>> that is fine. you are entitled to do that. you don't scare me certainly. you haven't heard people talking about sellouts or traders. -- or traitors. that is not productive. >> i am not uneducated or ignorant or needing help. it is like i said, it is such a divisive issue. it is one that i see the most where people are asking each other. >> thanks for coming. >> thank you. >> ignorance by divine, that is all i can say. ignorance by design. [applause] >> this will be our last. we are out of time. >> my name is rated -- my name is brandon. i thought the presentation and the panel were awesome. i don't think is that the mascots horrible portrayal of an

indigenous culture, but what i did see was a lot of misrepresented in the dream where of men -- misrepresented imagery were of men. i wonder if you also think this affect indigenous women, and how you think they have been portrayed? what has colonization deemed indigenous women as hostile -- as docile and investigated. >> 20 point. pocahontas was a woman. >>--let me point out pocahontas was a woman. >> as a mascot. >> the answer is yes -- men are stereotyped in a way that -- women are stereotyped in a way that invite, in essence assault on them. it is an ongoing thing. if you look at the imagery around naked women veterans in the popular -- around need to

the women in the popular culture -- around native women in the popular culture there is a teheme that the land itself is ripe for plunder. that is the imagery used for native american women since the beginning, when colonists were putting -- were reporting back. you should see these women, holy cow. that is what that was all about. the answer is yes. i could have done a powerpoint twice as long with outrageous images of native american women that are contemporary. >> overall amount you have this level of acceptance in a sporting events, everyone is impacted. non-indian and indian alike. when they are saying this is none of this racism happening last week in rapid city, south

dakota, a group of students who earned their way to a free hockey game through academics not being indian, where doused in beer and called -- and i apologize to my brothers and sisters -- but they use this term back home -- go home, pa rairie n---. was anybody arrested or asked to leave the stadium? no, it happened after it appeared in the press. these things are happening a lot. i have young women and men that will always have a different perspective because of what happened to them last week. that cannot be allowed anymore. if you can have this kind of imagery and be ok with it, then american statistics polling say that is ok, i say does not. how many of us doesn't take to say no more? i guarantee that this was an

african-american, you can find african-americans who would say this doesn't bother me. but you would also find ever -- african americans who would satan away, i wouldn't let this happen to people. we are just asking for more understanding. [applause] >> we want to thank you all for coming here and listening so carefully and participating in the conversation. once again, i want to thank arizona state university college of law, indian legal program for arranging this event. to the heart museum for hosting the event. thank you all for coming tonight. we hope we'll see you many times. [applause]

♪ >> next, and a valuation on the current relations between u.s. and canada. after that, the committee hearing on the ukraine and russia conflict. then, u.n. ambassador samantha power talking about relations between the israel and u.s. relations. on newsmakers, roy robinson -- lori robinson, she will discuss the report on policing across the u.s. since the deaths of

michael brown in ferguson, misery and erika garner in new york, at the hands of police. she will have recommendations on how to improve policing. newsmakers sunday at 10:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on c-span. >> keep track of the republican led congress, and follow its new members in its session. new congress, best access, on c-span c-span2, c-span radio and c-span.org. next candidates public affairs channel hosted a discussion this week on u.s. and canadian relations. the debate focused on the keystone pipeline debate, kind -- climate change, and domestic security. on wednesday, the senate failed

to override president obama's veto. this discussion is an hour and a half. bill. this discussion is an hour and a half. ♪ >> hello and welcome to washington dc. it is a chilly evening. fitting, since we came to the american capital to talk about u.s.-canada relations. and they are a little bit frosty these days. is been a long relationships of respect, cooperation, and real friendship between two of the world's greatest neighbors. but now it is marked by friction. we are life this evening at the museum on pennsylvania avenue for our latest cpac townhall.

tonight we present keystone xl pipeline and beyond -- the future of u.s.-canada relations. >> and the executor user of cpac public affairs channel in canada. special welcome to our viewers watching on c-span in the u.s. over the next 90 minutes we will drill down on the state of the relationship between u.s. and canada. to look at the trouble spots the bright spots, and the road ahead. we will take questions from the audience. you can join the conversation on the social media using the hasta g cpactownhall. bill owens is a strategic advisor. he stepped down in november as the credit for presenters for new york's first congressional district. it runs up to the canadian border, so he is familiar with these issues. ryan bernstein's staff for the

center of north dakota. welcome mr. bernstein, we hope the senator is feeling better. he has been ambassador to the u.s. since 2009. is a former premier of the province of manitoba. she directs the canada program. she has worked in both canada and u.s. on the environment and climate change. with us, as always, political editor from the plane, and louisa savage. she will take up a new position at politico in washington. in a moment, we will be in the conversation on u.s.-canada relations. to let me take a view minutes to set the scene. >> we would never treat our friends so badly. >> the fact that open export is

being made of the u.s.-canada relationship these days is telling. -- open export. -- open sport. no one expects things will always flow smoothly. but the list of irritant is is piling up, and so is the resentment. >> a president who simply has not got it that canada is important to the prosperity of the u.s. it is frustration with the white house that clearly doesn't want to engage canada, two promote a healthy economic relationship. >> we are supposed to be the best runs and the closest neighbor, instead we keep getting hit with these things. it causes people a lot of frustration. >> nothing has caused more frustration than the keystone xl pipeline. the $8 billion by check -- $8 billion project will deliver oil across the nation. the latest -- a veto by the

president to kill legislation congress to authorize the project. despite the impassioned pleas from barack obama's opponents. >> of the fair to our canadian friends. they allowed us to build a pipeline across their land. we should allow them to do the same in hours. they are our best allies, our greatest neighbor, was today pass this bill and build the keystone xl pipeline. >> there is a global oil market. >> for the president just isn't sitting on a decision. he openly and repeatedly undermined the value of the on -- opf tjhehe pipeline to america. >> it will not even be a nominal benefit. >> a former senior adviser on canada, economic issues for the state. >> even if he doesn't like the pipeline, he is disparaging about canada. the harper government has been disparaging about the u.s. >> president obama has said

climate change is a top priority for him. he has taken steps to put the u.s. on its way to meeting its international climate commitments. however, under current policies, canada will fall short. canada's pipeline in washington might have been strengthened if the canadian government has introduced long promised greenhouse relations for the industry. prime minister harper is making it clear that will be happening anytime soon. >> frankly, under the current circumstances, it would be crazy economic policy. >> then there is the project to build a second bridge linking detroit, michigan, and windsor ontario. the busiest trade crossing between the two countries. not only is canada playing the $4 billion upfront cost of the bridge and the access roads in both countries, canada is also putting the $250 million upfront cost of the u.s. cost on

american soil. because the obama administration refused to. >> the government of canada is fabulous. i think the u.s. government needs to a better job. >> as an american, it is embarrassing that we can't fund our own infrastructure. it is equally embarrassing that we are asking canada to foot the bill. and when it is all over and paid for, we want half of it. >> at least the bridge project seems to be going ahead. not so for a plant upgrade of a very terminal in prince rupert, british columbia. is on canadian soil. but it leads to the state of alaska. alaska wanted to upgrade the terminal using only american steel. in keeping with "buy america" rules. canada said no way and threatened legal action. when the two sides couldn't reach a couple nice, alaska canceled the project. -- a compromise.

if they can't settle these squabbles, what about the big stuff? and there's a long-running dispute over canadian and mexican and pork sold in u.s. stores. u.s. laws require those cuts meet to be labeled with details on where the animal was born where it was raised and slaughtered. canada says that cost producers and billion dollars a year. the wto has twice ruled the mandatory labeling is discriminatory. the u.s. is appealing for a third and final time. canada is threatening retaliation. it is true that the u.s.-canada relationship is envied by most countries in the world. and overall, it is a good one. there" operation on border security while try to speed up the good of people has been slow. canadians and americans did fight side-by-side in afghanistan and our allies again in the fight against the islamic state. but with the two countries

august on dispute, it is hard to imagine on so-called vision items -- make ideas that the net conversation, cooperation, and trust. >> our willingness to put aside domestic sovereignty concerns in favor of larger cooperative vision. i don't see that vision anymore. not in the canadian government and not in the u.s. government. >> at the end of the day or has to be a personal relationship. -- there has to be a personal relationship between the two leaders. we just haven't seen it for the last six years. >> who can forget the sense of promise in both countries went barack obama was first elected? now, some suggest better relations would only happen if the change at the top, maybe in both countries. >> already, so that such a scene for our conversation. we have a lot of ground to cover. we will work these issues we

have raised over the next 80 minutes. and we will allow for your questions as well. let us start our panelists at the same spot. what is, in their view, the state of the relationship? we saw this primer that says of one view, others may disagree. let's start there. in your view, what is the relationship tween the u.s. and canada? >> peter, the relationship between u.s. and canada is fine. i'm going to philadelphia after my stop here. i expect to be well treated by my captors. [laughter] billions of dollars trade back. there countries are working in parallel in russia and ukraine against isis, against ebola, but the relationship at the top is frumpy. the ambassador says he's never seen the relationship between the two governments as cool as it is today.

some people would say that is just about the pipeline and the relationship is bigger than that. but there are more things. canada, u.s. and mexico used to meet every year. 2000-2009. once it was harper's attorney to host that summit, he canceled. barack obama has visited canada twice in his six years as president. the last president to visit canada that really was nixon, who decided one trip to see him was enough. there's a lot of evidence that this relationship is not functional. it is too easy for people to say that it is harper's fault because he is a right-winger, or people to say that obama is lost in his own little world. they are actually similar. they are loners, they don't pick up the phone.

