about frighten me as much as all of us, the things that keep me up at night, really worry me, is the concerns about severe weather. it is not what we already know. it is what we don't know. we are trying to learn exactly what is happening with severe thunderstorms. are we likely to get more and stronger tornadoes in the

future? are we going to have more ice storms? are we going to have more ice storms or more hail? we don't know those things yet. we have some pieces of evidence pointing in certain directions, that things like tornadoes could become more intense. but we are still at an early stage of the research. and so i worry about research i and my colleagues need to do to eally learn what needs to be learned there. >> thanks. a couple of things come to mind. for me it is those events that are feasible but not so likely. what we talked about today are those events where we have considerable confidence if we continue the path we are on will eventually occur. but there are a number of events that are feasible but perhaps not so likely. but if they do occur they could

be a surprise. that could be the collapse of the major ice sheets. another is feedback from perm frost, rapid releases of methane and carbon diamondbacks d stored in the ice -- dioxide store in the ice for thousands of years, changing the atmosphere. >> following up, i worry about a loss of sea ice in the arctic. we have seen by 2012 about a 50% reduction in the area of late summer sea ice, and about a 75% reduction in the volume. one of the reason that is a cause for concern is that is a faster rate than the models projected when run with increasing greenhouse gases. it raises the possibility that while climated models are

absolutely our best tools for projecting the future, presenting a bound of possible outcomes, it it alludes to things we heard from jerry and tom, there are possibilities potentially outside of what climate models suggest that we need to be thinking about as well in protecting long-term concerns. >> ok what keeps me awake at night? i worry about two things that come to mine. cumulative effects on people's health of one storm, and then another storm, and then poor air pollution in communities that are already challenged by being next to places, facilities that emit air pollution over time. then there is a heat wave. i rory about people's resilience, economically, health-wise and mentally, spiritually. even strong people have a tough time being summonsive and on their game -- being responsive and on their game with event

after event. the second one is multiple system failure. we depend on our city's hospitals, roadways and electrical power to provide air conditioning when it is hot outside. and when it goes down, everyone is in the middle of a heat wave with very little way to escape. in the case of a storm it compromises a way to get to safety. those are opportunity areas to look into to keep people healthy. >> i worry about food security globally and in the u.s. social unrest happens very quickly under food insecurity. i have talked about the production side of it, but that is only one part of food security. it involves transportation. it involves processing and storage. so with any break down in any of those from any of the factors we have talked about could lead to food security, which could lead to social

unrest very quickly. >> thank you. the question that you asked, what keeps you up at night, is the translation that we used in the coastal chapter actually to get out what are we most vulnerable to. that is a mix of really what is coming from climate change, but also what is it meeting on the ground? it is the social vulnerability, or economic capacity to deal with it. if you look at sea rise, you say miami is is on the front lines. miami has capacity to deal with it. i am much more worried about the small communities that are facing similarly big risks but on't have the power of a mayor bloomberg, and a new york and not of l.a. or the big cities. that is really the combination that keeps me up at night. >> thank you. i promised that i would answer as well. it really feeds off of what suzy just said.

what keeps me up at night is a percent tense across the population -- persistence across the population not to recognize that the climate is broken and not knowing what the new climate is going to be. that lack of recognition and the inability to communicate those risks to individuals unnecessarily puts economic assets at risks, human lives at risk, unnecessarily puts ecosystems at risk. when i wake up in the middle of the night, that is what worries e. what do you see as bright spots in how we are responding to climate change at the federal, state and local level? actually, i just got these, but i think that is the point of the second panel. how can the n.c.a. help

decision-makers? that is as well. what is the estimated increase in health care costs? o we have any cogent estimates? >> we have taken a look not in the national climate assessment per se but in an important study that is cited. we want the assessment to be an important working foundational document. there was a study that looked at six types of climate change is going to increase in frequency, extent or duration in the future. they have already happened in the last decade between 2000 and 2009. the health related costs were $14 billion to $40 billion. and those health costs don't typically get included when we estimate very important infrastructure, road way and building costs from extreme

weather events. that is an important dimension to consider. >> what can meet the challenges of climate change? >> i give a lot of public talks about climate change because i feel it is important to put my time in to exchange why this is such an important issue issue. i worry about our children and grandchildren and the future they are going to face. but i end my talks usually talking about our hope for the future. we as americans have shown through history that we know how to solve problems. i think we can solve this. we can deal with it. but we have to make that choice nd get on with it.

