[House Hearing, 113 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
UKRAINE SUPPORT ACT; URGING THE GOVERNMENT OF BURMA TO END THE
PERSECUTION OF THE ROHINGYA PEOPLE AND RESPECT INTERNATIONALLY
RECOGNIZED HUMAN RIGHTS FOR ALL ETHNIC AND RELIGIOUS MINORITY GROUPS
WITHIN BURMA; AND AFFIRMING THE IMPORTANCE OF THE TAIWAN RELATIONS ACT
=======================================================================
MARKUP
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
ON
H.R. 4278, H. Res. 418 and H. Res. 494
__________
MARCH 25, 2014
__________
Serial No. 113-152
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov/
or
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
87-333PDF WASHINGTON : 2014
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
EDWARD R. ROYCE, California, Chairman
CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American
DANA ROHRABACHER, California Samoa
STEVE CHABOT, Ohio BRAD SHERMAN, California
JOE WILSON, South Carolina GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York
MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey
TED POE, Texas GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia
MATT SALMON, Arizona THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida
TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania BRIAN HIGGINS, New York
JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina KAREN BASS, California
ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois WILLIAM KEATING, Massachusetts
MO BROOKS, Alabama DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island
TOM COTTON, Arkansas ALAN GRAYSON, Florida
PAUL COOK, California JUAN VARGAS, California
GEORGE HOLDING, North Carolina BRADLEY S. SCHNEIDER, Illinois
RANDY K. WEBER SR., Texas JOSEPH P. KENNEDY III, Massachusetts
SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania AMI BERA, California
STEVE STOCKMAN, Texas ALAN S. LOWENTHAL, California
RON DeSANTIS, Florida GRACE MENG, New York
DOUG COLLINS, Georgia LOIS FRANKEL, Florida
MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina TULSI GABBARD, Hawaii
TED S. YOHO, Florida JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas
LUKE MESSER, Indiana
Amy Porter, Chief of Staff Thomas Sheehy, Staff Director
Jason Steinbaum, Democratic Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
MARKUP OF
H.R. 4278, To support the independence, sovereignty, and
territorial integrity of Ukraine, and for other purposes....... 2
Manager's amendment to H.R. 4278 (Royce 96) offered by the
Honorable Edward R. Royce, a Representative in Congress from
the State of California, and chairman, Committee on Foreign
Affairs...................................................... 59
En bloc amendments to H.R. 4278 offered by:
The Honorable Alan Grayson (Grayson 232), a Representative
in Congress from the State of Florida.................... 79
The Honorable William Keating (Keating 27), a
Representative in Congress from the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts............................................ 79
The Honorable William Keating (Keating 28)................. 80
The Honorable Alan S. Lowenthal (Lowenthal 23), a
Representative in Congress from the State of California.. 81
The Honorable Luke Messer (Messer 120), a Representative in
Congress from the State of Indiana....................... 82
Amendments to H.R. 4278 offered by:
The Honorable Gerald E. Connolly (Connolly 98), a
Representative in Congress from the Commonwealth of
Virginia................................................. 83
The Honorable Jeff Duncan (Duncan 46), a Representative in
Congress from the State of South Carolina................ 86
The Honorable Jeff Duncan (Duncan 45)...................... 93
The Honorable Joaquin Castro (Castro 23), a Representative
in Congress from the State of Texas...................... 97
The Honorable Ted Poe (Poe 74), a Representative in
Congress from the State of Texas......................... 99
The Honorable Steve Stockman (Stockman 14), a
Representative in Congress from the State of Texas....... 101
The Honorable Tulsi Gabbard (Gabbard 1), a Representative
in Congress from the State of Hawaii..................... 102
The Honorable Matt Salmon (Salmon 40), a Representative in
Congress from the State of Arizona....................... 103
Second-degree amendment to Salmon 40 offered by the
Honorable Edward R. Royce............................ 107
The Honorable William Keating (Keating 26)................. 111
The Honorable Jeff Duncan (Duncan 46 revised).............. 115
The Honorable Gregory W. Meeks (Meeks 26), a Representative
in Congress from the State of New York................... 117
H. Res. 418, Urging the Government of Burma to end the
persecution of the Rohingya people and respect internationally
recognized human rights for all ethnic and religious minority
groups within Burma............................................ 123
Amendment in the nature of a substitute to H. Res. 418 offered
by the Honorable Edward R. Royce, the Honorable Eliot L.
Engel, a Representative in Congress from the State of New
York, the Honorable Steve Chabot, a Representative in
Congress from the State of Ohio, and the Honorable Tulsi
Gabbard (Royce 97)........................................... 127
H. Res. 494, Affirming the importance of the Taiwan Relations Act 132
Amendment in the nature of a substitute to H. Res. 494 offered
by the Honorable Edward R. Royce (Royce 94).................. 135
APPENDIX
Markup notice.................................................... 144
Markup minutes................................................... 145
Markup summary................................................... 147
The Honorable Eliot L. Engel: Material submitted for the record.. 148
UKRAINE SUPPORT ACT; URGING THE GOVERNMENT OF BURMA TO END THE
PERSECUTION OF THE ROHINGYA PEOPLE AND RESPECT INTERNATIONALLY
RECOGNIZED HUMAN RIGHTS FOR ALL ETHNIC AND RELIGIOUS MINORITY GROUPS
WITHIN BURMA; AND AFFIRMING THE IMPORTANCE OF THE TAIWAN RELATIONS ACT
----------
TUESDAY, MARCH 25, 2014
House of Representatives,
Committee on Foreign Affairs,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:06 a.m., in
room 2172 Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Edward Royce
(chairman of the committee) presiding.
Chairman Royce. This committee will come to order. Pursuant
to notice we meet today to mark up three bipartisan measures.
Without objection, all members may have 5 days to submit
statements for the record and any extraneous material on any of
today's items, and we will now call up the Ukraine Support Act,
H.R. 4278.
Without objection, the bill is considered read and open for
amendment at any point.
[The information referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Royce. And after my brief remarks I will recognize
our ranking member, Mr. Eliot Engel from New York, and then any
other members seeking recognition to speak on the bill. We will
then proceed to consideration of a manager's amendment, then to
an en bloc package of bipartisan amendments, and then to any
free standing amendments that may remain before the committee.
Now, let me make the observation that Russia's armed
intervention in Ukraine and its illegal annexation of Crimea
have created an international crisis and the danger, obviously,
is far from over. President Putin has deployed Russian forces
on Ukraine's borders and may yet attempt to carve off
additional pieces of eastern or southern Ukraine. If we wish to
prevent him from further aggression then the United States and
our allies must take immediate action to strengthen Ukraine's
sovereignty, to strengthen their independence, to target
responsible Russian officials and others in order to give the
Russians second thoughts before they take any additional
action.
This bill provides much needed assistance to Ukraine's
struggling democracy which will be tested in the Presidential
election that is scheduled there for May 25th. This includes
security assistance. It also supports the reform of its police
force and the removal of those responsible for the violence
against peaceful protesters. In addition, it promotes economic
reform, anti-corruption efforts, the recovery of assets stolen
by former Ukrainian officials and other urgently needed
measures.
This legislation enhances the availability of accurate news
and information needed to counter the propaganda sent in by
Moscow, and that propaganda from Moscow is being used right now
to create confusion and fear and unrest in the country. And so
this legislation will authorize increased funding for Radio
Free Europe, Radio Liberty and the Voice of America, and it
will enable these institutions to expand their broadcasting in
Russia. There will be additional reporters, additional
stringers so that in the Russian language, Ukrainian language,
Tatar language--the languages spoken in Ukraine and this part
of the world--there will be the ability for people to hear in
real time what is really going on instead of just what is on
Russian television.
If we are to help Ukraine break free of Russia's grip then
we must help it escape from Moscow's control over its energy
supply. The U.S. has a readily available tool to help
accomplish this goal, which is to remove existing restrictions
on our export of oil and natural gas into Ukraine and into
Eastern Europe. This will not only boost the U.S. economy and
create American jobs but also enhance our national security by
undermining Russia's ability to use its energy exports to
blackmail other countries, including our allies in Europe.
Tomorrow the committee will hold a hearing on the very
important and timely subject of the geopolitical potential of
U.S. energy exports which is of direct relevance to the
situation we face in Ukraine.
Let me also make the observation that our Chairman of the
Joint Chiefs recently told a committee in the House an energy-
independent U.S. and net exporter of energy as a nation has the
potential to change the security environment around the world,
notably, in Europe and in the Middle East.
And so as we look at our strategies for the future, I think
we have got to pay more and particular attention to energy as
an instrument of national power. The reason we are concerned
about this is this is 70 percent--70 percent of the exports out
of Russia today.
It is 52 percent of the entire budget for the Russian
military and Russian Government that is coming because of the
ability of Russia to have a monopoly on Ukraine--a monopoly,
frankly, that Russia has used to its advantage in the past to
undermine Ukraine.
This bill ramps up pressure on Putin and his accomplices
who have played key roles in Russia's aggression. By
specifically targeting them we can demonstrate that they will
pay a heavy personal price for the confrontation they have
engineered. The sanctions are aimed not only at the government
officials but also at those who hold no official position but
nevertheless wield great influence over government policy,
including the so-called oligarchs.
I am pleased to have worked closely with Ranking Member
Engel on this bipartisan bill. I believe it will send a clear
message of American resolve. I think it will be heard in Kiev.
I think it will be heard in Moscow and, frankly, throughout the
region.
And with that, let me turn to our ranking member, Mr. Engel
of New York.
Mr. Engel. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for holding
this markup of the Ukraine Support Act. I am very pleased to be
the lead Democratic co-sponsor of this legislation and I want
to commend you for once again working with us in a bipartisan
way.
I say this, and I cannot say this too often, that I wish
the rest of the Congress would take its cue from this committee
and to show that we really can work in a bipartisan way to do
what is best for our country.
President Putin's invasion of Crimea is a blatant violation
of international law and also of Russia's commitments to its
neighbor. The phony referendum he organized at the barrel of a
gun has culminated in the first outright annexation of
territory in Europe since the end of World War II and now he is
massing troops on Ukraine's border, greatly increasing the risk
of further violence and conflict in Ukraine and the wider
region.
The United States must take a strong stand against this
naked aggression. H.R. 4278 reaffirms our strong support for
the people of Ukraine at this very difficult time. It
authorizes assistance for the country as it seeks to regain its
economic footing and prepares for democratic elections.
It supports efforts to help Ukraine recover looted assets
and professionalize its law enforcement and it requires
additional broadcasting to Ukraine and other countries in the
region to counter the outrageous propaganda generated in Moscow
while endorsing the deployment of international monitors
throughout Ukraine.
The legislation also supplements the President's efforts to
impose sanctions on those responsible for violating Ukraine's
sovereignty and territorial integrity, looting Ukraine's
economy and violating human rights in Ukraine.
It sends a clear message to Putin and his cronies that
Russia's reckless actions will have serious consequences. On
that note, I would like commend President Obama for imposing
sanctions that have already started to impact Russian economy
and for leading the effort to suspend Russia's participation in
the G-8.
Finally, the bill expresses support for continuing U.S.
security assistance to Ukraine and reaffirms our commitment to
the security of our NATO partners in Eastern and Central
Europe.
Mr. Chairman, the House recently passed legislation to
provide $1 billion in loan guarantees to Ukraine and the
European Union has pledged $15 billion in assistance. But the
most significant element of the international community's
assistance to Ukraine will be provided by the International
Monetary Fund.
The IMF is now the most important international body for
emergency rescue of countries facing serious economic
difficulties. But the future of the IMF and our influence
within that organization requires that Congress pass
legislation to put into effect the 2010 plan to slightly adjust
the voting shares on the IMF board and activate the IMF reserve
account, known as the New Arrangements to Borrow.
The IMF is not in our committee's jurisdiction but it is,
clearly, in the interest of the United States that Congress act
as soon as possible to maintain the IMF's critical role in
international crises.
I am told that by passing IMF reform it will ultimately
mean about $6 billion of extra aid to Ukraine. I believe that
we need to take a firm stance together and we are doing it with
this legislation.
I think that Russia needs to understand that we are going
to boost Ukraine so that ultimately the Russian aggression will
prove a detriment to what they think they have done rather than
give them a plus because of the stealing of territory from
Ukraine.
This will only further our resolve to bring Ukraine looking
westward rather than eastward. So we are making clear by
passing this bill to the people of Ukraine that the United
States is with them and that we are committed to helping them
build a more democratic, prosperous, secure and just Ukraine,
as I said before, looking westward rather than eastward.
So I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to
support this very important legislation. I thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Chairman Royce. Thank you, Mr. Engel. Ms. Ros-Lehtinen had
asked for some time for a brief opening statement.
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. This
bill is important because it shows our strong support to the
Ukrainian people and it says to all freedom-loving friends and
allies in the region that the U.S. will not stand idly by as
Russia bullies its way in an attempt to rebuild another Soviet
Union.
The Obama administration must get tough against Russia by
sanctioning more Russian oligarchs by adding more names to the
Magnitsky List, revoking the 1-2-3 agreement with Russia and
reexamining our PNTR agreement with Moscow.
I would also like to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for including
in the bill language to support the Iran, North Korea and Syria
Nonproliferation Act, INKSNA.
The language reasserts that the administration must comply
with reporting requirements to fully implement this act,
language that was approved by the full House of Representatives
last Congress by a vote of 418 to 2. The reports have been
delinquent for 4 years and that is not acceptable.
I would also like to note, Mr. Chairman, that I have a
commitment from the full committee to move a free standing
INKSNA legislation through the House this year and my staff is
eager to work with your staff to make this happen. I thank the
chairman for that.
And while it is vital that we continue to support the
Ukrainian people, we must not let this overshadow our
Venezuelan friends who continue to be brutally oppressed under
Maduro and his cronies, and that is why I have introduced a
bipartisan bill.
I thank the members of this committee who have co-sponsored
it--H.R. 4229, the Venezuelan Liberty and Democratic Solidarity
Act, which seeks to hold accountable violators of human rights
of the Maduro regime and I hope that we can markup this bill
soon, Mr. Chairman. Three more were killed yesterday in
Venezuela and one of the opposition leaders, Maria Corina
Machado, was stripped of her congressional seat by Maduro.