they don't have colleagues internationally that they get along with. that similarity of style and diversions of ideology is costing us. > i think it is interesting to segregate what is happening in the relationship with the $700 billion a year trade relationship, the intelligence cooperation, the security cooperation, everything that goes on -- to segregate that from what is happening at the top, two leaders who aren't rushing into each other's embrace. my question is what does that mean for the broader relationship? when i ask around, what i hear is they are not meeting. what does that mean? it means that they are not setting priorities for the relationship. they are not looking forward to the future and saying, what should articles be going forward? which usually happens at this summit. it typically kickstart bureaucracies to deliver things i can be announced trying to

set the next agenda for the next few years. perhaps it is more a question of what is not happening in the relationship than what is happening. >> mr. bernstein, let us get review. -- get your view. >> overall, we think it is a good relationship. coming from a border state, we see it firsthand. good is really the local people and the people between canada and the u.s. that get along very well culturally and everything else. but what we are worried about is possibly the frosty relationship we have with canada based on the keystone xl pipeline. we think this could jeopardize the economic relationship that the u.s. has with canada. it is a global market out there. the u.s. needs to compete globally and what better friend and ally than canada to work with? we know canada has other options or its economic vitality. so why not happen partnership

with the united states? i think unfortunately, what we have gone through in the u.s. with keystone xl pipeline we don't want it to affect the relationship, but i think long-term we have to put things back together. >> with your view -- let's get your view. >> i don't think america has any better friend than canada. we have people across the order every day, $200 million in economic growth between the two countries every day. we the shared border, an extremely long history of fighting together, working together, working across together on a number of issues for decades. but friends need to be able to talk about issues, friends need to be discussing what matters. one thing we have to think about is that last year was the hottest year on record.

16 of the last hottest years on record happened since 1997. we are now confronting change. we are dealing with blistering droughts, rising seas, floods, that there is just a tremendous impact that we are experiencing because of climate change. the reason we are experiencing that globally is because of fossil fuels. we are having a difficult conversation about fossil fuels. that conversation is likely to continue. but the opportunity for the two countries to talk about how to confront that problem is really where the future u.s.-canada relationship can go. canada has a clean energy revolution going on. in the last five years, there has been a doubling of renewable energy, there has been a 37% growth in jobs, we seen doubling electric vehicle sale. those same things are happening in the u.s. you have these clean energy

economy that are growing. this gets to the heart of the relationship, because that is where our administration is right now -- that clean energy opportunity. how can we together confront this comment problem, how can we together confront clean energy? i look forward to the 'beyond keystone'part of the discussion. that is where we need to go from the u.s.-canada effective. -- perspective. >> what is your view of the relationship? >> living an hour from montreal, i don't see any change in how the citizens interact with one another. this is not a situation that really comes down, if you will, to the grassroots. we have some governmental issues. we have some irritants that are going on. the trade is increasing consistently, so it tells you that is this is largely ignoring

that -- business is largely ignoring what the media and politicians are storing up. for most people, this is not an issue. the relationship continues to be very strong. people are working together more and more. we are seeing increasing trade in our communities. from my perspective, i see this as something we are focusing on at the political level, but when you down to business and people come up people are very comfortable that we are still friends. >> ambassador? you are doing clean up your. what is your view? >> don't take your canadian sweater into the philadelphia region. just a nomadic bit of advice. -- diplomatic bit of advice. both countries are can-do countries. i think we see, especially in the united states, it is a bit

of a can-do government from time to time. i'm on my six crisis on shutting the border down in the last few years. i think the country and the decisions that are made are very positive. i look at the scene center, -- scene setter, but there are different levels of government that the deal with canada. it is not all the president. i'm frustrated with him on the keystone xl pipeline. i am disappointed in nebraska. because we had about three setbacks in nebraska as well. i also believe that some of the comments in the scene center art inaccurate -- are inaccurate about his comments on the pipeline.

to say that all of the oil is short of being supported is wrong. was wrong to say it. to say that it was all coming from canada, who knew that north dakota and montana had been bequeathed from the president to canada? we are very disappointed with those comments. we will continue to do what we have always done. we are not a surrogate for the company. it is our job to get the act out about this proposal. -- the facts out about this proposal. i thought the president to be helpful in most ways. i found the biggest blockage to be both with the private owner of a bridge blocking in the michigan house senate, and with the michigan delegation, appropriation of money.

we had to use a different model to get a financing agreement which is paid back by the users both capital and interest. we got a presidential permit with a lot of cooperation from the white house. we got a waiver on the u.s. steel covered under "buy americ a" that goes back to the good old days. we got a waiver from candidate u.s. steel through the white house. yes, the process should have been paid for by the taxpayers on either side of the border. but we couldn't get that through the michigan delegation. we had to then go back and get the solution, because this bridge has been talked about ever since 9/11. it is the biggest choke point between our two countries in terms of trade and security. sometimes you need to have a can-do attitude to get these done.

otherwise it may be a decade before someone gets it done or appropriation becomes for the taxpayers opposed to a ppp. we did get cooperation from the white house on operating cost of the bridge. you could have keystone, and then you could have the president after the horrible shooting on october 22, reaffirming his solidarity with canada, reaffirming his commitment to working with border security and to mystic 30 threats, reaffirming the great cooperation we have between our two countries. are rubber after 9/11 there was an urban myth that all the terrorists involved came to canada. that myth still remains today. i am thankful that the president stood strong with canada in that time. it helped us deal with threats on the border and it was a strong statement.

if you could just approve the pipeline, i would be happier on this panel. >> we need to start on the pipeline. that is what the chief issue is. it is what is making news in the relationship. brian, i will start with you. we have the president has vetoed this legislation in coming from congress. what is the next move for republicans? when will we see another moves to try and legislate and push this pipeline through? >> you don't have to wait long. tomorrow we will vote on the veto override. we of the first vote tomorrow. we will get that then move forward. that it says of the veto override. we need 67 votes and are working hard on it. we are a little short at this point. we still have a good commitment

from the democrats that joined us. we had 63 joining us, one republican missing. we are working out a few others. the president said one of the main reasons he was vetoing this legislation was that we were cutting the process short that is after six years he is claiming we're cutting the process short. we will continue to go back to the democrats that said this process needs to play out.

this process has played out. we have had several environmental impact statements are coming back saying there is no environmental impact, that it lowers greenhouse gas emissions. we will make that argument and see how it goes. after that, it has been clear from the majority leader that we will continue to push this project and look at other legislation, probably appropriations, maybe the transportation bill. we got close last time. this is an infrastructure project. it supports 42,000 jobs. it could be appropriate to put it in the highway bill. >> who wants to jump in? where do we go with this debate and process? are we going to get a pipeline approval under this president or a decision? let's start there. >> repeat the question. >> is barack obama going to end up having to say, in effect, allow this pipeline because of what happens in congress, or we risk not getting a decision at all?

>> right now the process has been going on for a number of years. >> who wants to jump in? >> we will see if we get the veto override. the president was cryptic in recent comments saying it might take me a few weeks, might take me a few months. a lot of people predict he will not decide it all before the end of his term, and so now there is a lot of pressure on hillary clinton. to me it is interesting both the bridge story and this pipeline story raise a bigger issue which is how canada as a foreign country build infrastructure in the united states. if we look back at the 1980's , the big thing was signing free trade agreements. how do we build that infrastructure?

you mentioned alan gottlieb who came to washington and said we are all dealing with the state department and white house. he changed the way that canada conducted diplomacy focusing on going after senators and congressmen. to build real objects, it is not about sitting down with the president or the congress but dealing with landowners, whether ranchers in nebraska or a private bridge owner in detroit and then dealing with local governments state legislators, campaign contributors, nongovernmental

organizations whether the in our d.c. or in the case of the detroit windsor bridge the tea party. you have all these players. it is regionally diffuse there are a lot of proposals on how we manage this. we need a binational commission on infrastructure or some kind of development bank. i understand the state department is looking at its own process for prioritizing spending on cross-border infrastructure so that the most important trade ports are getting the money and not just the ones where a border congressman is able to get his project into a bill and get it funded. with the case of the pipeline,

how do we deal with these issues before we are into a specific project where you're having public meetings in nebraska and people from all over the country come in and focus on this one project to play out a much broader national discussion. i see this as a broad challenge. >> i think just -- >> sure, and then congressman. >> we have not talked about the power of money and the ability to raise money. there is a lot of money against the bridge in michigan, a lot of money. there is a lot of money moving around for and against the pipeline. that is the broader discussion. it is quite different than it

was ten years ago. it takes six years to get a transmission line between one state and another state. one lawyer per megawatt to get a transmission line approved. when we are dealing with these two proposals with clean energy, it taken us four years. these take a lot of time. the ability to work and the public interest for and against something is really, really slow and not just a foreign government. it takes that much time. even in canada there is no national grid. all the transmission lines go north and south. on the pipeline the state department said, and has been correct that the pipeline is not built, the oil will come down on rail.

they made that prediction three years ago, and last year, and they have been right. a million barrels a day extra since barack obama has been president, more than any other president. it has come from canada to the united states. it is just getting there in the wrong way, in my view. the state department said that if it is not built it will be coming down on rail. rail has higher emissions, higher safety risks. when you look at those three liabilities, one of them is to canada, the cost. the second safety issue is to the americans. they just had a horrific accident in west virginia. the oil went through chicago.

the third issue is higher emissions. if the president says no, you are actually going to have higher emissions. i would argue strongly that the united states is taking two of the three liabilities by saying no. it is the president's right to do that, but we have over 63 votes in the senate and 61% of the house voting for that pipeline. >> we will come back to you in a second. i think the question everyone wants to know is, while barack obama is president, one way or the other, we will this pipeline -- will this pipeline get approved? >> it is less and less likely as time goes on. it is unlikely that he will approve it.