>> so i think there is a great advantage in this issue. that is this nation is very weather-conscious. we hear about it every day. it is always in the picture, and it's quoit clear that we are experience -- quite clear that we are experiencing changes that are unprecedented in this nation's history. as more people see these changes, they are talked about. the president did talk about it today with a number of tv weathercasters and broadcasters. i think there is very much hope there in terms of trying to reach out and educate the broad populous on what we face and how we can solve is it. >> quickly, i do think we may be sort of of slow to get going with change. but if you look at some historical precedents, once we get started, change can happen quickly. we have seen in the northeast and beyond, how cities are dealing with heat events, planting more trees, getting

more air conditioners, cool centers to the most vulnerable populations, a plan. facing climate risks, elevating critical structures, elevating houses, having discussion about coastal zone planning. even more mundane things, increasing the size of culverts, drainage pipes, even undergoing routine maintenance and repair. adding those into account when talking about extreme weather. >> the fact that everyone here is definitely interested in this issue and there is so much attention to it because it it affects everyone. i think there is a rising sense of participation, and we are all in this together. i think that recent events with extreme weather have brought that home. no one likes to think about very tough problems when there aren't solutions. i actually think the assessment report provides information

that is really accessible about opportunities that we have to make decisions that are going to get us to a better place. and hopefully it will inspire leadership at every level to step forward and be part of that. >> i am excited about what i see in terms of local food systems. the more interest in local foods, and reducing the number of food miles. do we really need strawberries from argentina in the middle of january. can we go back to some of the excitement i remember as a child growing up of getting fruit in season because it was such a rare thing. can't we go back to some of those and in the process reduce food miles and in the process increase our nutritional value. >> the things that gives me the greatest hope are you all and the people i work with on a regular basis in my day-to-day job. it's the people that are

leading the efforts in coastal communities. it's the people who are willing to step outside the colored lines and draw outside those and do something new, work together across their disciplinary lines, walk across to the other division to the next apartment and community down the stream. that is the greatest hope. it is one thing. we don't do a good job yet of putting into climate models. the human spirit is not well modeled, and it is the most important fact or in getting us off where we are now and on to a different path. >> ok. we are getting close to the end of time. one last question that i got, and i think it is directed to me, so i am going to try to answer. can you speak to the economic costs associated with climate change? from the perspective of what the perspective of what the national climate assessment has taught us. what i can say is that there

will be costs to climate change. we are already experiencing them. they will get larger, and they are calibrated not always in dollars and cents, but in human lives and ecosystems. there will be some costs to the responses we think about, reducing emissions of greenhouse gases, or increasing resilience and preparedness to future climate changes. but what you find over and over again from the specific examples that are located throughout the assessment is that the costs of not doing anything is much high he than the cost of doing something -- is much higher than the cost of doing something. and that the costs of not doing something increase dramatically over the next few years, over the next decade and into the future from there. so with that, i thank you for your attention in panel one. dr. holdren is back. [applause]

>> gary, thank >> gary, thank you and thanks to all the members of this panel. a lot of food us for thought, if you'll forgive the term. privilege tomy introduce the next speaker, who is acting chair of the white house council on environmental quality. the is a close colleague in both literal and figurative sense. he has not only been a key in advancing the administration's efforts to boost resilience to climate change impacts in communities the country, but he is in the office right next-door, so talkeither of us need to to the other he just has to pound on the wall. mike the floor is yours. >> welcome again to the white house. all here.ave you

i'm mike boots the acting chair on environmental quality and i'm glad you had some time with this into some ofdig the findings from this report, because as you heard there is a lot of valuable information in there. it's the most comprehensive report on u.s. climate change date. been generated to it's a very hands-onset of knowledge. across decision makers this country have been telling us for quite some time, that hungry for.y as they prepare for a future of more frequent and more severe extreme weather and extreme temperatures and other impacts. so i'm happy that with this next will be coming up shortly you'll get the chance to expectre about how we some of that cloiment