Why? Because she had the audacity to come to the United
States, here, in this shining city on the hill to speak in
front of the OAS. She was denied the opportunity to speak
before the OAS and now she is potentially facing a charge of
treason for coming to speak here.
So I urge my friends and colleagues to hold those
accountable who are violating the human rights of and the
dignity of others in Venezuela and throughout the entire
hemisphere. I thank the chairman for the time.
Chairman Royce. Let us go to Mr. Brad Sherman of
California.
Mr. Sherman. Thank you. I think it is important that we
adopt bipartisan legislation as quickly as possible and that we
avoid--that we avoid controversial and partisan division and
avoid those divisive elements that are only tangentially
related to helping the Ukraine.
I think is important that the sanctions provisions give the
President flexibility especially because there are going to be
some individuals who, our intelligence indicates, inside the
councils of Russia are trying to push toward restraint and
there will be others in Putin's circle who are pushing in the
wrong direction.
And so we need to calibrate these sanctions person by
person and I think can only be done by the executive branch.
Putin comes off looking tough and trying to look victorious.
But we should point out that he has in effect seized the
consolation prize.
There will be those in Moscow who will ask the question who
lost the Ukraine because they had a pro-Russian Government in
Kiev and now they have a pro--a Russian Government only in the
Crimea.
Putin backed a kleptocrat, he lost the Ukraine and now he
is trying to look like a winner in the world and a winner to
his own people by seizing one province wrongfully. Because that
seizure was wrongful, we have to impose sanctions to show that
we are dedicated to the concept of territorial integrity and
the rule of international law.
But our ultimate focus has to be on preventing Russia from
trying to take more of the Ukraine and demonstrate that there
will be massive sanctions that will undermine the Putin regime
if he goes further into the Ukraine.
We also have to call on the government of Kiev to do
everything possible to refute Putin's charge that this a regime
of winners. This cannot be at a time of national crisis
anything other than a government of national unity.
We need to see the Ukrainian Government do all that it can
to involve those who were elected and there was a majority in
the party of regions--those who are open to the use of not only
the Ukrainian language but the Russian language and those who
are willing to continue--to consider federalist principles and
the devolution of power to different regions, all to show that
this government in Kiev is not going to represent just Maidan,
just western Ukraine but even those Russian speakers in the
south and the west.
Finally, as to energy exports from the United States, that,
over a period of decades, might lower energy prices and affect
the revenues of Saudi Arabia, Iran, Moscow and others. But I
don't think that a country like the Ukraine that does not have
a single LNG import terminal is going to be effected in the
short or medium term by whether we export natural gas.
While technically we could export petroleum, we will be
importing far more petroleum than we export for many years to
come. So there is a brewing controversy on whether we should
drill, baby, drill and export our--some oil and maybe more
natural gas.
I am hoping that our focus today will be on things that
affect the Ukraine in the short and medium term, and I yield
back.
Chairman Royce. Just to recognize myself for a minute, I
very much agree with the gentleman from California on his point
for all Ukrainians to contemplate this issue of national
reconciliation.
It is at this time that Ukrainians in the east, the south,
the west all really need to figure out how to send the message
that all Ukrainians are welcome regardless of language,
regardless of ethnicity.
On, however, the issue of gas, we have already seen Hungary
and Poland--we have seen the ability of the use of the gas
lines that exist in Eastern Europe with the reverse flow of
that gas to send 2 billion cubic meters last year into the
Ukraine.
The Ukraine is in this tenuous position and, frankly,
Russia's annexation was made easier by the energy grip it had.
The fact that if we get energy or gas into Eastern Europe that
we can use existing pipelines to get it to the Ukraine is an
important consideration.
Now, clearly, it will take time to ship that gas. But at
the same time, markets tend to move instantaneously with
information and if we telegraph the message that that is our
intent then he already begins to see the impact of that on the
futures market of gas. Gazprom really is the state-controlled
gas company that Putin has used to cut off the supply to
Ukraine and earlier this month it did this just as it did in
2002 and 2009.
Gazprom recently wrote in the financial press as now saying
it is going to double the price Ukraine pays for natural gas,
which would really cripple the economy there.
So that is why--Mr. Sherman as well--I raised this as a
consideration--a geopolitical tool here that could be used in
order to send the message that we have got a strategy in order
to undercut the ability of Putin to do this.
Do any other members seek recognition on the base text? Mr.
Chabot.
Mr. Chabot. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Move to strike the
last word.
I want to commend you and the staff for getting this timely
legislation on Ukraine before the committee this morning. It is
very important that the Congress map out a strong position on
President Putin's acts of thuggery and I know we can count on
the solid support of this committee today on H.R. 4278.
I also want to express my strong support for the resolution
affirming the importance of the Taiwan Relations Act. As we
commemorate the 35th anniversary of the TLA let us remember
that our diplomatic relationship with the People's Republic of
China is premised on the expectation and the principle that the
future of Taiwan will be determined by peaceful means.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, I strongly support H. Res. 418 which
raises awareness of the ongoing violence and discrimination of
the minority Rohingya Muslim population in Burma. The
resolutions call for the U.S. and international community to
hold Burma accountable to end its blatant persecution of the
Rohingya population comes at a critical time.
So I thank you for bringing these very important issues up
this morning, Mr. Chairman. I yield back my time.
Chairman Royce. We go to Mr. Meeks.
Mr. Meeks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to thank you
and Ranking Member Engel for coming together and speaking with
one voice.
I think that as we talk about what is going on in the
Ukraine now it is important that there is unity and that we try
to speak from the United States' point of view with one voice
from both the Democrats and the Republicans because the issue
involves or is important to all of us and that we look at those
areas of which are our common denominator so that we try to
deal with those matters that we can come to an agreement on.
Likewise, I think it is also important and I think that the
President of the United States has been doing a good job in
making sure that we are not speaking with one voice as the G-7
is currently meeting and operating--that also that we have to
listen to the voices of our NATO allies because if it is just
something done on a bilateral area and not a multilateral area
then that then divides us and it weakens us and the resolve to
make sure that Mr. Putin doesn't go further or look to divide
us from our allies.
So it is important as a conversation and the President's
negotiating that we are doing certain things and we take into
consideration our NATO allies and their position and how far
that they can go and move and we lead in that direction
because, you know, the dialogue and the conversation.
But if ever we get to the point where we say that we don't
care what they think or how it affects them then it will affect
us also in a negative way. It will affect the leverage that we
will have on Mr. Putin.
So we have got to make sure that we are mindful of, you
know, where our allies are. Especially, I know I have talked to
some members yesterday from the German Parliament and they have
deep concerns in regards to Mr. Putin and moving forward and
wanting to make sure that we stay in lock step--they stay in
lock step with the United States.
They have some other problems also and they want to make
sure that those are listened to, that we work together. And I
think what I have heard by the President talking about that if
there are some--further movement by Mr. Putin then our allies
are ready to escalate the sanctions and we should be ready to
move forward and get--and tighten those sanctions in that
regard.
But I just, you know, want to be mindful, you know, it is
easy to say to--sometimes to go to war or to send weapons or do
that. That is the easy thing to do. The hard thing to do
sometimes is to sit down and try to figure out how we stay in
line with our allies and work together and I hope that they do
that.
I hope that we do that because just as this is important
for us to stay together and come together it is important for
us to make sure with our international allies and to that
regards, you know, we talk about, you know, our colleagues to
the west. It is important for us to be reengaged and
reinvigorate those relationships.
And so as we talk about the Ukrainian issue we have got to
make sure, and I couldn't agree more with what you said, Mr.
Chairman, and what Mr. Sherman said about Ukrainians coming
together, it is now time for them to unite, to speak with one
voice also.
That is tremendously important. It is important for us also
to make sure that right now, not waiting until another time,
that we engage with the Moldovans and the Georgians and the
people from Azerbaijan and all of the other countries in the
region, that we are talking to them and they know that we have
an interest in their overall well being and their economy and
in their democracies.
Let us not wait until there is something else that happens
and then we all of a sudden are jumping in. Let us show, and I
think that that is what this bill does--it shows that we are
going to stand by the Ukraine.
We are going to try to help them with their economic
circumstances so that they can stand on their feet and improve
their democracy. It sends the right message. I believe then
thereby it will send the right message to our other allies in
the region.
That is tremendously important and, again, I end as I
started, Mr. Chairman, because we could get into a lot of other
debate here that could divide us but you and Mr. Engel have
chosen not to do that. You have chosen to focus on what brings
us together and I think you should be complimented for that,
and I yield back the balance of my time.
Chairman Royce. Thank you, Mr. Meeks.
We go to Mr. Rohrabacher.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Mr. Chairman, I am afraid I will be
opposing--again, probably the lone voice in some of these
debates--opposing this measure and I do so in great despair as
to the direction of what is going on in our country today in
relationship to Russia.
I worked for many, many years and put my life at risk
several times. I was not in the military but put my life at
risk several times in order to defeat communism. I spent my
whole life trying to defeat communism. We were not trying to
defeat--we were not trying to become hostile to the people of
Russia.
We were against the Soviet Union, which is not Russia. Now
we have a situation in which there is a, obviously, distinct
difference of national interests and instead of trying to play
a constructive role it appears that we have opted out instead
to fan the flames of hostility between our two countries.
There are many people who I worked with over the years who
are stuck in the Cold War. They cannot sit by and understand
that Russia has its national interests as we have our national
interests and try to find ways that we can work together in
peace and friendship, understanding that we are two great
powers that have national interests at stake.
I do not--in this particular debate if we are to be
listened to and to be--and try to find a peaceful solution the
Russians have to respect that we are there trying to find a
solution, not try to utilize this controversy as a means of
defeating them and pushing them into a hole because, after all,
they are Russians and they are thugs and they are gangsters
and, of course, our people are--would have never committed such
crimes as sending an army into Crimea.
I would like to commend my good friend, Congressman Engel,
who worked very closely with me when we backed the Kosovars'
right to self-determination and supported the bombing of Serbia
in order to protect those people's right of self-determination.
What do the people of Crimea want? I don't think anybody in
here will disagree with the fact that it is clear the people of
Crimea would rather be part of Russia than be part of a pro-
European or European-directed Ukraine.
Well, the people of Crimea just like the people of Kosovo
have their right of self-determination or should have. I think
Russia was wrong. I think Putin was wrong in trying to send in
a military force.
I think that clouded the issue. But the hypocrisy on our
side of suggesting or trying to suggest this is out and out
aggression for the people of Crimea to have their will to be
part of Russia is a little bit overwhelming.
I remember--just more recently than Kosovo I remember--
didn't we support South Sudan breaking away from Sudan? Yes, we
did. Well, let us--you know, let us be just in our criticism.
Yes, Putin should not have sent in those troops but this
was and, again, he should not have had the right--he shouldn't
have had the wording they had on their referendum in Crimea.
They could have had an adequate wording on the ballot and, yes,
they should have had the OSCE in to determine what the people
of Crimea want officially.
But in our heart of hearts we know that the people of
Crimea and especially those of us who have been there--10 years
ago I visited Crimea. They all spoke Russian.
Now, what is that? It is a historic reality unfortunately
because Stalin murdered so many people there and ethnic
Russians moved in and we know that, and we are sorry about
that.
But self-determination is based on people who live in a
given territory determining their future and in this case the
Russians are supporting the people of Crimea's right to
determine where they want to go and we are opposing that and
making it sound like it is naked aggression and doing so at
great--I say great damage to the long-term security of both the
United States and Russia.
Russia and the United States should be best friends because
we face the same ultimate enemies of a radical Islamic movement
that would murder our own people and, yes, an emerging China
that hasn't had one bit of reform at all.
Yet we have placed Russia--sanction after sanction on
Russia that has had dramatic reform, whose churches are full,
yet we give China, what, we give China technology. We give them
subsidies.
We give them recognition and yet they murder religious
believers even as we do, and we ignore that. The double
standard that we have for Russia has been aimed at pushing them
into a hostile relationship with us and I oppose that whole
concept. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Royce. Thank you, Mr. Rohrabacher.
We go now to Mr. Connolly of Virginia.
Mr. Connolly. I thank the chair.
I am astounded at the apology I have just heard from my
friend from California. Reform? I think not. Apparently, once a
KGB agent always a KGB agent.
Mr. Putin seems to have learned nothing from history other
than there is power at the end of the barrel of a gun. To cite
Russian speakers in Crimea as a rationale for one of the most
audacious power grabs in the 21st century, in Europe no less,
forgets history.
Crimea was settled by Stalin, by Russian speakers, and
they--and he expelled and executed the native population of
Crimea, and this so-called referendum in Crimea was also done
at the barrel of a gun. Russia's interests weren't threatened
in the Crimea.
The new government in Kiev never abrogated the treaty that
allowed Russian privileges--naval privileges through 2042. The
Ukrainians didn't occupy Russian military stations in the
Crimea and around the region. It was the other way around.
For the United States and its allies to allow this naked
aggression to go unaddressed would be truly an abrogation of
our moral responsibility and turn our back on what we should
have learned from 20th century history.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Would the gentleman yield for a question?
Mr. Connolly. If I may continue for a second. We need to
stop talking about he better not go further. I am stuck at
Crimea and I hope my colleagues are too. It is wrong.
It cannot be allowed to stand and we must make him pay a
price, and the difference between now and Stalin is that his
economy is integrated into the global economy. The ruble will
fall. The stock market will pay a price.
Investment will suffer because we are going to help make it
so until he relents, until they pay a price that is so great,
systematic, comprehensive in their economy that he will
understand that we no longer operate by the rule of the jungle
in Europe or, indeed, anywhere on the face of the planet, not
with our blessing, not with our apology.
So I strongly support the legislation in front of us, Mr.
Chairman, and I respectfully but forcefully disagree with
virtually everything my friend from California has just said
and I now would yield for a question.
Mr. Rohrabacher. The question is I would take it that you
also opposed America's support for the people of Kosovo and the
South Sudan for their self-determination, and could you cite
any polls that indicate that the people of Crimea--every
indication that I have seen from the experts indicate that they
overwhelmingly want to be part of Russia--do you have any polls
that indicate any different?
Mr. Connolly. Well, you have asked several questions. I
decidedly see Kosovo and South Sudan as distinctly different.