whether or not the congress can put together a peace of legislation and attach it to it so that he has no choice may be a road forward. i would argue that what would be far more sensible here would be to come

to an agreement where we have a trade-offer, if you will. i would talk about the senate immigration bill, why not construct a deal that gets the senate bill acted on ? something we clearly need and also allows the pipeline to go go forward. when you talk about the safety issues, we have many pipelines. there is very little risk or increased risk in building another pipeline. the argument that environmentalists take is that by doing that we enhance the likelihood of continuing to use fossil fuels. the fact of the matter is, i am a proponent of moving forward with renewable energy. i strongly supported the biofuels plant at fort drum which is taken fort drum off the grid. an excellent result, created

jobs, and is a clean energy project but we have to do things in ways that make sense. one of the issues i talked about is what do you need to do to educate the american public and american legislators about what is going on in their state relative to canadian business, that has to be done in the legislative office, not necessarily in dc but district offices where people who work for canadian companies or have relationships with canadian companies are coming in and talking to those legislators. >> danielle, let's give you a chance to weigh in. suggesting that it is less and less likely. for some people there may never be. what is your view on what you are hearing? danielle: well, i mean, i would agree with the congressman about the likelihood. the reason is not

political. there has been a strong case made on a number of issues which includes the climate impact. tar sands actually sinks in water and does not act like conventional oil. as americans have come to learn more and more, it is not in keeping with the type of energy where we want to go it has risks. it has risks to water, to the climate. i disagree on the rail issue. there has been an argument made. we know the industry is pursuing both real and pipeline. the us oil industry is moving oil by rail, but there was a projection made a projection made that there will be 200,000 barrels a day of tar sands that will move by rail if keystone did not move ahead. guess what? only 40,000 barrels a day are moving. it is not pipeline versus rail. pipelines are cheaper. that is what the industry wants.

rail will be used for balkan crude, certain types of destinations. so we don't want the public to be misled into it will be either/or. >> you want to jump in? >> at the risk of not being particularly helpful, i want to express astonishment that it has taken this long. the president expects to make a decision in the next weeks or months. i remember before the end of his first mandate, i ran into a

colleague in the congress. she said, don't you worry. this will be passed as soon as the 2012 presidential election is behind us. if it is mitt romney, he will approve keystone on his first day. if it is barack obama, he will approve it a few weeks later. scotty was not wrong at the time. the entire weight of conventional wisdom was the same, that this was something that would be settled in the first part of 2013. we are now toward the middle of 2015, and everyone has their fingers crossed. that is an indication to the

extent of which this one decision around which so much is happening but this one decision has caused the bilateral relationship to fester. >> i think it is not our finest hour. there is no question about it. i strongly believe it is and not -- it is in not only canada's best interest but also the greatest respect to danielle oil by rail continues to go up. you mentioned water. the whole the whole issue of having a pipeline is much safer. i agree with the scientists in the state department. there was a battle between oil and the environmental industry in washington, and i believe the state department widely assessed a certain way. one year ago in january. i think it should of gone ahead. i would not want to be a decision-maker into have to be when you are a environmentalist.

i think that is a false choice sometimes. and have a report that says 25 people will die if this report is not proceeded with. i have never heard anyone talk about safety and the environmental industry. even the apa does not comment at all about safety issues when they issued a letter a couple days ago. if i were making a decision into a got a report about a comparison on safety and i got a political report about safety, i am going on safety all the time. >> will the president take this to court under the nafta rule? >> they cannot make a decision until after the delay.

i'm not going to speak to someone above my grade and some of my friends would say. >> would your advice be, if this gets rejected let's take him to court? tags my advice would be let's continue to work to get it passed. we have the senate, 63 votes. we have the house about 13 short. let us keep at it. again, how do you make a decent vision when you have a report that says this is an unsafe action? if something happens then all those people who got this report, the secretary of state the president, i hope it does not happen like it happened in canada but i can tell you the media and the public will go back and told people accountable for having a red flag and a goring at. this is the biggest red flag i have seen on any court the

president has to deal with. and i would not reported on my unbiased view. [laughter] >> the obama administration approved the alberta clipper taking oil into the united states. they already a proof that. in 2011, secretary clinton road us are about concerns about a delay. this pipeline should be decided by the end of 2011. i think the administration is starting down the that course. you can see the state is already headed down the route with their decision. they said look, this is an environmentally friendly. i think the environment has changed within the administration. not on the public side.

that has showed 60-70% approval. it has changed in the administration. >> if you believe would canada said it is not a question of if but of when. it will. >> canada will continue to build deep brine, build the rail. >> i think the longer this is delayed in the second term, the less likely the president will up of it. tags what about the next president? >> i think the next president could very easily take care of this issue. but i go back to my republican friends and say make a deal on something the president wants for his legacy and present this for an option that is appealing and a win-win. turn it from a negative conversation into something that is a positive. there are things the president

wants for his legacy. let's make a deal. >> danielle, you would be happy with that? >> i think it is interesting because there has been a lot of talk about deals around keystone. let us keep in mind the broader issue is climate. it is easy to reduce the narrative to environmentalists and keystone catering to an environmentalists. that is a narrative that plays well to the public but the narrative is about the administration that wants to create a legacy around climate. there is a community of people, nobel laureates, scientists who have come in and said this pipeline represents increasing and expanding in industry in canada and that product is coming to the united states. we should have a say about where we get our products, where we get our oil, what type of

products we source. this will increase that sort of oil considerably. this is really about a broader conversation about what we can do around climate and any deal around a pipeline does not -- this is canada's saying "we promise you in exchange for letting us have this industry which actually causes some more climate problems, we will make promises for climate." that does not make any sense. >> let's have this conversation around a pipeline and climate change. we know michael bloomberg and u.n. for -- u.n. ambassador for climate change says this should be explored. in exchange for a climate pact

between the united states and canada to do better. is that how we move forward? essentially, canada has more on climate change. >> there cannot legally be a quick quote. but i do agree with the mirror. we have proposed a similar table to deal with oil and gas regulations. considering the methane proposal that just came out a few weeks ago, it makes sense for canada and the united states to have one table to deal with these regulations. we are doing it with these ships on the great lake. we are doing it with heavy vehicles. we have worked together with the state department on black carbon. we think there should he won table on oil and gas.

we did it years ago with a ronald reagan. it makes good sense. you cannot have 1 -- we already have higher costs in the alberta on the climate initiative versus california thermal. why don't these sit down with the heavy crude coming in from venezuela, from canada, in california, we are not afraid. we like the way we did vehicle emission standards. we have the benefit of reduced ghd's? -- we have the benefit of reduced ghd's. >> we're not saying that, it is illegal. bet you can't say up in canada. they know it is illegal. you can say that. [applause]

>> you may not be as aware as we are in canada about the opposition of the democratic party dead set against the pipeline project. the only one they like is energy east, which would snake pipelines in to vastly expand in new brunswick. and the opposition party leader who is leading the polls, just intrude oh said he supports keystone but the reason he is not is because it is not good enough to fight climate change. he has got a shot at being prime minister and he would increase carbon pricing. put a national carbon price which would reduce emissions and that would make americans is so grateful that they would accept

it lickety-split. sometimes i am skeptical that would work. [laughter] >> i want to talk to the ambassador because those of us in washington keep hearing -- kept hearing canadian officials saying we are working on the regulations. we are working on it. then we would go back and ask them and they would say they were working on it. then the ambassador says it would be crazy. so i am actually not sure where this is going in canada. >> we would want to work -- i forget the exact wording, it makes sense to work together in this continent on some of these issues. he has consistently said that in this interview and others. as part of that, they are doing a lot of work to bring to a table, if we could get a table

so we could have in approach like we did with light vehicles. it is not an either-war. it is not like we are not getting ready. >> because the united states relies is so much on call energy and is able to shift on that to natural gas, they are able to get to their targets more cheaply the and canada can in they are given the presidents plan to get there. the projections are they can get there. canada will get half way from what i understand and part of that way is because of the oil sands. there are not oilsands in the united states. what are we waiting for canada to do before we can get that? >> we have gas in pennsylvania and ohio. we have vehicles being constructed in ontario and vehicles being instructed in

michigan. the way we handle the vehicle issue is because we have -- we have one cable. there would be no economic advantage for not doing something. it would be equal in terms of the economy and better for the economy. that is the way we have proposed we deal with it. we would take, for example, and yes, canada has a lot more heavy food. and oilsands has a 50-ton innovation fee. d. see. has a so-called tax. ---- d.c. has a so-called --

if we can do both, if we can have an equal playing field and have higher standards as we do with light vehicles to get better results. bags by your saying is more canada to regulate emissions from the oilsands, you want to do that in harmony with the u.s. putting regulations on heavier types of oil in the united states? >> gas oil, and methane gas. >> are their active discussions? >> we do not have a table. we had a table on the whole issue of ozone-depleting material. >> what happened? >> we had a table working on black carbon with the state department. >> are you saying the administration is not willing? [laughter] >> we can find you a table. >> i mean a couple of things.