Both of those were in fact subject to international sanctions,
to international controls and to, in the case of Kosovo,
concerted NATO action pursuant to law--pursuant to statutes
that govern that action.
This has none of that, not even the pretense of it other
than an action by--a unilateral action by the Russian
parliament----
Mr. Engel. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. Connolly [continuing]. And a patsy action by the
Parliament in Crimea.
Mr. Engel. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. Connolly. I would.
Mr. Engel. Thank you, and I agree with everything the
gentleman just said. Let me say to my friend, my colleague from
California who really stood with me and others very valiantly
throughout the entire Kosovo War in 1999 and has been a strong
supporter of human rights, but I disagree with him tremendously
in trying to say that there is any kind of analogy between what
happened in Crimea and what happened in Kosovo.
I don't believe that every separatist movement claiming
some kind of referendum should be allowed to form either an
independent country or to be part of a power grab. What
happened in Kosovo was genocide. That didn't happen in Crimea.
What happened in Kosovo was the Serbian leaders trying to
drive every ethnic Albanian out of Kosovo and the ones that he
couldn't drive out he actually murdered them. That was a
situation that came about by the actions of the Serbian
Government.
So I think to draw any kind of analogy whatsoever between
what happened in Kosovo to what happened in Crimea is just
incorrect. We don't think that every minority group or majority
group that is part of another country has a right to declare
its own country.
But when genocide is happening I think that tilts the
balance and that is why NATO, as Mr. Connolly points out,
uniformly said enough is enough and intervened to stop the
genocide. So no analogy at all between Crimea and Kosovo.
Mr. Connolly. Mr. Chairman, I know my colleague, Brad
Sherman, wanted to ask a question. Would the chairman indulge
me to yield to my colleague?
Chairman Royce. If you wish to yield at this time that
would be----
Mr. Connolly. I thank the chair.
Mr. Sherman. I would just point out the people of South
Sudan were faced with mass murder, perhaps genocide. The people
of Kosovo were faced with mass murder and ethnic cleansing, and
the people of Crimea saw that their rights were being
protected.
They are an autonomous region. They continued to have their
language rights. There is a difference. I yield back.
Mr. Connolly. Mr. Chairman, I just want to say on a point
of personal privilege----
Chairman Royce. I think the gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Connolly. I know, but I want my colleague to know he
knows he has my deep respect. But on this issue, he also has my
passionate disagreement.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Connolly. I thank the chairman.
Chairman Royce. We now have--we now go to Judge Ted Poe of
Texas.
Mr. Poe. I thank the chairman. Mr. Chairman, this issue is
of importance to the United States' national security interest.
I think we are living in a fantasy land if we think that the
bully-bear Putin wants to be nice to the neighbors that
surround him.
That is absolutely naive. He watched as we watched when the
Russians invaded Georgia. There was a little bit of press
worldwide about the invasion of the Republic of Georgia and I
am not talking about the state of Georgia in the South.
I know some of my Georgia friends are concerned about
thinking that Georgia has been invaded and they didn't know
about it. But in any event, he watched to see what we would do.
He took one-third of the country.
We said that is not nice. You shouldn't do that. You are
invading a sovereign country, and we moved on and he is still
there. One-third of Georgia is still occupied by the Russian
army. The West, the world did nothing.
So he then looked at the Crimea. That was next on his list,
and I agree with my friend from Virginia, we should be
concerned about Crimea first before we are wondering about
whether he is going into Moldova, the rest of the Ukraine,
Estonia, Belarus. You know, those are possibilities.
And what happened in Crimea? He marched in. We watched, and
dealing with Putin he has started Cold War II. We should be
aware of this, and whether we like it or not he chose this
activity.
So I think it is in our national security interest and the
security of our allies and our friends that he be told no, you
can't do this without some consequences. This legislation
presents those consequences to the Russian bear, letting him
know no, you are not going to get away with it this time.
And so I have--as mentioned earlier, I have great respect
for my friend, Mr. Rohrabacher from California. But on this
issue I think we should act, act decisively and act with the
appropriate measure of sanctions to let, you know, the Napoleon
of Siberia know he can't just invade countries and the rest of
the world just moves on, and there should be consequences. I
support the legislation.
Chairman Royce. Would the gentleman yield time to the
Chair?
Mr. Poe. I certainly will.
Chairman Royce. Well, thank you. I did want to make one
observation here, Mr. Poe, and that is what we are not talking
about is a revival of the Cold War.
What we are talking about is trying to get some leverage on
Russia in order to wind down this situation and I think we
should be clear here.
We are not reviving confrontation. The individual who did
that is the head of state for Russia and he, obviously, has the
ability to wind this down. But if we put additional pressure on
him and those close to him, I think we might have considerable
more success at this than we have in our attempts to cooperate
with him over the many years where he has rejected the approach
of cooperation and he has chosen aggression--aggression against
the Ukraine, aggression against other countries.
I don't think we can allow him to proceed unchallenged or
we are going to be faced with this challenge again and again.
There will be other unnecessary crises that will result if we
don't move decisively.
So yes, the United States stands ready to cooperate with
Russia but we need to give an incentive for Russia to cooperate
with us. Again, this is one of the reasons why I have suggested
that by bringing competition into this with respect to gas into
Ukraine and Eastern Europe and breaking the monopoly that
Russia has--it is 70 percent of the export out of Russia, it is
52 percent of the entire budget for his military and
government--if we do this along with the other steps that we
take here to build democracy, to build support for institutions
within Ukraine, I think we have taken a decisive step to create
those second thoughts, to create that leverage. And my time has
expired so I will now go to Mr. Grayson of Florida.
Mr. Grayson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you,
Ranking Member Engel. I want to join in some of the comments
that were made by my friend Dana from California.
Less than 2 weeks ago in response to a question from the
gentleman from central Florida, Secretary Kerry said that
without a doubt if there were a free and fair election in
Crimea, Crimea would vote to join Russia.
I think that is an important fact. In fact, I think that is
the central fact of the situation that we face today.
All over the world, millions of people are stuck in the
wrong country and the term--the great accomplishment of the
20th century was to seek the end of colonialism, the end of
colonies, millions and millions of people stuck in the wrong
country by means of military force by European powers.
Maybe the goal of the 21st century is to see the
fulfillment of that principle that groups of people can join
together and create a country, join another neighboring
country, be part of the country that they want to be part of--
the principle of self-determination.
We can't ignore the fact that 2 million people in the
Crimea feel that at least until now they were stuck in the
wrong country. This situation was created when, in 1956
Khrushchev, as a gift, gave the Crimea to the Ukraine.
At that point it didn't matter too much because both
Ukraine and Russia were part of the Soviet Union. Since the
dissolution of the Soviet Union at the beginning of the '90s it
has mattered a lot and in fact there are Russian speakers,
large groups of Russian speakers, who are now beyond the border
of Russia, and one of the great issues of Russian foreign
policy for the past 20 years has been what do we do about
that--how do we deal with the fact that there are substantial
numbers of people who are now outside of our border who
identify themselves as Russians or ethnically Russian or
culturally Russian or indistinguishable from the people within
our borders.
The old Soviet Union contained 15 states with borders that
were arbitrary. Now, there are actually parts of the old Soviet
Union that are fundamentally different from Russia. For
instance, if in fact we saw Russian military action against
Lithuania, obviously, we would repudiate that. We would do
everything we could to stop that.
The Lithuanians historically, ethnically, in terms of
religion, in terms of culture are fundamentally different from
the Russians. The Crimeans are not.
In one election after another after another in the entire
20 years that the Ukraine has been an independent country
again, since it was an independent country hundreds of years
ago, the Crimean population has shown that it is loyal to the
Russians. It identifies with the Russians. It has voted over
and over again with the Russian party contesting elections in
the Crimea.
Now, recently we saw that the candidate whom the Crimeans
supported by over 90 percent of their votes the Russian-
speaking candidate was thrown out of office. Now, you may say
that he was thrown out of office for good reason. There are
allegations against him that he was corrupt.
There are allegations against him that he used the military
against his own people to stay in power. But the fact is from
the perspective of the Crimeans, their leader, the one that
they placed in charge of their country, was thrown out of
power.
So it should come as no surprise, as Secretary Kerry
recognized, that the Crimeans had had enough and they wanted to
leave this artificial entity called the Ukraine.
Now, in fact, the Russians did assist. They assisted by
disarming the local Ukrainian army and navy. That is what they
did. They did it virtually bloodlessly. They did that so that
the Ukrainian army and navy could not interfere in the
referendum that was held.
That is the fact of the matter. Why are we pretending
otherwise? Why are we speaking about naked aggression? Why are
we speaking about stealing Crimea? Why are we speaking about
bullying or the new Soviet Union or thuggery or audacious power
grabbing or bully-bear Putin or Cold War II?
I am surprised that Judge Poe didn't tell us that he has
said that the Iron Curtain has descended over Sevastopol. The
fact is, as the chairman has recognized, this is not some new
Cold War that is occurring. In fact, it is quite the contrary.
We should be pleased to see--pleased to see when a
virtually bloodless transfer of power establishes self-
determination for 2 million people somewhere in the world--
anywhere in the world.
And, in fact, what we are seeing here instead is the
vilification of Putin, the vilification of Yanukovych, the
vilification of anybody who we try to identify as our enemy.
Before it was Saddam Hussein. Before that--before and since
then it has been Assad.
This does not help. The basic provision here, the basic
principle here is self-determination. That is what is happened
in the Crimea and it is not for us to determine otherwise. I
yield back.
Chairman Royce. Would the gentleman yield for a minute?
Mr. Grayson. Yes.
Chairman Royce. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I want
to make clear that the adjectives used or referenced are not
the adjectives we use in this carefully worded resolution,
first of all.
Second, the problem or the difficulty isn't so much with
the example of a Lithuania. The problem is with the example of
an Estonia or Latvia, countries in which people were moved out
during Stalin's tenure into Siberia and replaced with ethnic
Russians so that today in those two countries you have strong
minorities of Russian speakers in Estonia and Latvia.
You have the same situation in Crimea to a greater extent
because in Crimea the majority of the ethnic population in fact
perished in the gulags and so within migration of Russian
speakers into the area you have a different circumstance.
Part of the problem in terms of the way in which the
referendum was held was, clearly, it was unconstitutional. It
was illegal. It occurred under Russian military occupation and
coercion. But you also had a situation where opponents were
silenced.
International monitors were barred and, most importantly,
voters were not given the option of preserving Crimea's current
status with Ukraine because the only choice on the ballot was
independence and de facto independence.
And, frankly, I think the vote itself was unnecessary
because the Ukrainian Government had made it clear that it
would discuss increasing autonomy for Crimea and, frankly, that
was probably the way to solve this thing.
By allowing Crimea to have that autonomy within whatever
you wanted to call, you know, let us say one country two
systems but you would--you would basically be giving to Crimea
the autonomy that the local population desired.
The Presidential elections that are now planned for May
25th are going to provide a legitimate opportunity for all
Ukrainians to make their voices heard on the future of their
country. I am going to lead a delegation there in April.
We are going to speak to all factions in the Ukraine. Mr.
Sherman spoke to the issue that we want to convey one of an
attitude of national reconciliation for Ukrainians.
But right now we are faced with a certain challenge and
that challenge is if we do not send a strong message here, what
happens with respect to Estonia or with respect to Latvia if a
similar situation surfaces where the argument is made that a
Russian population lives within those two countries, and we
can, of course, extend that to any number of countries on the
periphery of Russia, as you have pointed out, I think that we
have got to get back to a process whereby this is done in
consultation with the international community and there isn't
an excuse given for Russia to move aggressively on other
countries, using as an argument, frankly, propaganda that is
not really occurring.
And the propaganda component of this was the thought that
ethnic Russians were being beaten. This is why in our
legislation one of the most important aspects, to me, is also
the inclusion of Radio Free Europe, Radio Liberty broadcasting
into the country in these languages to allow ethnic Russians to
know in real time what is actually happening in the country to
offset propaganda.
But I did want to bring up those points with respect to the
underlying resolution. We are going now to Mr. Smith of New
Jersey.
Mr. Smith. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and Ranking
Member Engel, for introducing this comprehensive legislation to
support Ukraine in its urgent effort to meet its current crisis
including viability of its democratic institutions.
Russia's land grab in Crimea violates the core principles
of the bilateral and multilateral treaties between Ukraine and
Russia, the Budapest Memorandum, the United Nations Charter, as
well as the Helsinki Final Act.
The proposed legislation includes a strong sanctions
component against Russians responsible for this aggression.
H.R. 4278 also authorizes targeted sanctions against Ukrainians
involved in undermining the democratic processes and provides
assistance to the Ukrainian Government for identifying and
recovering stolen assets.
It is, after all, these criminal officials including, and
especially, Yanukovych and his cronies who have so harmed the
Ukrainian people and placed the country in the vulnerable
position which Russia has ruthlessly exploited.
Another key provision of the bill provides support for
Ukraine's democracy and civil society, and here I want to
recognize the importance of supporting as well the faith-based
groups and organizations that played such a prominent role on
the Maidan and in supporting the movement for democracy and the
rule of law.
The Ukrainian democracy movement is in large part a
religious movement. Orthodox and Catholic clergy, for example,
were prominent in the protests and the drama of priests
carrying icons confronting soldiers became as much a symbol of
the democratization movement as anything else.
Religious and faith-based organizations are very much part
of civil society and democratization and a conscientious voice
for the rule of law and anti-corruption efforts, and this
legislation with the amendment that will be offered shortly
includes them specifically, and I yield back.
Chairman Royce. We go now to Mr. Lowenthal of California.
Mr. Lowenthal. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I want to thank you, Chairman Royce, and Ranking Member
Engel for bringing forward the Support Ukraine Act, which I
strongly support. It is critical to the United States to back
Ukraine sovereignty, its territorial integrity and its
independence.
I condemn Russia's attempt to annex Crimea in violation of
international law. I strongly support the sanctions for
individuals responsible for the loss of Ukrainian assets who
have significantly undermined democratic processes in the
Ukraine or have committed human rights abuses.
However, I would like to raise an issue that is contained
in the Support Ukraine Act which probably is not within the
jurisdiction of this committee. As we seek to promote
democratic values in the Ukraine and to support those
democratic and uphold those values, we must not lose sight of
our own democratic values here in the United States.