i think we are going to get to simplify this a little bit. we have two countries. what is the u.s., the problem is cool. we have to go after call. the obama administration has not done anything. now we can say the united states is finally moving ahead on coal. if the regulations are implemented, we can do that. the u.s. can mean it's target under copenhagen. the reason canada is projected to miss its target from d.c. and atlantic canada is because of the oilsands are. that is rapidly growing. that is why the oil and gas regulations or some other policy like a price on carbon across canada will be needed in order for canada to meet its climate promise. right now, canada is set to break its climate promise

internationally. it does not make sense for canada to point to the united states and say we are not going to live at on oil and gas because you are not. it makes sense for canada to put together a plan and the two countries to meet the copenhagen agreement and work together to go as a pair in north america. north america should be going to the world stage together to say they are going to meet the international agreement. >> is this going to happen? the president's climate plan, auto the republicans going to let it happen? there is a lot of talk of the republicans blocking it in the senate. >> we're going to have a vigorous debate about that no doubt in the senate and house of representatives. we will be looking very closely

at the rules. we are going to try to approach this on technology. talking beyond regulation. one thing i would like to point out about the oil sand, he united states department of energy is investing in the oil sand. they recently announced a $500,000 loan that too shallow to work on a project to help reduce carbon dioxide in the air. they are going to take that carbon dioxide, sequester it. up to 100 million tons a year. so the united states is working with canada. we'll bring in the debate on the president's climate agenda and looking at technology, not necessarily regulation. >> it is going to be an interesting debate. what i do with my rents in the cool states is invite them down to saskatchewan. -- my constituents in the coal

states. we will take american electrical generation from coal from 38% to 30% i-20 30, if those regulations pass. if they do not, it will still bump around based on the market. when gas went from $11 down to wonder three, there was a loud of substitution of gas into the electrical grid. it was a market-driven decision. all of you are right about: in the united states. if last winter is factored in, if we have a another increase in the gas price without regulations, are going to have no change on coal and a difficult time. they have done better in canada so far since we signed to the copenhagen agreement in 2010.

i think he do need a common table on oil and gas regulations because in the morning, we compete with each other. db.c. gasket compete with gas in california. having one table like we do on light emission i think it mayor bloomberg proposed in and canada is willing to do it. >> if we could push you just a little, what is the stumbling? >> we have not got a table. >> i got my answer right there. >> maybe we might have to bring someone down to put an ikea table up. [laughter] >> is this where we need to get

the prime minister and president to get along? >> it is tougher than i say because there are a lot of states that do not want the president to deal with gas regulations in and a lot of people in the administration or are nervous about getting in the middle of the fracking debate with regulations. if you look at colorado, you have a democratic geologist, the governor, coming up with a proposal on getting the agreement of coming up with gas in colorado. he has the environmental up in and on one side -- he is like the bear in the arcade. he is getting shot from both direct and's. >> is so we have the headline, canada is willing to move forward on taking greater steps to deal with simon change but so far the united states does not want to talk. [indiscernible]

>> alberto wants to work with canada and the united states to up our game on oil and gas regulations. >> i am pretty sure i know the answer, but i want to say this. we are going to miss our greenhouse emissions by half in 2012. let's say we get our act together through better consultation with americans and carbon hits it's in emissions targets in 2020. will keystone be ok? >> i think it comes down to understanding the broader issues around the industry. we have an existing industry of 2 billion barrels a day. that is existing. you have not seen anyone trying to shut those down. the concern is with the

expansion. the proposal is to aaa hand quintupled that in. i do not see how canada can do all of that and to meet climate targets. if anything, we have to wretched down. -- ratchet down. there is a concern that to alberto wants to pursue massive expansion. that is not keeping with climate issues. we need to address aboriginal issues. proposals like type lines, that would actually and able that growth, it does not seem to make sense of you are going to be combating climate change. >> are there any circumstances

under which you would support the keystone pipeline. >> not likely. >> no matter what we did. this is the advice i have given. i think there was a proposal in alberta that was getting some traction for people in the environmental movement and all of a sudden it went from x dollars per ton to $100 a ton and everyone said oops,they are supporting our up as a. every organization i know in washington will not approve it under any circumstances. >> there is a huge conflict here. this is saying, we would like to increase our oilsands industry and in return we will protect the environment. it is not compatible. we need to be working on

climate, a deal with clean energy. that is where the opportunities are. [indiscernible] >> as we have this debate, i think you put the issue on the table. this is really about the argument of how quickly can we get to an oil renewable fuels energy environment. we are beyond keystone. and by the way, i would accept the deal that was climate-based as well as and the immigration deal. i just want you to know that. [laughter] >> while you are jumping in here, i do not want to break you from your thought. [laughter] >> but you have done it. i see it as complicated. we have treaties we have entered into. it does not seem like canada

will get there. i think they are struggling with that in the same way we are as we go through the debate about coal, fracking relative to gas and oil. unfortunately, we are at a place where for the foreseeable future we need fossil fuels. the question is, is that oil? isn't gas? is it cold? you cannot say no to oil and expect to have an economy. you need to figure out what is if you well, the lesser evils and move in that direction. as the united states increases its production of oil and gas that may be the biggest threat to keystone. it may be, if you will, that no need. i think that is a little bit of a type dream because i do not think that happens for minimally 50 years, but as this occurs,

and this has happened under the obama administration, we have had the greatest upsurge in oil and natural gas productions in the history of the country, so to be critical of him when he is , in my view, balancing issues related to coal fire plants and substituting natural gas seems wholly inconsistent and ideological. i think this is a balancing act. it is one that requires us to take these things into account and we have the environment clearly as an issue. the economy is an issue. somehow it has to come to a balance. it is a shifting mosaic. >> can i get a sense of how many members of the audience -- five or six people. ok.

danielle, do you want to jump back in on that? danielle: on the idea of where we're headed, there is no doubt we have a certain amount of fossil fuel we rely on. he question is what is the mosaic look like? how are we going to prioritize that? what the bush administration, we are not paying enough attention to clean energy and renewables and energy efficiency. with the obama administration, we have seen investment and focus. janet -- there is a wonderful clean energy technology that is moving forward. but a lot of that happens at a provincial level. there is not a central signal that has been sent. that is really what we want to see happen.

we're pushing the obama administration every single day and we think that is the way to go. believe me we spend a lot of time advocating with that administration. i think that will do a lot for the relationship. >> two years ago we had a panel like this and talked about keystone and one of the issues we kept hearing was if the pipeline is reject that this is going to go to china because we are building a pipeline to the west coast. can you update us on how that is going? >> the prime minister gave an extraordinary interview at the end of 2011 to one of our television networks. he said i hear from people in washington we can make this keystone project work. i told him, that is fine but we are going in a now their direction now.

the direction was westward towards china. he made the biggest official visit of his time as prime minister. they brought to back can do, it was lovely. then they discovered a couple things. first of all, if we buy things in china, they expect us to buy things in canada. including alberta. the conservative base of canada which is very leery about doing what is -- doing business with what is still a communist government. the president was slow to implement a bilateral investment treaty will stop his great ambition to increase imports to asia has not gone away. in fact, imports to other

countries has increased. but to china, does not work. >> you mentioned president bush. i think we had 600,000 barrels a day in his eight years come from canada to the united states. we are -- we are at one million barrels a day with obama. the issue is how it is getting there. on clean energy, we are all for that idea, too. we have proposed faster, more decisive transmissions for clean energy. sometimes we get certain states that supports hydro being defined as renewable. in some states, if it is small it is renewable but if it is bigger it is not renewable. what is your position on hydro being defined as renewable. >> it is renewable energy by

definition. that is a part of the conversation that we need to be spending more time on. there is quite a bit of hydro coming down from canada to the united states. there is an interest in sending more. hydro is more of a complicated issue than wind or solar. if there is existing can pass at the that can be ramped up there is opportunity there. those are issues that can be worked through. that is the transition we need to go. where is the infrastructure and -- opportunities. it will likely be canada. there may be some from the united states back to canada but mostly it is from canada back to the united states. it is not going to be easy because it is not automatic for some of these. what is renewable, what is not.

the power plants, there is an opportunity there. i want to talk about having that conversation which is really about expanding that clean energy portfolio. we're going to have difficult conversations of a fossil fuel but they do not have to be wrapped up together. >> so they consider hydro power renewable? >> it is generally considered renewable. >> i know, but sometimes we have some saying that hydro is not renewable, that only wind and solar is renewable. [laughter] [inaudible] >> let's talk about the vision thing. we may not all except that there are more irritants the end of what we have seen in the past.

i would argue there seems to be a consensus that times are tough between the two countries. what is being lost the cousin of that? so much focus is on keystone what has been planted to the side. i know you have been thinking about this. let's start with you. what opportunities are we losing in the relationship to make a more powerful north america? >> i think there is a few things. the canadian council, for example, it has a paper with proposals they would like to see the two countries work on. it was planned for earlier in the year in did not happen. now they are sitting on that. we will have an election soon in canada and there will be one here. during that time things freeze.

i think we're going towards a more frozen moment. in terms of another opportunity we are not talking about, one danger i see is this has become such a partisan issue. notwithstanding some democrats like congressman owens, it has become a big political issue. i do not know that it is healthy for canada to be a partisan issue. because, sure you get strong allies on the hill. you get republicans on your side, but the harder they advocate and push you are suddenly stuck. you get pushed into a corner. -- the president gets pushed into a corner and the pressure on him is enormous. we are now in the political fray.

how do we get out of there. >> it has become polarized and politicized. unfortunately, it the conversations have been about this foreign corporation or this foreign country. what are we doing for this foreign country? we are unfortunately looking at the border and putting ourselves in that. you have to look at it more broadly. the united states and canada has a unique opportunity to be a political player in the world. if we combine our resources, it will change the dynamics. in the middle east, we are somewhere in the world we do not want to be. there is an opportunity to change the dialogue. what cannot north america do as a powerhouse around the world? we look at canada as something

they are trying to do for themselves. not something we are doing together and how it will benefit the united states. look at the world and how it will be viewed through the eyes of united states and canada working together. we could be energy-secure soon and that would change the world dynamics on much more than it just energy. bags anyone who wants to ask a question, make your way to the microphone. >> i think when you talk about understanding what we have nafta countries represent the 5% of the world's gdp. that is a significant and important fact. we have lost the opportunity to push ahead he yawned the border. it has lost some steam. the regulatory counsel may be more important than the beyond the border program because that would reduce the cost to

companies on both sides of the border. get, if you will, standards aligned. we have become focused on this issue and it has taken attention away. it has taken dollars over they. it has become a political talking point. each side uses it in the best of caucus politics to drive home their point of view but it is not constructive and and it is seriously taking away from our ability to drive this north american that juggernaut that we have. when we think about what is going on in the ukraine. the ability crisis. the middle east. -- the ebola crisis. the middle east. we have to help become

self-sufficient. what are we missing? we're missing the opportunity to improve our ability to trade amongst ourselves. >> the gdp will be interesting when we get to it. when we deal with republicans and democrats who support us on proposals, sometimes the majority of them are republicans and sometimes the majority of who we are dealing with on the bridge are the democratic administration. so, we have to mix it up with everybody in the public interest of canada and it changes. but, the longer we hear the conversation on water policy and clean energy and some of the other things we're going to have to deal with in the future are very important. when the prime minister in the president get together, they spend about 80% of the time on how we keep the world safer in

tal we keep our neighborhood safer. they spend a few minutes on the pipeline, it it is important but they spend most of their time about how do we keep this world safer and how do we continue to work together effectively as allies. how do we make sure we are coordinating our efforts at issa with the pentagon, the white house, and the state department. our government in ottawa, on the border the credibility we have with the law enforcement agency is not only working together, but training the staff. i think in five years we will be described in very positive terms because we went from an agenda to a plan. it won't make the news, it won't be twittered her tweeter door whatever, but it is really going to be slow and deliberate.

a regulatory reform, even little things like and agricultural mishap or a situation with the help of some animal on this side of the border, we used to have a policy in place where we closed down the border on both sides. now we contain it locally. those are substantive differences. i think the biggest opportunity or challenge we're going to have between our two countries is in water. we have 20% of the water in the great lakes alone. we have three oceans we share. we have waterfront opportunities and disputes every day going east to west. that will be interesting when we are on the panel in five years we will be talking about water. >> keystone? [laughter] >> it will be keystone k freestone?

[laughter] >> maybe that is an obvious reason why safety trumps trade. >> you sought with the horrible tragedy october 22 in quebec. that is what they get up every morning talking about. after the fort hood murders that took place, we talked about domestic terrorist threats in both of our countries at every meeting we had. that consumes most of our time. not an immediate time. that is mostly on the pipeline. in die enjoy it. [laughter] -- and i enjoy it. [laughter] >> danielle, what is being lost aaron terms of the big picture? a wider vision for the future of

america. our two countries. and possibly mexico. in terms of the focus on some of the irritants that we have had for the last six years. >> i am going to do a little repeating here but hopefully cover some new ground. if we're going to look at the relationship between obama and harper, obama is focused on climate. climate as one of the key legacies this president wants to carry on. not just keystone. there is a whole lot of things the obama administration is pursuing. the package will put us back in place as one of the worlds power as a leader in cleared -- as a leader in clean energy. we have to look for that common ground. i think there is common ground in clean energy.

president harper and obama signed this clean energy dialogue. i would like to say it is robust on clean energy and ccs. the opportunity is much greater they are in the dialogue is currently pursuing. we're rolling up our sleeves and looking at it more intensively. delegating it to groups of people below the two leaders said they do not have to worry about it being about them but the epa and environment canada working together. that is where we have a future. before he and, i want to make sure i acknowledge there is some really important clean energy work going on in canada with the provinces. there has been concerns with the federal government, but truly ontario, quebec, bc.c. are clearly the best compared with some of the united states.

there's certainly a lot going on there. because of that, i think it has barely gotten us conversation going. the federal government actually steps up a end we have that relationship across canada and with the united states. >> you mentioned the provinces. introduce yourself and tell us who you are. >> i am rob mayfield. i represent alberta. we just had our premier here a couple weeks ago. he wants to take the dialogue a lot prouder than just keystone. if you are in the oil business you are also in the environment business. we are recognized by the world bank as first in class in reducing methane. first in class, we put about

$300 per man woman and child in alberta in carbon capture. no place has a price on carbon that goes into reducing greenhouse gas emissions. the oil sands of alberta just announced the addition of fresh water. i do not see any of that coming from other places that has higher emissions than alberta or canada. i do not see any kind of restrictions on energy from any of the middle east or african countries that we bring oil into. so here we are, america's largest friend and ally feeling like we should be your enemy because your enemy gets a good much better than your ally and it does not make sense. this is a ridiculous position because there

and we should be and get that into an environmental liking a lot when we should work on being first in class in the continent and energy independent as the entire north american economy that would be the envy of the world and exports and best in class to the world, to our allies instead of our enemies. i'd like to ask a question as to -- yeah -- i get the comments from -- from the panel on exactly, you know, whether they see it the same way whether -- >> some of them are and some of them aren't. >> my venezuelan issue is not attacked the same way. >> the oil from keystone was

replaced and we reject that and we don't agree with that argument that there's more -- right now we know that venezuelan oil is on a decline so it's not real estate placement. so getting to the broader issue is what is alberta's environmental record. i used to live in alberta for five years. i know -- i know there are policies up there. right now alberta does not have a good record on environmental stewardship. there have been a number of plans that are not being implemented. they have grown to the size of washington, d.c. so you know, there are a lot of legacy issues in addition to the kriman issues. all these issues about the issues we are raising of where is the source to the united states? it's that massive oil source in

keeping the economy and stewardship. and the record in alberta the answer's no. >> i'd like to say from our side you know, we -- we trust canada more than we trust venezuela, nigeria and others. if someone's going to do it right, canada will do it right. there's a transparency issue. canada is transparent. if we want to know what canada is doing, they represent well. we know what's going on in canada. let's do business there. let's do business with somebody we know what's going on and how they're doing this and what their plan is for the future. we're not holding panels like this for venezuela. we're holding it with canada and we're having an open dialogue with it. and that's beneficial. this is the table. we keep talking about tables. this is the table. we're not having a table with venezuela. this is the real table that we're having discussions with. >> i gather that you change your minds -- >> go ahead.

>> three minutes left. >> 750,000 barrels a day from venezuela. i theard it was all going to disappear from people close to the pipeline. the state department puts in a report it will displace venezuelan oil. it will if you're look at 7,000 barrels from the ball can and 730 from the proposals from the oil sands despite the venezuelan oil. it bumps about 750,000 to 800,000 barrels a day. >> the environmental protection agency doesn't agree with that. >> this is stats in the u.s. department of energy produced last week. >> we can agree to disagree. >> those aren't opinions. those are facts. >> we went beyond keystone. >> just to wrap up here, we secureyed over a couple of the other things. we don't have time to delve

into it in great detail. those are things we can deal with. maybe we should have gone another half hour. i think we should have gone another half hour. >> you know, when you talk about country of origins we've lost now a couple of times in various world -- third appeal. seems to me that the solution to that is to simply indicate on the packaging that we have beef made or coming from canada and the united states. solve the problem? resolves the cool issue if you will. but does give the consumer knowledge about where the product is coming from. and that's a big piece, i think of what our responsibilities are in the united states. you know, when you look around at the issues we've been talking about, we're looking for tables. i agree with the ambassador. >> next panel's going to have a table -- >> you know, much of what happens -- at the top of the

pyramid is the security issue and it is paramount. i think that's a fair discussion for the prime minister and the president to be having. you know, we have lots of other groups. you mentioned the council of c.e.o.'s in canada. we have the canadian american business council. we have other groups that could be handling these issues if, in fact some of it was pushed down. i think many of us believe that that's where these proposals should come from because they will get the proper amount of attention. >> do you want a quick country of origin label. we continue to fight those from the canadian side? >> i come from a province -- >> 20 seconds. >> we would -- the -- it would be raised in minnesota and processed in iowa. so i think people want to know where their food comes from. there's got to be a way to deal with that reality and not -- we won three case. we're going to win a fourth. we'd rather negotiate than

retaliate would be our view. >> what do you think? >> it will be healthy and will don't be healthy between the united states and canada. >> we'll see how the court case plays out not with standing those here. i want to thank all of our panelists for being here. it's been an enlightning conversation here at the table. it's been good to have you in the audience with us tonight. continue to at least continue the dialogue and i suppose as long as everybody's talking maybe not the two guards at the top but as long as the rest of us keep talking about the issue there's always a way to work our way through it. so thank y'all for being here. thank you again here in the audience. and we'll see you next time. thank you. [applause]

>> next, a former committee hearing on the russian ukrainian conflict. and then un.n. ambassador talking about relations between the u.s. and israel. a your calls a comment on "washington journal." -- and your calls and comments on "washington journal." >> you achieve a combination and washington is -- was a large man . six foot, very robust, terrific, natural athlete.

madison is a scheming, little guy. >> tonight on q&a historian on founding father madison. >> his gift i write most about is to form remarkable partnerships with the great people of his era but also alludes to his gift to the country and his talent and what tools able to do to help create the first self-sustaining constitutional republic. >> tonight at 8:00 central -- eastern on q&a. >> and wonder if the u.s. will send u.s. aid. witnesses included victoria nul and. she recently returned from a

trip to the region where she met with leaders of georgia and armenia. this is just over two hours. >> welcome. the this hearing will come to order in our topic today as some thought of vladimir putin would stop them and not sell. last april, we led -- we had

eight members of the delegation and we went into a bordering town of donetsk. and i have to share with the members that many ukrainians and these are russian speaking ukrainians mr. angle and i met with wanted to be ukrainians and did not want to be separatist. we spoke to groups there, the lawyers' groups, the jewish group. varies and is minorities, the mayor -- a various ethnic minorities, the mayor. and, i can just share with the members here what alan will attest to.

one of the thoughts shared with us is it seems russia has recruited every skinhead in the russian speaking world and are trying to bring them into the east. we can spot them. they are coming in from russia in order to try overthrow our government. and, so we of seeing the situation where moscow moved from crimea to aggressively supporting militant separatists in easter ukraine and branding russian troops into the country. and russia may now try to secure a land bridge to crimea. that is the great concern here and that was the worry we heard that they were further expanded this conflict and might try to seize the port.