The bill provides broad discretion to the administration
and its staff in the Department of State and Homeland Security
to revoke visas for individuals they determine to meet certain
criteria.
While I understand and support the need to provide
discretion to the administration under these extraordinary
circumstances, I remain concerned about the lack of any
judicial recourse for those that are affected.
As this bill moves forward, which I do support and hope
that it does, I will request that the Judiciary Committee
address this lack of judicial recourse. Thank you, and I yield
back.
Chairman Royce. And if--would the gentleman yield for just
one moment?
Mr. Lowenthal. Yes, I would.
Chairman Royce. If I could respond to Mr. Lowenthal. The
sections of the bill regarding visa sanctions, including the
preclusion of judicial review, these are not amendable at our
markup.
I just wanted to explain this, that those portions which
concern the immigration and nationality act and parts of Title
28 of the U.S. Code that deals with the judicial proceeding
portion of this, they are in the legislative jurisdiction of
the Judiciary Committee. So that will be part of the process.
We go now to Mr. Weber of Texas.
Mr. Weber. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. With great respect for
my friend from California who is from the best named city
there, Sherman Oaks, I want to address the idea that there is a
brewing controversy over drilling and selling natural gas, and
I want to bring my colleague's attention to the fact that when
President Bill Clinton was in office there was a controversy
over drilling in the ANWR.
And a lot of the comments and I think my colleague in
California said drill--the brewing controversy of drill, baby,
drill. There was a bumper sticker that was very prevalent in
Texas back during the controversy over ANWR that said drill
here, drill now, pay less. Joaquin, you might remember that.
And the comments were made, those who were against drilling
in ANWR, that look, it would take 10 years for any of that oil
to reach us. By the time the permits were done, by the time the
pipeline was built, by the time production was done it would be
10 years before we would see any of that oil. It is pointless.
And so if memory serves me correct, Bill Clinton left
office in 2001. Had we drilled then we would have the benefit
of that energy now. I think this current crisis points up the
fact that it is indeed a controversy that when America can
become energy independent it not only serves to create jobs in
this country, which we sorely need right now, but it also
produces energy independence, national security for America and
even produces national security around the world.
Ask our friends in the Ukraine if they would rather be
buying LNG--and I have three LNG plants either in my back yard
or in my district--ask them if they would rather be buying gas
from America or the Russian bear, as Judge Poe called him.
I think the answer is pretty straightforward. We cannot, in
my opinion, ignore the fact that this is a national security
controversy, if we want to use my colleague's words from
California, but that it is an important one that needs to be
had, and had we drilled in the ANWR 15-plus years ago we would
be in lot better shape. The world would be a safer place.
So the question I pose: 10 years from now are we still
going to be saying oh, we have got this brewing controversy
about drill for natural--LNG and natural gas and export it to
other countries?
It means jobs for us. It means a balance of trade for us.
It means national security for us, and it means--I would argue
it means international security around the world. So that the
kinds of things that we saw Putin do the Ukraine in cutting off
their energy supply cannot be done.
Now, I am going to switch gears to Part B. When you have a
Crimean legislature that votes unanimously to be reannexed into
Russia, where are the people to stand up and say no? And I was
told by one of my colleagues when we last had this discussion,
well, if you had a gun aimed at your head you would say no,
too.
You would have joined--you would have joined, rather, and
voted for annexation, and I reminded him that 56 signers of our
Declaration signed their name to a document, stuck their finger
in the face of the--the eye of the biggest tyrant in the world,
King George, back then--the most powerful country with the most
powerful army.
And in signing that Declaration they signed their death
warrant knowing that they would either be shot on sight or hung
as a traitor. If people in Crimea did not want to be annexed
where were the voices to stand up and say no?
So it troubles me that we are guaranteeing them money and
that we are getting involved, as my friend from California,
Congressman Rohrabacher, says, in a situation where, clearly,
it seems as if either they were unwilling to stand up and fight
for their own liberty or unwilling to pay that price, and yet
we are going to get involved and we are going to get between
the two.
That is very troubling. I have great respect for Chairman
Royce. I have been overseas with him and watched him amongst
the other countries and the knowledge he has and the way he is
respected.
So I am going to wrestle with this one, and I have great
respect for my colleague, Mr. Sherman, from Sherman Oaks, the
best named city in California.
Mr. Sherman. Gentleman yield?
Mr. Weber. I will yield.
Mr. Sherman. We are about to have hearings on the whole
issue of energy exports. My hope is to keep that out of this
resolution here because it can be controversial. Had we drilled
at ANWR, there are various things that would have happened, but
I think that Russia would be hurting just as much for every
barrel of oil that it exports as today. I don't think it would
have affected world prices. And I would point out that in Japan
now, they are paying triple what we are for natural gas. They
are paying one and a half times what they are in Germany. And I
doubt that we are going to see a decline in what Europe is
willing to pay for Russian natural gas, knowing that the
Japanese are there as potential buyers. I yield back to the
gentleman.
Mr. Weber. I thank the gentleman for his comments. Mr.
Sherman, I will shut up and yield back. Thank you.
Chairman Royce. Thank the gentleman from Florida. We are
going to have to move to consider the manager's amendment en
bloc and other amendments. I have got Ms. Frankel from Florida
seeking time and Mr. Keating. I thought I would recognize them
and then try to move to, since we are going to have members who
are going to have amendments, but let us now go to Ms. Frankel.
Ms. Frankel. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do support this
act, but I do have--I have enjoyed this debate and I would like
to raise two questions and then I would yield my time to those
who would like to answer. This has to do with the proliferation
of nuclear weapons. Under the Budapest Amendment of 1994, the
United States, the United Kingdom, and the Russian Federation
made assurances to protect Ukraine in the event its territory
or sovereignty is threatened by a foreign entity in exchange
for Ukraine voluntarily giving up its uranium and nuclear
warheads to Russia, at the time the world's third largest
arsenal.
So my first question really would be probably to Mr.
Grayson and then Mr. Chairman, I would appreciate your answer,
is how would you relate this Ukraine Support Act to that
agreement? And secondly, do either of you believe that this act
will in any way affect negotiations either with Iran or Syria?
I would yield my--Mr. Grayson, you want to take a stab at that?
Mr. Grayson. Yes, I think it is fair to say that the
Russians have skated around the agreement that they signed 20
years ago. I think that there is a great deal of troubling
details with regard to how the situation has unfolded. I think
the chairman quite accurately enumerated many of them. The
question for me is whether that somehow trumps the desire and
the need for the people of Crimea for self-determination. In my
case, I think it doesn't. That doesn't mean that we need to
overlook the fact that the Russians appear to have violated the
agreement that you mentioned, overlook the fact that the
Russians doubled the legal amount of soldiers that they had in
the Crimea leading up to the referendum and a number of other
irregularities. But I don't think that we are on the right side
of history as President Obama might say. We are standing
against the right of the people of the Crimea for self-
determination.
Ms. Frankel. Mr. Chair, or maybe Mr. Engel, could you
answer that question, your thought of how the Budapest
Memorandum of 1994 relates to this discussion?
Chairman Royce. Would you repeat that question, Ms.
Frankel?
Ms. Frankel. There was, it is my understanding Ukraine
voluntarily gave up its nuclear arsenal with the promise from
the United States, United Kingdom, and the Russian Federation
to protect their sovereignty, so it seems to me there may be
some precedent or implications if we do not move forward with
this type of act. But I just wanted to get your sense of that.
Chairman Royce. Well, I would just point out that the
political document that you refer to, Ms. Frankel, was not a
security treaty. The United States is not bound under that
document. And so I don't think that is relevant to the debate
of the resolution here, nor do I think this resolution
complicates in any way the suggestion that I think you are
alluding to.
Ms. Frankel. Well, Mr. Chair, if I may?
Chairman Royce. Yes. Perhaps I don't understand exactly
what you are asking.
Ms. Frankel. I think it supports it. I think that just in
terms of precedent, I mean if we do not back up in some way an
agreement, we got Ukraine to give up a nuclear arsenal with an
assurance to maintain, that we would protect their territorial
integrity. Obviously, Russia is violating that.
Mr. Engel. Ms. Frankel, if you would yield to me?
Ms. Frankel. Yes.
Mr. Engel. I think you are right on the money with that
one, absolutely. That was signed at a time when Russia perhaps
felt more vulnerable than it feels now and Putin feels
strengthened now for many reasons, one of which is the energy
revenues that he gets making Russia a power again. And
therefore, he has conveniently neglected, abrogated, or
whatever it is, agreements that Russia signed back then because
he feels he is stronger now. He is a bully now and he can
afford to do it. So I think you are quite right. This
legislation stands up to that and says there is bad faith by
Russia. It is not simply a matter, as some of my colleagues
have put it of self-determination. It is a matter of Putin
being a bully because he just feels that he can be.
Ms. Frankel. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Chairman Royce. Would the gentlelady yield? Again, the
point I was making is that the document itself does not require
a military response clearly, but Putin's logic would dictate
that we take what steps we could to leverage the conduct of
Russia in order to penalize Russia for violating the agreement
that Ukraine made as you have articulated and so that Russia
understands that there will be a consequence in the future if
this conduct continues. And I think what gives us all pause is
this speech he made to the Duma recently in which he said the
boundaries of Russia are not the boundaries of the current map
of Russia, that Russian populations anywhere are considered
part of Russia. That type of extra territoriality is perhaps a
signal that we have to be aware of other intentions and hence,
prudence would suggest that we need to move decisively with
leverage in order to put pressure on Moscow not to attempt
this.
Mr. Keating.
Mr. Keating. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to close
and frame this resolution that I am supporting, this
legislation this way. What was done and what Russia did was
illegal. Now there are other means of dealing with issues of
autonomy. There are international ways to deal with that, and
with Kosovo they did that with the Security Council.
It can be done under the Ukraine constitution and the Prime
Minister has made clear that he is open to discussions and
dialogue on these issues of autonomy. If it is done legally
everyone's rights, including groups like the Crimean Tatars,
everyone's rights are better protected. That is the way it
should happen. The way it has happened has been at the barrel
of a gun. That is what this legislation addresses. The
illegality of what was done and I don't think that should be
lost in us. And I yield back.
Chairman Royce. I thank the gentleman for yielding back. If
there are no further speakers on the underlying bill, I
recognize myself to offer a manager's amendment which was
provided to your offices last night and the clerk will report
the amendment.
Ms. Marter. Amendment to H.R. 4278 offered by Mr. Royce of
California.
Chairman Royce. Without objection, the manager's amendment
is considered read and I will recognize myself briefly to
explain the amendment.
[The information referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Royce. This amendment includes several items which
were shared with the ranking member and which were distributed
to all members' offices. There are also additions from other
members of the committee, Mr. Smith and Mr. Cicilline. As I
noted in my opening statement, the underlying legislation is a
strong message of support for Ukraine and pushes back against
Russian aggression and this amendment contains a few more items
in support of that cause.
Importantly, the amendment allows for the President to
target those corrupt officials closest to Putin, targeting them
for their asset and visa bans and last week four individuals
and one financial institution were targeted for providing
material support to Russian officials. We can and should ramp
this up. This is Putin's power base. Expropriation, corrupt
government contracts, bribery, it is all rampant and it is all
despised by the Russian people. And this provision lets them
know whose side we are on.
The amendment also calls for close scrutiny of Russia's
efforts to arm Bashar al-Assad in Syria and I appreciate Ms.
Ros-Lehtinen's and Mr. Cotton's close attention to that issue.
Moscow's support has been essential in Assad's 3-year slaughter
of his own people.
The amendment also calls for a determination as to whether
or not Russia is in material breach of the INF Treaty. There is
recent credible reporting that Russia has violated this treaty.
The administration owes Congress, I think, a determination in
this regard. And on security assistance, the amendment answers
increasingly bipartisan calls to do more to help improve the
capability of Ukraine's armed forces, which have been neglected
for decades.
And lastly, the amendment includes several technical
changes to perfect the language in the underlying bill. So do
any other members seek recognition to speak on the manager's
amendment? I will go to Mr. Engel.
Mr. Engel. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to speak in
strong support of the manager's amendment. I want to tell our
colleagues specifically what the amendment does. It amends the
base text as follows. It adds language on Ukraine and human
rights. It has language on community and faith-based
organizations in Ukrainian civil society. It adds language to
help improve the capabilities of Ukraine's armed forces. It
adds language allowing the President to sanction those who are
complicit in significant corruption in Russia. It also adds
language requiring closer scrutiny of Russia's efforts to arm
the Bashar al-Assad regime in Syria. It requires the President
to report on whether Russia has materially breached its
obligations under the INF Treaty. It includes a number of
technical and perfecting changes to the language in the
underlying bill.
So Mr. Chairman, I think that these amendments strengthen
the bill and are right in line with what we are attempting to.
I strongly support them and I yield back.
Chairman Royce. Mr. Rohrabacher from California.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I rise
in respect to my colleagues, but in strong disagreement with
this manager's amendment as well. There is no doubt there is
significant corruption in Russia. There is no doubt about that.
And there is no doubt there is significant corruption in a huge
chunk of this planet and the governments that control the
people on those chunks of the planet. We know that, for
example, Mr. Yanukovych who was elected as President of Ukraine
who was then removed, I might add, from being the President of
Ukraine, that he was elected because the people that we have
supported, and I say we because I was deeply involved in
supporting this Orange Resolution they had. They had conducted
themselves in a very corrupt way and the people of Ukraine were
upset with the pro-Western group that had been put in place and
they elected this pro-Russian Yanukovych and they elected him
to be their President. All right.
Right now, simply to condemn the corrupt leaders of Russia
in a world like this is a hostile act toward Russia. It is a
hostile act toward those particular people that run Russia. I
am not saying we shouldn't recognize them, they do not meet
anywhere near the honesty standards that we have, but for us to
single them out right now as compared to what is going on in
China, as compared to what is going on in so many other
countries in the world is telling them we consider them our
enemy. And this is what we are talking about today is an effort
to rush headlong into the Cold War again by declaring war on
these people. That is what we are doing.
We are declaring war on them as individuals, singling them
out from all the corrupt dictators around the world. Let me
note with Assad, yes, I think Assad is a corrupt dictator and
he has had a rotten regime in Syria and Putin has supported
him. But of course, our guys support al-Qaeda, the people who
murdered 3,000 Americans on 9/11. Our allies are supporting
those guys. So no, we are going to condemn Russia for
supporting Assad because he is a corrupt dictator.