now, when we talk to the u.n. agencies on the ground and they count over six thousand civilians that have been killed in this conflict. there are 1.7 million ukrainians that have now made refugees. to date, the actions taken by the u.s. and allies including economic sanctions and aid and diplomatic isolation have not checked putin. indeed over the past year, he has become emboldened and even in medicine nato countries. the obama administration our european allies have put hope in cease-fire arrangements but it is not working. last week, i met with the first deputy speaker of the ukrainian parliament who said his country urgently needs antitank weapons such as the javelin. he needs radar to pinpoint enemy

fire in order to counter, to suppress that artillery. and he needs communications equipment to overcome jamming. ukrainian force cannot imagine the advanced equipment that russian is ported to eastern ukraine. by the way, when you see tanks come into eastern ukraine, those are not ukrainians in those tanks. those are russians. there is no shortage of the will to fight, only a shortage of defensive weapons. but at the committee's hearing last week, secretary kerry said that president obama has still not made a decision on whether to send defensive lethal military aid to ukraine. six months after president poroshenko told a joint session of congress, in his words, "one cannot win the war with blankets," it was not surprising but still discouraging to see him have to shop for defensive

weapons, and unfortunately, it has been very, very difficult, and i was discouraged to read in this week's "wall street journal," that the agreement keeps ukraine in the dark. satellite images are delayed and obscured, making them less useful. and they are approaching countries like canada to share information. this is not u.s. leadership. moscow is also undermining ukraine's economy. today, russia is using it natural gas and other energy sources for political coercion and to generate economic chaos in the country. ukraine is facing an economic precipice. it desperately needs help.

russia is when it the airwaves and they are -- winning on the airwaves and they are doing it by bouncing out conspiracy theories and propaganda anyone who has monitored what has been up on the air is well aware that this propaganda is offensive, is and at sowing confusion and undermining opposition to its aggression in ukraine and elsewhere, but we are barely in the game of countering this with the facts. as i told the secretary last week, i would like to see more administration support for the effort mr. engle and i have taken to perform our international broadcasting. the broadcasting board of governors is broken. if we cannot begin to change minds, then the struggle over ukraine today will become a generational struggle for the future of eastern europe. ukraine's fate has security implications for well beyond its borders. now, we passed this bill into the senate last year. we were not able to bring it up and get it out of the senate. we did not have the

administration support for it. but we have vented this and have a great deal of support in the this institution for getting back up on the air with radio free europe, radio liberty type broadcasting we did years ago with great effect with the message that will get the truth effectively into eastern europe and into russia. it is time for strong and unwavering support of ukraine. it is time for this right now, and many of these committee members on this committee are concerned u.s. policy toward ukraine may soon become too little, too late, and i now turn to the ranking member for any opening remarks that mr. engle of new york might wish to make. representative engle: thank you very much, mr. chairman. and thank you for calling this very timely and important hearing. after the outset i want to acknowledge pregnant desperate his best in the audience and --

and i want to acknowledge participants in the audience and ambassador nuland, welcome back. let me say i had the pleasure of working with you and i am a fan of your hard work. thank you for all you do. in ukraine, the events of the past year and the ongoing russian aggression threatens the security and stability of the entire region and undermines decades of american commitment to and investment in a europe that is whole, free, and an is. this is a threat to the whole international order. today, we face a great questions. what can and should be done, and who should contribute to solving this problem? the united states is providing substantial assistance to the government of ukraine, including billions of dollars in loan guarantees and nonlethal military aid. we have also imposed significant sanctions on russia.

we have sanctions officials on russia's aggression in ukraine and targeted key sectors of the russian economy. and we have seen results. russia's economy has been taking on water, and this has only been magnified by the recent and oil -- recent dip in oil prices. these policies are good but only up to a point. they do not go far enough, in my opinion. russia's military gains in ukraine have slowed, but putin continues to grab a land along the line of contact in violation of the minsk peace prior agreement, which mandates that russian-supported rebels pull back their forces. the government in kiev is committed to reform, but leaders their struggle every day to preserve ukrainian sovereignty and while our financial assistance has kept ukraine's economy afloat, they still confront a bleak economic outlook in the risk of a financial meltdown loom large. now, when ukraine gave up their

arsenal, the u.s. made a commitment to help protect ukrainian territorial integrity. it was also made by china, russia, other countries as well. now our commitment is being tested. let me also say that i think nato made a grave mistake in 2008 when it refused to admit ukraine and georgia into nato. i know that germany and france resisted, the united states tried to push it, it did not work, and i think we are paying the price today. i do not think putin would have been as aggressive if ukraine was part of nato. so, last month, i met with president poroshenko. i met with him in europe, his request was simple. provide ukraine with key weapons and military technology to defend itself. specifically, ukraine needs light, antitank missiles to protect itself against missiles attacking heavy russian-supplied armor, not to evict thousands of russian troops inside ukrainian borders.

ukraine needed countered battery radar to pinpoint attacking artillery and tanks, not to win a protracted war against russia's military, and ukrainian needs a better communication technology to deal with russian efforts to jam their signals not to advance on moscow. i was laughing when -- at that conference in munich, that is -- madam secretary you and i , both attended, to hear the russian foreign minister denying that russian troops were in ukraine, saying it was just ukrainian rebels. lies, lies, and more lies. i've spoken on the house floor calling on our government to supply defensive weapons to ukraine. mr. chairman, and i know you agree with me, ukraine is not going to win a war against russia, but it can impose a greater cost on vladimir putin's aggression and slow russia's

advances, and it has a chance to remain on its feet when all is said and done, if it can impose a greater cost on putin's aggressive it and slow russia's advances. "top play" the yet they've resisted providing such assistance. to be sure, there are risks involved but also there are risks in allowing putin to continue his aggression and threaten other neighbors on russia's periphery and if russia's progression of -- progressive pressure reaches our allies, the danger to europe increases and the danger to the nato alliance increases. in december congress unanimously passed the ukraine support act and authorized the position of defensive aid. i was proud to lead efforts to pass this legislation and happy

that president obama signed it. but i have been disappointed that the administration has not used any of the tools provided in this law. it's time to ask the hard question are we willing to stand up to vladimir putin's aggression before he kills more people does more economic damage further destabilizes europe and threaten our allies or are the risks so great we'll simply cut our losses? as time passes, our options grow fewer and less effective. that's why i'm announcing today my plan to introduce new legislation. it will offer ukraine greater assistance on a variety of fronts. it will dial up the pressure on vladimir putin for his reckless destructive, and destabilizing policies and send a clear message that the united states stands with the people of ukraine against russian aggression. i look forward to working with chairman royce and other colleagues as we move ahead

with this effort. and finally, let me just add that our european allies need to confront these same questions of strategy and political will. in my view, wealthy countries such as germany, france, and others have a lot more skin in the game economically and strategically. they should be doing more to assist ukraine on the economic front as they seem even less willing as we are to provide needed military assistance. they should double down, dig deep and ensure ukraine does not ensure a financial meltdown. this would be a win-win keeping ukraine solvent and preventing a greater catastrophe on the e.u. borders. the people of ukraine are watching and the government in kiev are watching and the whole world is watching. we cannot sit idly by and allow putin to continue his aggression. again, ambassador newlin, thank you for appearing today and i look forward to your testimony.

>> so this morning we are very pleased to be joined by ambassador victoria nuland and before assuming her position as assistant secretary for the bureau of european and eurasia affairs with the department of state, ambassador nuland served as the department of state's spokesperson and also served as the united states permanent representative to the north atlantic treaty organization from 2005 to 2008 and she focused heavily on nato russia issues during that period of time. and without objection, the witness's full prepared statement is going to be made part of the record. members will have five calendar days to submit any statements to the committee and any questions and extraneous materials for the record which we'll ask the ambassador to respond to in writing. so we would ask, ambassador if you would please summarize your remarks and then go to questions. >> thank you very much chairman royce ranking member engle, members of this

committee for having me back today to speak about the situation in ukraine and for your personal investment in that country's future. let me also take this opportunity to say that we share this committee's sadness and outrage over the murder of freedom fighter and russian patriot and friend to many of us, bories them so -- boris nemtsov. the outpouring of concern demonstrates bipartisanship respect for those in russia and across the region working for reform clean government, justice and dignity. today ukraine is central to our 25-year effort for a europe whole, free, and at peace. with your permission, i'd like to focus on three areas in particular today, first on the hard work that ukraine is doing with u.s. and international support to build a more democratic independent and european country. second, i'll address both the opportunity that russia has to

implement the february and september minsk agreements as well as the further costs the united states and our european allies will have to impose if minsk is further violated and focus on three other threats to european security we are working on, energy vulnerability, corruption and propaganda noted by the chairman that the ukraine conflict brings in high release and all we're doing on them. first, a quick reminder of why we are here. 14 months ago the kiev and towns across ukraine acorrupted in peaceful protest by ordinary ukrainians who were fed up with the sleazy, corrupt regime bent on cheating its people of its democratic choice for a more european future. they braved frigid temperatures, brutal beatings and sniper bullets. ultimately the leader of that rotten regime fled the country and then was voted out by the parliament including most members of his own party and

then ukraine began to forge a new nation on its own terms. i want to take a small opportunity here to highlight the very hard work your counterparts in the new ukrainian ratta have undertaken since being ceded in november. the rada has been a beehive of activity passing laws to fight corruption in the public and private sector, to reduce government efficiency and strengthen the banking system, to clean up the energy sector, to establish a new police service, to improve the climet for business and attract new investment. it's also been moving forward on political decentralization to give the ukrainian regions more authority in advance of local elections. these reforms have been politically difficult but they will also stabilize the economy. and we're seeing it start to stabilize even today and they will also support the swift disbursement of i.m.f. and other international donor support. i can ask you only to imagine

what it would have been like if you had been asked to pass that much legislation that quickly and painfully. as ukraine has stood up, the united states and our european allies and partners have stood with her. this past year, the united states provided almost $355 million in foreign assistance to strengthen energy assistance, to aid ukraine's poor citizens as gas costs rise to help fight corruption, to strengthen the ukrainian border guard and its military, $118 million in security support alone and to support political reforms, elections, and clean government. and there's more on the way. as secretary kerry testified last week, the president's budget includes an fy-2016 request of $510.5 million, almost six times than our fy-2014 request to build on these efforts. today we're working with europe, the ukrainians and i.m.f. to strengthen the country's economy and support the government's reform plan

particularly in implementing this package of legislation, including a new $1 billion u.s. loan guarantee and up to another $1 billion later in 2015 if you and we agree that the conditions warrant and if ukraine is able to meet its reform targets. this brings me to my second point. even as ukraine has begun building a peaceful, democratic independent nation across 94% of its territory crime eea and eastern ukraine have suffered a reign of terror and today crimea remain knuckleball especially the ukrainians who won't give up their passports and lgbt citizens. in eastern ukraine russia and its separatist puppets have unleashed unspeakable violence and pillage.

hundreds of russian heavy weapons and troops have poured across the border. a commercial airliner was shot down this smven and the dunsk airport was obliterated. and a political activist is on day 182 of her hunger strike. and if fell to separatists 12 days after the minsk agreement was signed. overall, 1.7 million ukrainians have been forced out of their homes and over 6,000 have lost their lives. the united states and the e.u. have worked in lock step to impose successive rounds of tough sanctions, including deep sectoral sanctions on russia and its separatist cronies as a cost for these actions. those sanctions are biting deeply on the russian economy. our unity with europe with regard to ukraine remains the cornerstone of our policy towards this crisis and a

fundamental element of our strengths in standing up to russian aggression. it's in that spirit that we salute the efforts of german chancellor merkel and french president hollande in minsk february 12 to try again with president poroshenko and president putin to end the fighting. the minsk package of agreements september 5, september 19, and the february 12 implementing agreement offer the promise of peace, disarmament, political normalization and decentralization in eastern ukraine and along with them the return of ukraine's state sovereignty and border control in the east. for some in ukraine conditions have begun to improve. in parts of the east, the guns have been silenced and the osce has begun to gain access. but the picture is very, very mixed and just today we have

osce reports of new heavy shelling from separatist positions around the him dunask airport and outside the towns of mariopel including shaukina and reports of a new 17th russian convoy going over the border from russia into ukraine with no opportunity for ukraine or the icrc to inspect that convoy and we all know what they've contained in the past. so in the coming days here is what we and our international partners have to see. we need to see a complete cease-fire. all along the cease-fire line in ukraine. we have to see full, unfettered access to the whole zone for osc imam force and have to see a full pullback of all heavy weapons as stipulated in the agreement. if fully implemented, these steps will bring peace to eastern ukraine for the first time in almost a year. and they will also allow for

the implementation of the follow on steps of minsk, namely access for ukraine to its citizens in the east so they can begin a political dialogue and they can begin real work with their own population and eventually so we can see that international border closed. as we have long said, the united states will start to roll back sanctions on russia when the minsk agreements are fully implemented and so will our european partners. as the president has also said, we will judge russia by its actions, no its words. we have already begun this week intensive consultations with our european partners on further sanctions pressure should russia continue fueling the fire in the east of ukraine or other parts of the country fail to implement mins can or grab more land as we saw in bulutsova. traditional military force is

only one of the threats to european security we are working on. there are others including energy dependence from a single, unreliable source, the cancer of corruption and the kremlin's pervasive propaganda campaign where truth is no obstacle. we're working across all those fronts to harden european resilience to these new threats. just briefly, and there's more in my longer statement on energy security project by project, we're working with the e.u. and key countries to change europe's energy landscape and make it more security, resilient and diverse. on corruption, we're working with governments civil society and the business community, particularly across central and eastern europe and the balkans to close the space for dirty money to go in and undercut democratic institution and pervert the business environment. and on russia's propaganda, we're working with the broadcast board of governors to ramp up efforts to counter lies with truth. we're also requesting more than

$20 million in foreign assistance and public diplomacy funds for state department programs to counter russian propaganda. mr. chairman, mr. ranking member members of this committee, america's investment in ukraine is about far more than protecting the choice of a single democratic european country. it's about protecting the rule based system across europe and globally and about saying no to borders changed by force and big countries intimidating small, and to demanding spheres of influence. it's also, as you said, mr. chairman and mr. ranking member, about protecting the promise of a europe whole, free and at peace. i thank each of you and i thank this committee as a whole for its bipartisan support and commitment to these policies. thank you very much. i look forward to your questions. >> thank you, ambassador nuland. as i mentioned in my opening statement, i do have concerns

that are intelligence sharing is really in name only when it comes to ukraine and i know we can't get into great details here on this but do you believe our intelligence sharing with ukrainian is robust enough for them to protect themselves? because we get the information from them about the struggle they're having. we know the canadians are trying to assist them in this. but, you know, at the end of the day, they've got to prevail against these russian backed rebel forces and russian forces that are on their territory now with tanks. >> mr. chairman, in this unclassified setting, let me simply say that our intelligence cooperation with ukraine, as well as with the ukrainian intelligence services and armed forces has been improving over time. there are certain constraints, as you know, but we are continuing to look at what more we can do in a manner that protects our own assets and

that we're sure will be used properly. >> let me ask you another question because i notice from the head of nato to the director of national intelligence to the new defense secretary, it seems like nearly every u.s. official supports providing defensive weapons to the ukrainians. and indeed a letter from many members of congress including myself, mr. engle, the speaker, will soon go to the president on this subject. where are we on this decision? because president poroshenko continues his appeal to us, obviously. >> thank you, mr. chairman. as i mentioned in my testimony, as you know, we have provided $118 million in security and border assistance to date. this is all in the defensive

nonlethal area but some of it is on the high end of defensive, including the very important counterfire radar batteries we were able to provide just over the last few months which ukrainians report to us have saved lives, particularly in the most intensive conflicts around donask airports and bulutsova. with regard to the question of providing more lethal assistance as my secretary, secretary kerry testified last week, that question is still under discussion and the president has not made a decision. >> i want to get back to this issue of russian tanks firing on cities and ukrainian positions. if they cannot get precision tanks or weapons to use on the ground, there isn't the capability to stop those tanks. and we're not talking about, you know, transferring offensive weaponry like tanks

or selling those to ukraine. what we're talking about are weapons that are purely defensive but are absolutely necessary if there's going to be any credible deterrence to what the russians are doing town by town now in the east. the request here, you know, isn't for more blankets or meals. i saw the inventory of what we sent them. what they're requesting is quite precise, defensive weaponry that will allow them to hold their positions. >> well, mr. chairman, as i said, these issues are still under review including the types of equipment that you note, which would bond directly to some of the russian supply. just to state for the record here, some of what we are seeing we have since december seen russia transfer hundreds of pieces of military equipment to pro russian tanks, rocket

systems, heavy artillery. >> part of the point i'm making is this isn't all being transferred to russian separatists. there's no way the separatists are in those tanks. they're not the tankers -- they're not driving those tanks. those are russian soldiers driving those tanks. i would just make the point to not decide is to decide. >> understood. and that's the point we'd make. lastly, per your observation on the broadcasting, i just wanted to make the point in terms of the dysfunction, yesterday it was reported that the new c.e.o. of the agency, andy lack, in terms of the b.b.g., is resigning his post after six weeks on the job. now, we know the problems that staff and others have had over at the b.b.g.. weaver heard from former

secretary clinton that the agency is defunct. myself and eliot engel and other members of this committee put a lot of time and effort working with those who have a very real interest in reforming this, getting a consensus. that legislation is necessary to get this agency back up to the business that it did very well in the 1980's in terms of disseminating information into russia and into eastern europe. that legislation needs to have support from the administration, and i would just leave you with that request, ambassador. >> may i just quickly respond -- >> yes. >> as you know, secretary kerry said we do join you in supporting reform of the b.b.g. we're working with you on that. we have some differences, slight, with your proposed legislation. but i do want to do a shoutout to b.b.g. and its affiliates

for the work they have been doing over the last year to counter russian propaganda and to particularly support broadcasting in ukraine and devoted $22.6 million to russian language programming, 104% increase. their r.o.l. has launched a russian language program current time which helps fill the gap in clean news that's being pulled down by broadcasters all across the periphery of russia and parts of the russian speaking populations in ukraine are also receiving it. and they are now reaching about 6.6 million viewers. so they have been good partners to us and our budget request supports doing more together. >> we follow that very closely. >> good. >> and we also are in consultation with those in theater about the effectiveness. and trust us when we say reforming the b.b.g. is necessary at this time. we have to be able to take some

decisive actions to get this back up and running the way it worked effectively in the 1980's. i'm going to go to mr. engle of new york the ranking member of this committee, for his questions. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and madam secretary, let me also put my weight behind what our chairman has said. i agree with every word he said. i want to read you the first part of a report put out by radio free europe and radio liberty yesterday, and i'd like you to comment on it. u.s. commander says 12,000 russian soldiers in eastern ukraine, the u.s. military estimates 12,000 russian soldiers are supporting pro moscow separatists in eastern ukraine, u.s. army europe commander ben hodges say the russian forces are made up of military advisors, weapons operators and combat troops. he also said 29,000 russian

crooms are in crimea. and march 3, helping ukraine with weapons would increase the stakes for russian president vladimir putin at home. and added when mothers start seeing sons come home dead, when that price goes up and that domestic support for putin fins to shrink, hodges said that with a ukraine wants is intelligence counterfire capability and something that can stop a russian tank. the white house hasn't decided to send weapons to ukraine and hodges wants a diplomatic solution. he also said u.s. plans to train three ukrainian battalions have been put on hold to see if a cease-fire forged last month in minsk will be fully imflemented and the chairman of the u.s. joint chief of staff also voiced support for arming ukraine on march 3. speaking before the armed