What did Russia just do? They just gave $2 billion in
support for General Sisi. Well, thank God they did that, but
they are not going to be doing that in the future if we start
singling them out in such a hostile way that they know that we
are at war with them as individuals and war with Russia again.
That is not what is best for our country. And it is not what is
best for the world.
And as far as one last note, from what I understand what
happened in Crimea, not one person was killed, maybe one, maybe
there was one. What happened in Kosovo when we were supporting
self-determination which we should have supported, and in
Sudan, we are talking about thousands of people who lost their
lives, yet we have to go and condemn the Russians of course
when no one lost their life in an attempt to make sure that
people of Crimea had a right to control their own destiny and
their own self-determination. So I would oppose this manager's
amendment as well as the bill.
Chairman Royce. I am going to recognize myself for a few
minutes here. First, I want to make it clear that this bill
includes measures to address and sanction corrupt Ukrainian
officials as well. Asset seizures, sanctions, visa bans, all
apply in this legislation to those Ukrainian officials involved
in that kind of conduct, but it also applies to the Russian
oligarchs that have been involved in this situation.
Why? Well, for one reason we should look at every bit of
leverage we have in this situation in order to put pressure on
Russia to make certain that Moscow does not move into southern
Ukraine or eastern Ukraine or in other territories. And second,
corruption is the most despised activity in Russia today. It is
one of the reasons Russians view the actions of the state as so
irresponsible. So it is not as though in targeting corruption
related to these activities we are doing something that runs
cross current with the interests of the people in Russia.
The authority in the legislation, if you look at it, is
very permissive. In other words, we are saying that the
administration has the ability to do this. Why would we want to
give the administration this authority? Because again, we are
sending the message that Moscow needs to ramp this down, that
we need to have a resolution of this crisis. And the only way
we are going to get there is if we have significant leverage
here. So there is a lot of flexibility involved in the language
that we have in the document.
Frankly, and lastly, this group is Putin's power base. We
have seen the way that things have been nationalized in Russia
and power transfer to oligarchs that are very close to the head
of state. And if we are going to succeed in this endeavor,
those who have been engaged in ill-gotten gains need to be
penalized, need to feel that there is a consequence for that
type of activity. So for those reasons I think this is
important.
Mr. Cicilline was seeking to be recognized.
Mr. Cicilline. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I want to thank
you and Ranking Member Engel for holding today's markup on
these three important issues, particularly with respect to the
situation in Ukraine.
Even as we address the crisis in Ukraine, I appreciate that
we are also reaffirming our commitment to human rights in Burma
and our strong economic relationship with Taiwan. But I want to
thank you, Mr. Chairman, and our Ranking Member Engel for
leading this committee again in a bipartisan manner as you
respond to the situation in Ukraine and leading the Congress in
a thoughtful, unified response to this crisis.
Following the recent unilateral annexation of Crimea by
Russia, the legislation before this committee condemns the
aggressive actions by Russia and supports Ukraine's sovereignty
and territorial borders. It is also critical the United States
make clear that our Government will stand in solidarity with
our NATO allies. This bill will be integral in demonstrating
our support of the Ukrainian people and our commitment to
Ukrainian territorial integrity.
I would like to thank you, Chairman Royce, for your
inclusion of Section 205 of the Ukraine Support Act which calls
on President Obama to expand the list of Russian officials
sanctioned under the Magnitsky Act.
I was also pleased that President Obama and other world
leaders have decided to suspend Russia's membership in the G8.
This action illustrates Russia's loss of international stature
due to its violation of international law and undermining of
the democratic process in Ukraine.
Finally, I offer my thanks to you, Mr. Chairman, for
working with me to include my amendments language in the
manager's amendment. I believe it is critically important to
reaffirm that the United States policy is to encourage Ukraine
to protect the fundamental human rights of all individuals. The
underlying bill encourages Ukraine to respect the rights of
ethnic, religious, and linguistic minorities which is
important. But this amendment will make clear that the United
States will continue to protect and defend the rights of all
Ukrainians as they pursue freedom, democracy, and equality
under the law.
I thank you again, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back.
Chairman Royce. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. Cicilline. Yes.
Chairman Royce. I want to thank the gentleman from Rhode
Island for yielding and for his contribution to this base text
because I think he made a very good point. I think when we were
writing the language in terms of respecting the rights of
ethnic and linguistic minorities in Ukraine, his point that we
should expand that and touch on the importance of promoting and
protecting human rights across the board is particularly
important given the troubling reports of attacks against
peaceful protesters and intimidation of journalists and
activists in Ukraine. Protecting the fundamental human rights
of all individuals are going to be essential to a successful
democracy in Ukraine. I therefore thank the gentleman again for
his contribution.
Mr. Kinzinger. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You have a
situation right now where you have an armed force, whether
shots are fired or not. You have an armed force walking into a
sovereign nation and tearing a sovereign European country
apart. I don't know in any way why anybody on this committee
would defend that, would call that some kind of self-
determination, would call that anything but an aggression and a
rebuilding of the Soviet Union.
I think it is completely legitimate to go after corrupt
officials in Russia. My friend from California is very quick to
go after corrupt officials in Afghanistan every time the issue
of Afghanistan comes up and in fact, becomes the impetus for
the argument about why we should pull out of Afghanistan.
I also would like to remind folks that have talked about
the issues all around the globe. I agree, China is a major
threat to the United States and probably one of our chief
competitors in the world with the exception, of course, of al-
Qaeda and global terrorism. But I would remind everybody that
China has yet to invade a neighbor in the way that Russia is
invading, has invaded Georgia, is invading Ukraine, is ready to
rebuild the Soviet Union. And the second we see China do that I
think we ought to also respond very strongly. A lack of strong
response here will mean that China is more likely to do just
that exact thing.
And then I wanted to address the issue of Assad because I
think this is a big issue. Assad has murdered almost 200,000 of
his own people. He did it initially with chemical weapons that
choke children to death and people to death as they basically
die, as they realize they are dying from their own lack of
breath and are unable to survive. So now instead of using
chemical weapons, he has decided to use barrel bombs which you
load with 55-gallon drums filled with explosives and igniters,
drop them on an area that you want to empty. It doesn't matter
if there are children there; women, men, it really doesn't
matter because you just drop this barrel bomb and kill whoever
is in the way.
There is no defending Assad in Syria. The opposition, some
of them have links to al-Qaeda, but that is partially because
Assad is attacking Free Syrian Army and allowing al-Qaeda-
linked opposition to grow so that he can do the narrative that
he is some savior of Christian religion in Syria. So I think
all of the Russian influence we are seeing in Syria, the
rebuilding of the Soviet Union that we are seeing going on
right now, I think it is essential and I thank you, Mr.
Chairman, for your leadership. It is essential that we react
very strongly to this because the lack of doing this will not
only mean that Russia is going to continue to push the lines,
it is going to continue to claim ethnic minorities everywhere
that surrounds it. The Baltics are next, right? Moldova is
next. They can claim that they are a Russian interest anywhere.
But it is not acceptable and if we see what is going to happen,
China can take the same impetus if we stand by.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back and I thank you.
Chairman Royce. Thank you. We go now to Mr. Smith, who
worked to include good language on community-based and faith-
based organizations in this Ukrainian civil society thrust in
the bill.
Mr. Smith. Thank you for including it, Mr. Chairman. And I
just want to make a very brief point again, to my good friend,
Mr. Rohrabacher. You contrast this legislation and this effort
with Iran Sanctions Act championed by Ileana Ros-Lehtinen and
many others, but she was the leader, which targets the entire
populace of Iran. This is targeted, it is modest. It is
proportionate. It holds harmless the Russian people, while
picking out those who have committed egregious acts of
corruption and violence and my friend from California is right.
Yanukovych won a free and fair election in 2010. He won it
against Yulia Tymoshenko. I have actually chaired hearings and
heard from her daughter because she was then unjustly
imprisoned after the fact by Yanukovych. Yanukovych was
unfortunately in a race to the bottom corruption-wise as well
as repression.
During the Maidan demonstrations, he actually sent out his
bully boys and people were wounded on Independence Square. They
would follow people who were wounded to the hospital and then
they would disappear, presumably tortured, killed, and never
heard from again. That is where the faith-based organizations,
Mr. Chairman, in one of their many acts of bravery stepped in
and actually opened up the monasteries and the churches as a
place of refuge, brought in nurses and doctors and denied
access to Yanukovych's bully boys and said, ``You are not
coming in.'' So they were right there throughout all of this,
but again, this legislation is all about targeting.
And I would remind my colleagues, I wrote the Belarus
Democracy Act in 2004, 10 years ago. It targeted Lukashenka who
until recently was known as the last dictator of Europe. He has
a despicable regime. I have met with him in Minsk. This man
tortures. His bully boys, like Yanukovych's, are known for
their use and employment of torture against the civil society
and especially against those who are in the opposition.
We tried to do this with China, I say to my friend and
colleague. I offered legislation that is law today that has
been absolutely unimplemented, first by the Bush administration
and now by the Obama administration, that targets people who
commit repressive acts in the People's Republic of China. So
this idea of targeting individuals is not new. It is certainly
with precedent. It holds harmless the general population of
these countries and says we are going after the offenders,
those who have committed acts of human rights abuse and
violence and the like. So I think this is an excellent bill. It
is a modest bill and again, it is proportionate. It goes after
those who are committing----
Mr. Rohrabacher. Would the gentleman yield for a question?
Mr. Smith. I would be happy to yield.
Mr. Rohrabacher. You just mentioned the targeting of--your
legislation, the targeting of individuals in China who are
engaged in corrupt practices. Am I not a co-sponsor of that
bill?
Mr. Smith. Yes, you are. One is already law. Passed in the
year 2000.
Mr. Rohrabacher. And let me just note that what we are
discussing here is the fact that we are not enforcing that law,
but yet we now want to enforce a law like this on people who
are equally corrupt and let me just note I would in no way try
to defend these people who run Russia as being anything but
corrupt officials, but the fact is that they will be the ones
who we will enforce this notion on and thus, if you are the
only one in the world who ends up having such a standard
enforced, is there some reason for them not to think that we
are going to war with them?
Mr. Smith. I say to my friends, enforcement even of the
Magnitsky Act has been shoddy and spotty as the gentlelady from
Florida pointed out and there is language in this bill that
calls for an expansion of that list. There are people who have
committed horrific deeds that are not on the list. We are
calling on the administration to do a better job with that
which is already law as it relates to Russia, as it relates to
China, although that is not the context of this debate. And to
say with regards to Ukraine and as the chairman pointed out so
well, this not only applies to the Russians who have committed
misdeeds, but also to the Ukrainians. I thank my friend.
Mr. Rohrabacher [presiding]. Mr. Vargas from California
seeks recognition.
Mr. Vargas. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I appreciate
it. I wasn't going to speak. I think it is important that we
have a robust discussion and I think the discussion here today
has been fascinating.
The only thing that I would want to add is this, that it is
dangerous when we canonize a strong man and I think some of the
language that I heard today about Putin filling the churches in
Russia and somehow unifying people around the Russian area is
dangerous. We have seen this in the past where a strong man
comes to power. He is held up by his own people and then begins
to almost become an other worldly figure around the world. This
is very dangerous. And I hope we don't lose sight of that.
Again, some of the language I heard today canonizing Putin
in that way I think is dangerous. I just wanted to mention I do
support the measures before us. Thank you.
Mr. Grayson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This bill, in terms
of what it does, not what it says, but what it does essentially
seems to accomplish two things. One is that it increases aid to
the Ukraine. The second is that it imposes sanctions on some
class of individuals who are powerful individuals in Russia.
And the manager's amendment specifically goes to some
substantial lengths to strengthen the part of the bill that
imposes sanctions on individuals in Russia.
I'd like to hear from the proponents of this bill and this
manager's amendment exactly what they think will be different
in the real world as a result of the passage of this bill.
I don't want to sound flip, but I will tell you that we
weren't expecting Putin to visit Disney World any time in the
near future, so the fact that this bill prevents him or some of
his colleagues from doing so doesn't seem to me to be
reflective of anything that would actually affect their
motivations, much less affect their actions. And that concerns
me.
I understand that as a Congress, there's only so much that
we can do to affect a situation so far from our shores. In
fact, I think that that's true in general that there's a very
narrow limit to what we can accomplish when dealing with
foreign policy as a whole. But I do want to hear what it is
that this bill, the passage of this bill and this manager's
amendment will do that will be different, that will actually
make a difference and affect the motivations of people who are
in charge in Russia.
Chairman Royce. I thank the gentleman. Will you yield?
Mr. Grayson. Yes.
Chairman Royce. I appreciate that, Mr. Grayson. The people
wielding power in Russia are not just the officials in that
country. The people who have enormous power there are people
who have stolen enormous amounts of money. They have basically
taken resources because of their political pull, because of
their closeness with President Putin, but they have transferred
a lot of that wealth offshore. They are susceptible because
they do like to travel abroad, and they do like to move their
money out of the country. They are susceptible to pressure if
we apply smart sanctions. They are friends, they are
accomplices of President Putin, and so they do have enormous
influence at the end of the day on Russia's foreign policy. And
the combination of Putin's concentration of power not just for
his own advantage, but for the advantage of these individuals
who have this wealth at risk, the combination of repression
against the people, and against the political rights of all
Russians, and the theft, if you think about it, the theft of
Russia's wealth through corruption have resulted now in an
authoritarian system that is pursuing an aggressive foreign
policy, one that has started in the Ukraine but may not end
there on the basis of President Putin's last speech to the
Duma.
So, we have an ability here to send a message cross current
with that approach, or a message that instead says to the
Russian people we stand with you against those who have
received ill-gotten gains. In particular, these individuals
have benefitted as we know from the dissolution of Rule of Law
in Russia. So, as we're looking for leverage, this is a way to
put enormous pressure on Moscow. That would be the calculus in
terms of the smart sanctions that we have, in my view, in the
bill.
Mr. Grayson. All right. I'll reclaim my time.
So, just to pursue this further, what we're talking about
here is using the fact that the Russian oligarchs have amassed
a large amount of offshore assets outside of Russia which we
will use to pressure against them to get them to them to
pressure, presumably Putin, to change Russian foreign policy
and make it more, shall we say, discreet.
So, for instance, one could picture the United States and
the European Union working together to actually seize, through
sanctions, the assets of Russian oligarchs that are held
outside of Russia including, for instance, ownership of the
Brooklyn Nets. One could picture, for instance, nationalizing
the Nets. I'm not sure that would be worth very much, but one
could do that.
So is it, in fact, anticipated that this bill would be used
for the purpose of actually seizing assets of Russian oligarchs
that are held offshore in the United States or in Europe, or
elsewhere?
Chairman Royce. Our President will be meeting with heads of
state in Europe to discuss next steps, but this would give the
President the ability to freeze those assets. And I would argue
that the specter of those assets being freezed will focus the
mind of those close to President Putin. This is not as
confrontational as other approaches that might be suggested,
but it is one that I think is effective because the amount of
wealth we're talking about, the amount of ill-gotten gains, and
the amount of influence that these people have is truly
disproportionate.
Russia is no longer a society in which the direct influence
of the people are as influential as those who have replaced
them with political pull, by being close to the head of state.
So, their input, I think, at the end of the day is going to be
important.
I've raised other leverage that we have in the legislation,
as well, but for this issue that's the calculation.
Mr. Grayson. Thanks for the explanation, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Royce. Thank you. We go now to Mr. Connolly.
Mr. Connolly. Mr. Chairman, I was simply going to observe,
I find it interesting that our friend from Florida has made a
passionate case for the justification of the power grab in the
Crimea because of Russian heritage, and the will of Russian
majority at the expense of a very substantial Tatar minority.
And, of course, we ignore in the process of that
rationalization the fact that Russian thugs were bussed into
Crimea deliberately to influence the outcome, deliberately to
intimidate those who might have a different point of view.
Mr. Grayson. Will the gentleman----
Mr. Connolly. But my only point is, I find it odd having
given that passionate statement we're suddenly now concerned
about the efficacy of the sanctions legislation in front of us.
Which is it? Do you favor the power grab in Crimea, or do
you, in fact, simply want to make sanctions even more
effective? I yield back.
Mr. Grayson. Will the gentleman yield to me?
Mr. Connolly. I certainly will.
Mr. Grayson. Okay, it's both. I yield back.
Chairman Royce. All right. We recognize Mr. Yoho of
Florida.
Mr. Yoho. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I appreciate it. And
I understand the intent of what we're trying to do here. And I
do support the intent of supporting the people of the Ukraine;
however, I think the process that we're going through is a
little bit misguided. And what we're talking about is, you
know, Russia stepping up and showing their power.
I've got in front of me kind of the history of the Crimean
peninsula, and it says that Crimea is an autonomous
parliamentarian republic within Ukraine subject to the
Constitution of Ukraine, in accordance with the laws of
Ukraine, but they also have their own constitution, and they
stand as kind of an independent state, from what I read here.
And 58 percent of the population of Crimea is ethnic Russia.
Again, I support the intent of what we're trying to
accomplish, but I think what we're seeing in Russia is Mr.
Putin stepping up. He's emboldened. You're seeing Venezuela
emboldened. You're seeing China emboldened along with Iran and
Syria. And I think the reason we're seeing that is we're trying
to project strength, but they see us as weakened.
And I know I don't need to remind everybody that we're
$17.4 trillion in debt. The Government was shut down in
September and October because of the lack of funds, and yet we
want to give more money to a country, and we have to borrow
that money; yet, we have people in our own country that can't
get health insurance, or they can't send their kids to school.
And for us to project strength, I think it's time we strengthen
America and rebuild America.
And that's the only way you can show up in a fight say, or
in a confrontation, you can't show up when you're hemorrhaging.
And I think the rest of the world knows we're hemorrhaging. So,
again, I support what we're trying to accomplish.
And I need to just for information to pass this out, that
we gave the Ukraine over $102 million last year and we've
committed or obligated $3.6 billion since 1990 to help them do
all the things that we should have been monitoring that has
brought us to this point. And to go forward and say money is
the solution without being from a point of strength, I think is
erroneous. And I just think it sends the wrong message that we
can solve this problem.
Chairman Royce. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. Yoho. Yes, sir, I will.
Chairman Royce. Okay. This bill only addresses already
appropriated Fiscal Year '14 funds, not any new money. What
we're doing in this legislation for the members' edification
here is we're prioritizing and moving the funding that was
appropriated specifically focused on what we can do on
democracy building in the Ukraine here with respect to taking
such issues as the Overseas Private Investment Corporation
which pays for itself, but we're giving it added impetus for
those businesses that are going to invest there. The OPIC
insurance policy will stand behind those businesses, and other
funding to build civil society with respect to the training of
law enforcement and so forth.
Mr. Yoho. Will the gentleman yield back?
Chairman Royce. I will.
Mr. Yoho. On page 6 of this bill, it says ``Congress finds
the following, Ukrainian economy is weak and vulnerable.'' And
then it goes on to say, ``A financing gap which the Government
of Ukraine has estimated will amount to $35 billion over the
next 2 years.''
That's deficit spending, and a large underground economy
has developed. This economic condition undermines, and I want
to emphasize this, this economic condition undermines
democratic prospects in the Ukraine.
Again, we're at a $500 billion deficit, and it's soon to
return to $1 trillion because of our economy. And it goes on to
say, ``Years of poor economic management and performance have
undermined and may continue to undermine political stability
and unity within Ukraine.''
Chairman Royce. If the gentleman would yield, I just need
to----
Mr. Yoho. We're supposed to be talking about the United
States on the way this is--poor economic management and
performance. So, yes, sir, I'll yield.
Chairman Royce. I think when the gentleman reads that
statement it sounds as though this measure would appropriate
$35 billion. That is not--it referenced the fiscal problem----
Mr. Yoho. Right. I understand.
Chairman Royce [continuing]. That exists in the Ukraine.
But the lion's share of that is being shouldered by Europe. I
think if you totaled, and I'm doing this by memory, but if you
totaled up the provisions here in terms of supporting law
enforcement in the Ukraine, et cetera, it's about $68 million.
The reference that you're citing is simply the facts on the
ground in Ukraine, but----
Mr. Yoho. Oh, I agree with that.
Chairman Royce [continuing]. Not what we're committing to.
And I do want that to be understood here. And, again, the $68
million or so that we do commit here is money that was already
appropriated for the budget for Foreign Affairs that we are
reprioritizing for this purpose. So, I think that clarifies a
little bit----
Mr. Yoho. If I had my druthers, I'd rather pay off our debt
with that money at this point in time.
Mr. Grayson. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. Yoho. I'm out of time. It's up to the chairman.
Mr. Grayson. I ask for unanimous consent, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Royce. Yes, absolutely, Mr. Grayson.
Mr. Grayson. Thank you very much.
My reading of the bill, Congressman Yoho, is that we're
actually taking money from the Pakistani aid budget and putting
it into the Ukraine aid budget instead, so rather than stealing
from Peter to pay Paul, we're actually stealing from Paracha to
pay Pavel. I yield back.
Chairman Royce. And I believe, if I could--would the
gentleman yield?
Mr. Grayson. Yes.
Chairman Royce. In terms of that portion of the budget, I
think it's broadcasted in Pakistan that we're taking the funds
and applying it here, for the record.
Now, are there any second-degree amendments to the
manager's amendment? Hearing no second-degree amendments, the
question occurs on the manager's amendment. All those in favor
say aye.
All those opposed, no.
Mr. Yoho. No.
Chairman Royce. In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have
it, and the manager's amendment is agreed to.
And I would now to call up en bloc, this is a number of
amendments from colleagues on both sides of the aisle that were
sent to your offices last night. They're in your packets this
morning, so I'm going to ask unanimous consent that the
following items be considered en bloc. Grayson Amendment 232.
Keating Amendments 27 and 28. Lowenthal Amendment 23. Messer
Amendment 120. Without objection, so ordered.
[The information referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Royce. Do any members seek recognition to speak on
the en bloc amendments? Hearing no further request for
recognition, the question occurs on the en bloc amendment.
All those in favor say aye.
All opposed, no.
In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it and the items
in the en bloc amendment are agreed to.
Are there any other members----
Mr. Connolly. Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Royce. Mr. Connolly.
Mr. Connolly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I have an amendment at the desk, Amendment 98.
Chairman Royce. The clerk will report the amendment.
Ms. Marter. Amendment to H.R. 4278 offered by Mr. Connolly
of Virginia. At the end of title I, add the following: Section
110. Annual report on security developments in the Russian
Federation and their effects on----
Chairman Royce. Without objection the amendment will be
considered read.
[The information referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Royce. The Chair reserves a point of order and
recognizes the author to explain the amendment.
Mr. Connolly. I thank the chair. And I think this amendment
has been provided both to the chairman and the ranking member
for their consideration and clearance. This is a complementary
amendment to a provision in the Senate bill requiring an annual
report on security developments in the Russian Federation and
the effects they might have on Ukranian sovereignty.
The report includes an assessment of the security situation
in regions neighboring Russia, including the Crimea. The goal
is, in fact, shaping the security strategy of the Government of
Russia, including potential annexation of non-Russian
territory, trends in Russian security behavior that would be
designed to achieve Russian security goals, and an assessment
of the global and regional security objectives of Russia that
would affect NATO, the Middle East, or the People's Republic of
China.
An assessment of the capabilities of Russian military and
those capabilities' effects on potentially Russia's neighbors,
and any other developments that the Secretary of State
considers of strategic importance to our national security with
respect to this subject.
And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Chairman Royce. I thank the gentleman for yielding. And I
want to just share with you, Mr. Connolly, I support your
amendment.
Given Russia's continued aggression toward Ukraine, which
may yet extend to other countries in the region, I think this
report would be very useful in helping to gauge the potential
impact from the future development of Russia's armed forces,
and from its foreign policy. And, therefore, I would support
its inclusion.
Mr. Connolly. I thank the chair.
Chairman Royce. Do any other members seek recognition to
speak on this amendment? Hearing no further requests for
recognition, the question occurs on the amendment.
All those in favor say aye.
All those opposed, no.
In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it. The
amendment--Mr. Duncan.
Mr. Duncan. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
Chairman Royce. The clerk will read the amendment.
Mr. Duncan. Number 46.
Ms. Marter. Amendment offered by Congressman Jeff Duncan of
South Carolina to H.R. 4278, the Ukraine Support Act. Section
2(8) following ``increased natural gas exports and energy
efficiency,'' insert ``in Ukraine, which could be greatly
enhanced by the advances in energy extraction and exploration
technologies.'' Should read: ``to support energy
diversification initiatives to reduce Russian control of energy
supplies to Ukraine and other European countries, including
United States promotion of increased natural gas exports and
energy efficiency in Ukraine, which could be greatly enhanced
by the advances in energy''----
Chairman Royce. Without objection the amendment will be
considered read, and the Chair reserves a point of order,
recognizes the author, Mr. Duncan to explain the amendment.
[The information referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Duncan. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I applaud the efforts of Chairman Royce and Ranking Member
Engel in drafting this bipartisan legislation in support of
Ukraine.
It really comes down to what side of history do we want to
be on. When history is written do we want to be folks that--
Members of Congress and Americans that support a sovereign
nation, a sovereign nation facing aggression that harkens back
to the Cold War. So, I believe that we should use every tool in
the toolbox to support like-minded nations like Ukraine.
I support this legislation, but I believe the U.S. could do
better to support the efforts and reduce Russian control of
energy supplies to Ukraine and other European countries by
increasing cooperation on energy extraction and exploration
technologies such as hydraulic fracturing.
This actually is larger than just Ukraine, because Europe
is looking west to the U.S. We talked earlier about L&G
exports, to lessen European dependence and Ukranian dependence
on Russian sources of energy. Today, Ukraine is heavily
dependent on Russia for its source of energy. In the past,
about 80 percent of Ukraine's oil and natural gas came from
Russia. And according to the EU Energy Commissioner in 2012,
about 60 percent of Russian natural gas headed Europe went
through the Ukraine, pipelines that go through the Ukraine.
It's total dependence on Russia, and that concerns our friends
on the other side of the Atlantic.
Russia has used its leverage twice, in 2006 and 2009, to
cut off the gas supply to Ukraine. Again, it's used its
leverage twice to cut off the gas supply to Ukraine. In today's
volatile situation, Russia has considerable leverage over
Ukraine through its energy capabilities.
According to a recent Forbes article, Ukraine could hold
more than 40 trillion cubic feet of recoverable shell gas.
That's a move toward energy independence if they can harvest
those resources.
With the incredible growth in U.S. natural gas resources,
particularly from shell gas, with growth up 72 percent since
2000, and 49 percent since 2005, I believe that the U.S. and
Ukraine should consider the benefits of energy extraction and
exploration technologies; how to increase our cooperation to
use U.S. expertise in fracking to help meet Ukraine's needs to
develop this capability.
We're not forcing this technology on Ukraine, they have
asked for it. Businesses are willing to get involved, and last
year Ukraine signed a natural gas exploration deal with both
Royal Dutch Shell and Chevron. This is something Ukraine wants.
This is something; technology that we have. Regardless of where
you come down on the political spectrum with regard to
hydraulic fracturing, we're talking about Ukraine as a
sovereign nation wanting to pursue this.
In that sense, we often say that it does more good to teach
a man to fish rather than simply give him a fish. Well, I
believe that it would be more sustainable for Ukraine in the
long run if we apply this same principle.
And with that, Mr. Chairman, I think we should support this
amendment, and I urge our colleagues to support it. And with
that, I yield back.
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you. Do any other members seek
recognition to speak on the amendment? I'm looking for baseball
signals. Mr. Grayson is recognized.
Mr. Grayson. Thank you, Madam Chair.
I'd like to ask a few questions of the gentleman from South
Carolina, specifically regarding the second part of his
amendment.
Why does the gentleman think it would be constructive for
this Congress to tell the Ukrainian Congress what it should be
passing or not passing?
Mr. Duncan. Well, what we're doing is trying to give them
the ability to have access to the hydraulic fracturing
technology.