services committee, he said washington should absolutely consider providing diive with arms through nato and he said the ultimate goal was to fracture nato and would add to stabilize ukraine. and meanwhile, u.s. president barack obama and european leaders have agreed a strong reaction would be necessary if the minsk cease-fire agreement is violated. you know, it's almost like when i was a little boy and gary used to tell this story, too, his mother would tell him to do something and she would say i'm going to count to three and you better have this done when it's three and she'd go one two, and then 2 quarter 2 1/2 2 3/4 and give it more and more time. that seems to me what we're doing. we are so waiting and hoping that things happen that putin really in my opinion just looks at this as a sign of weakness and i think the strongest thing we can do now is to provide

kiev with defensive, lethal weapons. >> well, thank you, mr. ranking member. obviously this hearing gives us an opportunity for all of you on both sides of the aisle to i would said in my testimony, that we are watching very intensively whether or not the february 12 minsk agreements are implemented and cited some concerns today following on the vicious taking of dbultasva and we have other tools in our arrests necessarily including deep -- arsenal and deepening sanctions and are in concert with allies in how that would go if we see more violations. >> in your written statement you wrote, in the coming days, not weeks or months, we need to see full unfettered access to the conflict zone including all separatist held territory for

osc imam tores. does this include territory along the border with russia and will we press for osce's ability to inspect the humanitarian convoys entering ukraine from russia? >> we have been pressing for that and in particular at the two border posts osce has been able to mom story on the border. unfortunately, these convoys seem to find roads 10 kilometers north or 10 kilometers south of where the osc imam tores are and just wing right by but yes, the minsk implementation agreement on february 12 calls for the in the first instance of monitoring and verification of cease-fire along the internal line as well as these pullbacks of heavy weapons. what is required by the agreement is not simply to see tanks and artillery pieces on roads moving back but to be able to count them and to be able to see them in permanent storage, to be able to come back on a regular basis to ensure that they haven't moved

or been redeployed elsewhere but also eventually to be able to have access to the entire special status area and that will certainly be necessary if the political pieces of minsk are to be elected etc., so we can be sure it's free and fair and other osce elements can get in. >> let me ask you a final question. i'm really concerned that the minsk implementation agreement does not provide ukraine control over its own border with russia until the end of this year following constitution reform in ukraine that is acceptable to russia. can you allay my fears and help me make sense of this? >> you are correct, mr. ranking member, that the way the implementation agreement was sequenced on february 12 restoring ukrainian sovereignty on the eastern border is the last item and it doesn't happen

until the send of 2015 but as i said if my statement, we are also firm with our allies and partners and that means we will not be rolling back stangeses -- sanctions on russia until minsk is fully implemented and part of what we have. now, the ukrainians, as you know, are in the process of working intensively now to reform the constitution, the rada has taken new steps to accelerate this work including the bill i mentioned to provide greater powers to the regions even in advance to all the regions of ukraine, even in advance of constitutional reform. so we are cautiously optimistic that with european and u.s. help there will be constitutional reform in ukraine in 2015 that will meet the standards and we'll see whether the separatists are willing to work with the government and whether we actually have elections and new eastern ukrainian authorities who can work on decentralization there. >> thank you. i think you hear my frustrations the chairman's

frustrations but thank you personally for your hard work and good work. thank you. >> thank you very much mr. engle. i would recognize myself and adam ambassador, many members of our committee will continue to hammer the obama administration on this damaging and unnecessary and senseless delay in providing the lethal aid that ukraine so desperately needs, so you will continue to hear this line of questioning because despite this fragile cease-fire, ukraine continues to suffer casualties at the hands of separatists backed by moscow and the ukraine government fears that putin's thugs are simply using this opportunity to cease-fire to regroup their forces in preparation of yet another offensive. ukraine is in such tragic need of lethal aid from the u.s. and as you heard, both the head of our nation's intelligence

community and the head of our defense department agree. yet just last week, secretary kerry testified before our committee, as you heard from the chairman and the ranking member, that no decision on lethal aid has been made yet. so we ask and continue to ask what is the holdup? our allies need our assistance now. enough with the excuses. so in what part of the interagency process is the decision on lethal aid for ukraine currently stalled? does the department -- state department believe that the united states should send lethal

aid to ukraine? yes or no. and you said that the president has not made a decision yet, but you didn't say what you believe and what the state department believes. i would like to hear that. also, the act and list, the tragic murder a few days ago of the russian opposition leader came just days, as we know, as he was about to publish evidence of the russian military in ukraine. have his murderers been sanctioned as human rights violators under the act? and can you give us an update on the progress or lack thereof of adding names on that act so we can sanction those violators? and also secretary kerry has said that russian foreign minister lied to his face about russian involvement in ukraine. what is the extent of russian involvement? are russian solders in ukraine? are we prepared to say that? participating in the conflict? and on the 1-2-3 agreement, i'll ask you to give me written responses to these because there's a series of questions. i have been advocating for the administration to withdraw from the u.s.-russia nuclear

cooperation agreement, the 1-2-3 agreement to prevent the potential future use of u.s. nuclear technology and assistance against our own interests. and given putin's continued aggression, will the administration suspend the russia 1-2-3 agreement? lastly, i have been critical how the administration plans on using funds to provide democracy -- to promote democracy and human rights in russia especially after 2012 when putin kicked out usaid from russia. please update the committee on what the administration plans to do with that money that is been left over from the russia -- u.s.-russia investment fund. >> that's a lot, congresswoman. let me go a through them quickly. thank you for letting me take the 1, 2, 3 question in writing. i want to make sure we get it right. with regard to the process, the

president did ask cabinet agencies for recommendations and advice. those recommendations and advice have gone forward to him. i think you will forgive me if i take the same position my secretary took when he was here that we will provide that advice confidentially and i'll decline to speak to it in an open hearing. with regard to the brutal murder of boris, i think you know before this we had met our annual statutory requirement to provide more names under the legislation, but that was before this event. so as we look at our list at the end of this year, we will see what we can learn about who the perpetrators are. we have made absolutely clear publicly and privately to the russian federation that the international community will expect an investigation that meets international standards and that finds not only the shooter but the orderer of the murder. >> not headed by putin.

heading the investigation. i know my time is expiring, but if we were to add -- aggressively add more names to that list of human rights violators, i think that we would see a change and russia knows we are not serious about implementing that legislation. but, i would love to get the answers to my questions in writing. thank you. we go to brad sherman of california. >> ambassador, one thing i noticed about your opening statement was your lavish praise. the ukrainian parliament passing so much substantive legislation and you compared it to congress. >> i didn't compare it. >> i would just note for the record and maybe it wasn't a comparison, but came very close, that every day someone in the administration urges me to work hard to block legislation they don't like. and 99% of the bills that the

administration does not want on the president's desk are not there due to the hard work of your allies here in congress. if you want lots of legislation passed, be sure that that is a consistent view of the administration. many of my colleagues at the beginning talked about how we need a strong policy. and, who would come here and advocate a weak policy? but we do need to put this in process. we seem to face unlimited challenges, china, south china sea, afghanistan, some difficulties in pakistan, and other places. we have to go with the strength and nuance although frankly i think in this case a little bit more strength, a little less nuance. there's talk about a -- capturing and going and building a land bridge to crimea. my concern is they want to build

a land bridge to moldova and take all of ukraine's coastal territory and access to the black sea. a lot of discussion of whether we should provide lethal weapons albeit defensive lethal weapons to ukraine. such lethal aid would have an effect on the battlefield, but also a political effect. these aren't weapons they are getting their hands on from pair these are weapons from the -- paraguay. these are weapons from the world's superpower. we can give ukraine money, we can give them weapons -- or we could give them weapons. if they had money they could buy weapons. if the ukrainian government had sufficient money, is there

anything, looking at the defensive weapons that are being discussed, that they could not buy from some source? so real question here is it can we have the battlefield effects suggested by my colleagues by providing money? >> first of all, congressman, i certainly didn't mean any invidious comparison. i was simply giving props to the -- >> i understand. ambassador nuland: with regard to your concern about a race all along the southern rim of ukrainian territory, not only a land bridge to crimea but onward to moldova, we worry about that, too. that is why we are paying such close attention today to these villages between the seas fire line -- >> if you could focus on the question i asked. ambassador nuland: with regard to what one can buy on the international market, a number

of the things that the ukrainians have requested are not readily available unless the u.s. were to license onward export, and we have a number of countries, including our allies -- >> we are just talking anti-tank weapons. i see those in world war ii movies. ambassador nuland: they have also been out shopping on the world market and have had a lot of difficulty getting countries to provide in the absence of the u.s. providing. >> yet our enemies turn money into weapons with great ease. you mentioned the importance of -- if we could have order in the committee. you mentioned the regions and the devolving power to the regions, controversial in kiev yet if power is devolved to the regions that undercuts russian propaganda. it creates more support for ukrainian state.

i have the ukrainians change their system so they could elect their own governor? >> as you know, though system is very similar to russia and other sections where they are elected. on this issue of decentralization, it is broadly popular in ukraine, not just in the east. one way they manage things was because everything was centralized.

so there is broad support for decentralization. >> hopefully electing your own governor would be part of that because they need to help themselves, not just ask for ourselves and they can help themselves a lot by countering the propaganda. we go now to -- >> i think we have a de facto defensive weapons embargo on ukraine and it is reminiscent to me and perhaps many others as a misguided fashion made sure that the croatians did not have the ability to defend themselves against milosevic's aggression. we see every prize of that happening to our good friend ukraine. the secretary of defense