Mr. Grayson. Okay. I'm referring to the second part of the
gentleman's amendment. Perhaps I'm misreading it, but the
second part says that, in Section 102(b)(5) you would add the
following terms, ``reducing corruption.'' And, apparently,
you're trying to give examples of how to reduce corruption in
the Ukraine, ``supporting reform efforts of the Government of
Ukraine to pass legislation,'' et cetera, et cetera. That's
what I'm referring to. Has the gentleman offered that
amendment?
Mr. Duncan. I have that amendment coming up next.
Mr. Grayson. Oh, that's coming up next.
Mr. Duncan. Yes, sir.
Mr. Grayson. Okay.
Mr. Duncan. That would be Amendment 45. We're on 46.
Mr. Grayson. All right. Then I'll yield back. Thank you
very much.
Mr. Duncan. Yes.
Chairman Royce. Yes. Did you want to speak to this
amendment, Mr. Sherman? Yes.
Mr. Sherman. I rise in cautious opposition to this
amendment simply because we're going to spend all day tomorrow
talking about energy, talking about energy exports. Then our
subcommittee is going to have, and the gentleman is welcome to
come and participate, I'm sure, in hearings I think a day after
that on petroleum exports from the United States.
There's no reason to put in this bill things that divide
Americans, things that raise hot button issues about
environment, and energy. We ought to be focused as narrowly as
possible on the Ukraine.
Now I will say this, your amendment does only a little bit
to affect what is already in one sentence of the bill, but as
for the idea that we need to focus on this now, we could do
that in a separate bill months from now, weeks from now.
As to petroleum, no amount of effort in the United States
is going to have a significant impact on the worldwide price of
petroleum.
As to natural gas, they pay in Germany $10 roughly a unit,
in Japan $16. Unless the gentleman has become a socialist, and
I'm confident that he has not, he proposes that all of this
energy development and export is going to be done by private
companies who are going to sell for $16 rather than for $10.
So, we may tomorrow have an interesting debate.
Japan has moth balled all of its nuclear electric
generation facilities. It is buying a huge amount of natural
gas, and maybe that natural gas could come from the United
States, but what does that have to do with the Ukraine?
Whether we export natural gas, how much we drill is an
interesting issue. That's why I'll be here tomorrow, and to
think that if only we developed more natural gas in the United
States our private companies would choose to sell it to the
Ukraine for much less than Japan would pay for it seems
unlikely. The Ukraine buys virtually all of its natural gas
without it having to be liquified and regasified. Japan being
an island has to have its natural gas liquified, then it has to
turn it back into gassy state at great cost, so I don't see a
reason for this bill to focus on a red button, hot partisan,
environmentalist versus economic development energy issue, and
for that reason would oppose the amendment
Chairman Royce. Will the gentleman----
Mr. Sherman. Yield to the chairman.
Chairman Royce. I take the gentleman's point, but if we
think through another alternative, what if we were to use the
permitting process on L&G as basically a strategic asset for
foreign policy, and what if we were to just for the sake of
argument grant that permit on the condition that the export in
this particular case go to Eastern Europe or Ukraine, because
our situation is this right now.
We are flaring gas because of a glut. We're capping wells.
It seems to me that--and, again, I'm moved somewhat by the
arguments that our Chairman of the Joint Chiefs made about
using this as a strategic asset. I understand your point, that
if we open this up and it was simply the argument that you were
to expand to every market in the world, but what if we reached
some kind of compromise on the idea that the additional
increase in the export of L&G would be for a national purpose.
Now, it would have the added benefit of increasing--it
would actually increase the deficit for Russia if we did that.
It would decrease our deficit if we did that. It would create
more jobs in the gas and oil industry here in the United States
if we did it. But I just raise it----
Mr. Sherman. I'm reclaiming my non-existent time.
Chairman Royce. Yes.
Mr. Sherman. I think that's an interesting issue to discuss
tomorrow.
Chairman Royce. Yes.
Mr. Sherman. It doesn't have to be dealt with in this bill.
It will raise even some questions on the right as to whether we
should tell a landowner who wants to drill for natural gas,
export that natural gas to Japan and get paid $16 per unit for
it, that we're not going to let that landowner do it. We're not
going to let that oil company do it. They're going to have to
sell to Ukraine for $9 a unit, or $10. That's a good discussion
for tomorrow.
I haven't hesitated to criticize people in my own party
over in the other body for not moving as quickly as possible to
help the Ukraine. So far, not a single piece of legislation has
been signed by the President on the Ukraine. And Crimea has
been invaded, seized, and annexed. I would like this bill to go
forward, and I look forward to tomorrow's hearings, and what
you're proposing. And I also think that, speaking of seizing
territory, I think we should seize the jurisdiction of the
Energy and Commerce Committee so that we're in a position to
decide not only whether or not that energy is developed and
under what conditions, but to whom it is sold. And there's one
kind of naked aggression and power grab that I'm in favor of,
and that's it.
Chairman Royce. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. Sherman. I yield back to the chairman.
Chairman Royce. I appreciate the gentleman for yielding.
It is our responsibility to set broad parameters on foreign
policy. I do think this is a case where an absolutist position
is probably not going to prevail. Either the absolutist
position that all permits be granted, or the position that none
be granted.
I do, however, think it is worth contemplating this concept
originally raised by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs that
additional permits granted be in our foreign policy interest,
and this is something that I think as the weeks unwind here is
worthy of consideration because it might be a way to bridge the
divide.
I think Mr. Meeks was seeking recognition.
Mr. Meeks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I just wanted to join in with Mr. Sherman. I heard your
idea, and it is something that is intriguing to me because I've
been going back and forth as to what we should do. And I know
talking to some individuals within my district, and making sure
that I have foreign policy considerations also, but you've done
such an excellent job, I think, in making sure that we have a
bipartisan agreement where we don't have any of those
agreements, and we can have a separate--and I think that will
take place tomorrow because I am listening. I think that to
have an intense debate focused on this issue and this issue
alone would be beneficial to members. I know it would be
beneficial to this member to have a real debate on what we
should do. And maybe if we can show that we're just doing it
for the Ukraine, and it helps us overall, our national
interest, et cetera, that could win over some other members.
But to do it in a bifurcated way, I think it's tremendously
important moving forward because we've done such an excellent
job, I think, on this bill in a bipartisan way. So, I would
agree with Mr. Sherman. Let's debate that tomorrow. And I am
intrigued by what the chairman has indicated, you know, setting
as an example of how we could do it, and would love to hear
more and have further debate in that regard. But I think that
it should not be included in this bill.
Mr. Duncan. Would the gentleman yield?
Chairman Royce. Mr. Duncan, if I could first explain Mr.
Duncan's amendment very succinctly so that there's a full
understanding. ``To support energy diversification initiatives
to reduce Russian control of energy supplies of Ukraine and
other European countries, including the U.S. promotion of
increased natural gas exports and energy efficiency in Ukraine,
which could be greatly enhanced by advances in energy
extraction and exploration technologies.'' This, specifically,
is what Mr. Duncan is proposing.
The one advantage of the language we have in the underlying
bill is that, frankly, it is so broad it goes to the concept.
As you correctly identify, and as the gentleman from California
has stated, the specifics of this will be debated tomorrow.
All I'm attempting to do here is to advance the argument
that the focus should be on Ukraine to the extent that we can
increase energy independence in Ukraine. I don't really believe
at the end of the day that is that debatable, or divisive an
issue.
I think when you get into the specifics in Energy and
Commerce, that's where the argument is going to occur. And if I
were on that committee, that's where I'd be advancing the
arguments that I just made with Mr. Sherman, and one which at
the end of the day Mr. Sherman, I suspect, might agree with me
on. But that is not for the debate here and now, I concur, but
the language we're using here I just don't see it as that
objectionable because it is so broad based. It goes to the
intent basically to leverage Russia.
And with that, I should yield finally to Mr. Duncan.
Mr. Duncan. Well, Mr. Chairman, you made the points that I
was going to make, so I really don't need to say anything
further than Russia wants to control the Ukraine territory.
They have the ability to control the Ukraine energy sources,
just the nature of where we are with the natural gas and
petroleum coming into Ukraine supplied by Russia.
This would give diversification for the sovereign nation of
Ukraine to possibly go after its own resources, be energy
independent, lessen its dependence on Russia, and really
support its own sovereignty with regard to energy security.
So, with that, I appreciate the comments of the chairman. I
yield back.
Chairman Royce. And I see it, enhancing cooperation with
our European allies on advances in the technology in the energy
field, that's going to provide the opportunity to increase
those supplies. That's going to undermine at the end of the day
President Putin's ability to leverage his energy supplies for
increased political influence, so I support the amendment. But
I think Mr. Cicilline wanted to speak on this issue.
Mr. Cicilline. Just a question, Mr. Chairman.
I know this issue was raised when we considered the earlier
resolution.
Chairman Royce. Yes.
Mr. Cicilline. And I don't think anyone is suggesting
diversification is not a good, sound policy, but that's
actually not what the amendment does as I read it. It adds
language that says, important language, ``which would be
greatly enhanced by the advances in energy extraction and
exploration technologies.''
We haven't had any discussion about that. That's actually
what the amendment says. It adds that language, and I think for
precisely the reasons my colleagues on the other side on the
top tier mentioned this is going to invite a much broader
debate between environmentalists and the industry about
advancements in energy extraction and exploration technologies.
And I, frankly, think it raises the danger that in this moment
when we should be speaking with a very unified voice it's
bringing into this discussion not energy diversification. I
think that's already in the underlying manager's amendment, but
new language about great advancements in energy extraction and
exploration technologies. And I----
Mr. Duncan. Would the gentleman yield? It doesn't say what
that technology is. It's just saying that--it's a statement,
which would be greatly enhanced. And truly it would, it would
be greatly enhanced. Their diversification initiatives would be
greatly enhanced by energy extraction and exploration
technologies regardless of what those may be.
If the U.S. has the ability to help the Ukraine become
energy independent regardless of what those extraction
techniques or exploration technologies are, they should be--we
should be open to giving those to the Ukraine should they ask
for them. I think it's just a statement there at the end.
Mr. Cicilline. Yes, reclaiming my time. That may well be
the intention. I'm just suggesting that using this language is
going to invite, likely to invite the kind of debate that I
think is--that undermines the importance of doing this in a
unified bipartisan way. And I----
Chairman Royce. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. Cicilline, the language--I guess I'm looking at this
very legalistically, but the language says in Ukraine which
could, fortunately says which could be greatly enhanced by the
advances in energy extraction and exploration technologies.
Does that give you any comfort, the--it's basically a statement
of fact, in other words, in which we say it could be. That's
the actual amendment, not his explanation of the amendment, but
the actual----
Mr. Cicilline. Right. Having the benefit of this discussion
during this hearing, and it doesn't give me grave concern. What
I'm saying is that language without a lot of discussion around
it, I fear is likely to raise the kinds of concerns that will
cause people not to support this. And I think that would be
very bad. That's the reason I raise it.
Chairman Royce. Mr. Kinzinger is seeking time.
Mr. Kinzinger. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
As I dealt with a week ago when we talked about this, I am
a huge supporter of the idea of exporting our natural gas;
playing a counter to Russia. I'm a huge supporter of what the
gentleman from South Carolina is trying to do here. But this
has been weeks, and we are finally getting a bill out, and I'm
glad. And I commend the chairman on all his hard work to do it,
but we saw the Senate getting mired down in a lot of issues,
and I hope we don't do that here.
For that reason, and again I am completely supportive of
the idea. I'm also on the Energy and Commerce Committee so, Mr.
Sherman, we may have a little battle on the jurisdiction, but
as a member of Energy and Commerce, we're talking about this.
We're talking about this on the committee, and I am going to be
on the side of helping Ukraine become energy independent with
the help of the United States, but I will oppose this amendment
because I think at this point we have got to move forward, get
this thing out of here. And you see by what we're doing on the
committee and the battle that we're having right now, this is
going to be repeated on the floor, and while I disagree with my
colleagues that would vote against it for that reason, there
will be colleagues that will vote against it for that reason.
And I think we're miring ourselves down in the situation
similar to what the Senate had.
And I think, frankly, as the section reads already,
``increase natural gas exports and energy efficiency,'' is
actually pretty sufficient for what we're trying to do for
this.
Chairman Royce. Could I ask the gentleman, Mr. Kinzinger,
if we attempted with Mr. Duncan and Mr. Cicilline to work out
some kind of diversification language, could you see yourself--
--
Mr. Kinzinger. Sure.
Chairman Royce. Well, then let me go to the real question,
which is to Mr. Duncan.
Mr. Duncan, if we were to work with Mr. Kinzinger and Mr.
Cicilline during the next \1/2\ hour while we move forward with
these amendments to try to get some type of language to the
issue of diversification of energy for Ukraine, would that be
permissible?
Mr. Duncan. I would support that.
Chairman Royce. Okay, then you'll withdraw the amendment
pending
Mr. Duncan. I will withdraw the amendment.
Chairman Royce [continuing]. To work out language.
Mr. Duncan. And I would request--I have another amendment
at the desk, Amendment 45.
Chairman Royce. The clerk will read the amendment.
Ms. Marter. Amendment to H.R. 4278 offered by Mr. Duncan of
South Carolina.
Page 8, line 5, insert before the period at the end of the
following: ``such as by supporting reform efforts of the
Government of Ukraine to pass legislation related to greater
accountability for government officials; greater protection of
private property; and increased transparency of government
funds.''
Page 16, line 14, insert, ``(4) the Government of Ukraine
should make greater efforts to secure the protection of
classified information and military equipment.''
[The information referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Royce. The Chair is going to reserve a point of
order and recognize the author to explain the amendment.
Mr. Duncan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Folks, Ukraine is effectively bankrupt. It needs at least
$20 billion in aid to stabilize its finances. Now, the Ukraine
and the EU signed an Association Agreement last week, Ukraine's
financial situation, cultural polarization, and geographic
divide alone present enormous challenges.
Furthermore, Russia's invasion of the Crimea captured the
Ukraine's Belbek Air Base on March 22nd, and the seizure of a
Crimean naval base yesterday add immense risk and volatility to
the region. So, while the U.S. must support those in Ukraine
seeking greater freedom from Russian pressure, we also have a
responsibility to the American people who require
accountability and transparency of U.S. tax dollars.
I'm concerned that the U.S. Government is not prioritizing
anti-corruption efforts in the Ukraine strongly enough. In
fact, on March 14th representatives of Ukrainian public
organizations and initiatives made some bold public statements
to Parliament of Ukraine and a visiting bipartisan U.S.
Congressional delegation where they said it will be impossible
to implement measures offered to Ukraine by the United States
without large-scale anti-corruptive strategy.
The Parliament of Ukraine has yet to pass any law enabling
new leaders of Ukraine to counteract corruption and change the
system in the departments starting from now. So far there are
no guarantees that money received by new Ukrainian authorities
before the Presidential election for reforming and actual
reloading of the state will be used transparently and for their
designed purposes.
Ukraine must not receive a single cent from foreign
partners until necessary anti-corruptive legislative will be
adopted, and leave taxpayers who will repay these debts often
sufficient instruments of control over budget expenditures. All
those were quotes from that meeting of last March 14th.
My amendment is very simple. There are two sections that
require U.S. policy toward Ukraine must emphasize more strongly
anti-corruption efforts by the Government of Ukraine, and urge
the Government of Ukraine to require greater accountability,
protection of private property, and transparency.
This amendment also urges the Government of Ukraine to pass
legislation to counteract corruption and secure the protection
of classified information and military equipment since there
has been many problems with the protection of these valuable
assets.
Again, this amendment urges the Parliament in Ukraine to do
these sort of things. To speak I think to the original question
from the gentleman from Florida earlier, this is not mandating
that the Ukrainian Parliament do anything. This is urging them
to pass legislation related to greater accountability for
government officials.
I think part of the revolution that we saw in Ukraine
recently and the running off, so to speak, of the existing
President was part of that anti-corruption mind set, so I would
urge my colleagues to get behind this amendment and pass it.
And with that, I'll yield back.
Chairman Royce. Thank you, Mr. Duncan. I don't see this as
being controversial because I think all of us agree that
Ukraine must confront corruption head on. That's why the bill
prioritizes a number of anti-corruption initiatives here,
including in the initial statement of policy, including in the
subsection dealing with other donors and international
institutions.
If you read through the section regarding the recovery of
assets, and in the section imposing sanctions upon certain
individuals and entities in the Ukraine that were involved in
corruption, so adding this additional language with respect to
the Parliament, et cetera, I think is----
Mr. Duncan. I reclaim some of my time here. This is just
really a statement of the sense of this Congress----
Chairman Royce. Right.
Mr. Duncan [continuing]. With regard to corruption, with
regard to private information, classified information, military
equipment; what should the Ukraine do? We are responsible to
American taxpayers. We're supposed to be good stewards of that
money, and to make sure that it's not given to a government
that's going to continue corruption, that there is a
democratically elected Parliament that will address that would
be a good thing. And this is the sense of Congress, so to
speak. And with that, I'll yield back the balance.
Chairman Royce. Do any other members seek recognition to
speak on this amendment? Mr. Grayson.
Mr. Grayson. Mr. Chairman, I think that the bill as it is
now actually takes appropriate steps with regard to corruption,
the issue of corruption in Crimea. I think this amendment does
not.
In context what this does is this amends part of the bill
that describes the policy of the United States to work with
other countries and international institutions to stabilize the
Ukrainian economy while promoting critical needed structural
economic reforms in the Ukraine including, and then it lists a
number of structural reforms, the last one being reducing
corruption.
I think that that actually is apt. I think that's sensible,
and I think that that correctly describes the policy of the
United States. I think that this amendment, if I may say this,
butchers that provision by adding in a whole bunch of non
sequiturs. What this does is it says that it's the policy of
the United States to reduce corruption by, among other things,
providing greater protection of private protection. I don't see
how that has anything to do with reducing corruption.
In addition to that, the whole premise of this amendment is
to do these things by passing legislation in the Ukraine. So, I
return to my original question. I don't understand why the
gentleman from South Carolina thinks that the Parliament of the
Ukraine needs pointers on how to deal with corruption in the
Ukraine.
Mr. Duncan. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. Grayson. Well, I will yield to you with regard to a
specific question. Can the gentleman tell us the existing state
of law in the Ukraine, in other words, bills already passed by
the Parliament to fight corruption, and what additional
provisions the gentleman thinks are needed?
Mr. Duncan. Thank the gentleman. I point directly to the
statements that I made earlier. On March 14th the
representatives of Ukrainian public organizations and
initiatives made some bold public statements to the Parliament
of Ukraine, and a visiting bipartisan U.S. Congressional
delegation where they said this. And you weren't in for this
part of my testimony or opening statement, but ``it will be
impossible to implement measures offered to Ukraine by the
United States without a large-scale anti-corruptive strategy.''
These aren't my words, these were their words. ``The Parliament
of Ukraine has yet to pass any law enabling new leaders of
Ukraine to counteract corruption and change the system in their
departments starting from now.''So far, there are no guarantees
that money received by new Ukrainian authorities before
Presidential election for reforming and actual reloading of the
state will be used transparently and for their designated
purposes.''
And the last one, ``Ukraine must not receive a single cent
from foreign partners until necessary anti-corruptive
legislation will be adopted and we taxpayers who will repay
these debts, Ukrainian taxpayers who will repay these debts
often sufficient instruments of control over budget
expenditures.'' Those are all quotes from the Ukrainians.
Mr. Grayson. I'll reclaim my time. Does the gentleman from
South Carolina seriously believe that there is no anti-
corruption legislation in existence in the Ukraine, that
corruption is, in fact, legal in Ukraine at this point?
Mr. Duncan. I believe corruption is rampant in Ukraine.
Mr. Grayson. Not rampant. I'm asking do you think it's
legal or illegal?
Mr. Duncan. For the Parliament or----
Mr. Grayson. I'm asking you whether you think the act of
corruption is legal or illegal presently in the Ukraine?
Mr. Duncan. Well, I'm not sure whether it's illegal or
legal in Ukraine.
Mr. Grayson. Okay. I'm going to go out on a limb and say
that it's illegal.
Mr. Duncan. But in most countries it is illegal.
Chairman Royce. Could the gentleman from Florida yield?
Mr. Grayson. Yes.
Chairman Royce. I would just make a point, and this would
be an example of what was legal and what they're attempting to
change. If you are well connected to the prior President in the
Ukraine you could get loans at 3 percent. If you were a farmer
you were getting loans at 17 percent. The consequences of that
was that oligarchs close to the previous President were, in
fact, using this. It was legal, and the EU was straining every
sinew to try to get the Parliament in Ukraine to move on these
types of reforms.
In this case, I think Mr. Duncan has a very real point. If
we can join with the EU in pressing the Parliament to take
concerted action, there is no question that there are going to
be some interests in the Ukraine that are going to resist this,
mainly those who are oligarchs. But those are the people that
we're trying to target here in order to bring about the Rule of
Law.
So, at the end of the day, I think this amendment is
helpful for the reason that I've explained. And, in fact,
certain things which we would consider illegal are, in fact,
legal under their system because they have not been reformed.
That's why I think it's in order, but if we could go to the
vote.
Mr. Grayson. I'd like to reclaim the remainder of my time.
Chairman Royce. Yes, absolutely.
Mr. Grayson. I appreciate the chairman's comments and I
find them very helpful. I think that these decisions should be
fact-based, and the chairman has offered facts that actually
have a direct impact on my view of the situation.
I remain concerned about the provision in this amendment
that says that one means of fighting corruption in the Ukraine
is to pass legislation that promotes the greater protection of
private property. To me that remains a non sequitur and I am
concerned about that provision.
I will yield to the gentleman from South Carolina if he can
explain why the protection of private property somehow reduces
corruption the Ukraine.
Mr. Duncan. I will have to look that particular section up
real quick in comparison to the bill, but----
Chairman Royce. I'm going to suggest that time has expired
for the gentleman. Because of time constraints I am--are there
any other members that seek time on this? If not, I'm going to
suggest we go to a vote on the gentleman's amendment.
Hearing no further request for recognition the question
occurs on the amendment. All those in favor say aye.
All those opposed, no.
Mr. Grayson. No.
Chairman Royce. In the opinion of the Chair the ayes have
it. The amendment is agreed to, and we go to Mr. Castro for his
amendment. Does the member have an amendment to the desk?
Mr. Castro. Yes, number 23.
Chairman Royce. The clerk will report the amendment.
Ms. Marter. Amendment to H.R. 4278 offered by Mr. Castro of
Texas. Page 5, strike line 23 through page 6, line 2 and insert
the following: (2) supporting Ukrainian efforts to foster
greater unity among people and regions of the country, combat
anti-Semitism and discrimination, and promote respect for
religious freedom.
[The information referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Royce. The Chair reserves a point of order and we
recognize the author to explain the amendment.
Mr. Castro. Mr. Chairman, it's a very simple amendment. All
I'm adding is two words ``and discrimination'' into that
sentence. That's it.
Chairman Royce. The Chair is in support of this amendment.
Do any members seek recognition?
Mr. Rohrabacher. Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Royce. Yes, the gentleman from California.
Mr. Rohrabacher. I strongly support my friend in his
amendment. Thank you.
Mr. Castro. Thank you very much.
Chairman Royce. I thank the gentleman from California.
Hearing no further requests for recognition the question occurs
on the amendment.
All those in favor say aye.
All those opposed, no.
In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it and the
amendment is agreed to.
Mr. Poe. of Texas.
Mr. Poe. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk,
number 46.
Chairman Royce. The clerk will report the amendment.
Ms. Marter. Mr. Poe, I have Amendment 74.
Mr. Poe. I'll take that one.
Ms. Marter. Amendment to H.R. 4278 offered by Mr. Poe of
Texas. At the end of title I, add the following: Section 110.
Report on geopolitical impact of energy exports. (a) Report
required. Not later than 90 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Department of State's Special Envoy
and Coordinator for International Energy Affairs shall submit
to the appropriate congressional committees a detailed,
quantitative, and substantive report on the potential short,
medium, and long-term impacts of increased United States
natural gas and oil exports on Russia's economic and political
influence over Ukraine and other European countries.
(b) Definition. In this subsection, the term----
Chairman Royce. Without objection the Chair is going to
consider the amendment as read and recognize the author to
explain the amendment.
[The information referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Poe. Thank the chairman. We've had much discussion
about energy and the influence that it has had in the region.
We disagree on what we should do regarding natural gas
exporting.
This simply requires that the State Department use its
resources to prepare a study and report back to Congress
whether it's a good idea or not for us to make a decision later
on whether or not we should export energy to the region. So,
basically, the amendment is very simple. Let's have some
information given to us by the State Department.
Chairman Royce. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. Poe. Certainly.
Chairman Royce. I support this amendment. There were a
number of amendments that Mr. Poe was considering offering. We
worked with him on this amendment. This amendment is important,
I think, to the Congress and to the administration that we have
a strategic understanding of the potential for increased U.S.
natural gas and oil exports to reduce Putin's stranglehold over
Ukraine and Eastern Europe. And I think it speaks to just that
issue. Mr. Engel.
Mr. Engel. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to commend Mr. Poe. I support his amendment. I think
it's important. I think this is something that is very relevant
with the matters of discussion today, and I would urge my
colleagues to support it.
Chairman Royce. I yield back to Mr. Poe, unless you want to
go to vote.
Mr. Sherman. I commend the gentleman for his amendment and
the ranking member for her statement.
Chairman Royce. Thank you. Without objection we'll go now
to a vote. Hearing no further request for recognition, the
question occurs on the amendment. Who seeks recognition?
Mr. Stockman. Right after this, I do.
Chairman Royce. Oh, okay.
All those in favor say aye.
All those opposed, no.
In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it. The
amendment is agreed to.
Recognizing the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. Stockman. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the
desk.
Chairman Royce. The clerk will read the amendment.
Ms. Marter. Amendment to H.R. 4278 offered by Mr. Stockman
of Texas. Page 10, beginning on line 10, strike ``services to
Russia'' and insert ``that promotes democracy and government
transparency in Russia.''
[The information referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Royce. I'm going to recognize the gentleman to
explain his amendment.
Mr. Stockman. This is just an amendment which will help
facilitate. I think all countries should want this amendment
for transparency and to promote democracy. And I'm going to
yield to my friend from California briefly.
Mr. Rohrabacher. I thank the gentleman for yielding to me,
and I would just suggest that we've had a very good exchange of
views here today. And I appreciate the leadership of the chair.
And while I disagree with the bill, I certainly respect
everyone's opinion, and respect the leadership of the chair.
Thank you very much.
Mr. Stockman. I want to add one other thing in reference to
one of our colleagues who mentioned that China does not occupy
territory or has invaded. I just want to point out in 1991 this
House adopted a resolution that said Tibet is an occupied
territory. I thought that would be relevant for the record. I
yield back the balance of my time.
Chairman Royce. All right. So, the language ``promotes
democracy and government transparency in Russia when doing
international broadcasting.''
Any other members seek recognition? If not, the question
occurs on the amendment.
All those in favor say aye.
Opposed, no.
In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it. The
amendment is agreed to.
Ms. Gabbard, I believe, is next.
Ms. Gabbard. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I have an
amendment on the table.
Chairman Royce. The clerk will read the amendment.
Ms. Marter. Amendment to H.R. 4278 offered by Ms. Gabbard
of Hawaii. Page 8, after line 3, insert the following (and
redesignate subsequent paragraphs accordingly): (5) promoting a
robust, independent and impartial judiciary, due process, and
uniform application of laws.
Page 13, line 5 after ``law enforcement'' insert ``and the
judicial system.''
Page 13, after line 12, insert the following and
redesignate subsequent paragraphs accordingly.
Chairman Royce. The amendment will be considered read, and
we recognize the author to explain the amendment.
[The information referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Gabbard. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
There's been a lot of conversation today and in previous
days about anti-corruption efforts, our intent to offer
assistance in bringing stability back to Ukraine in a variety
of ways. This amendment highlights our intent to offer
assistance in a necessary way, I believe, in forming a robust
independent, impartial judicial system.
There are a lot of things that we can do to try to assist
Ukraine in reforming their government, banking, energy in
sector arenas but without an ability for them to hold people
accountable, and for the people of Ukraine to feel a sense of
confidence in their judicial system, and that there is a Rule
of Law, then I'm afraid that these reforms will not be meeting
their direct intent. I yield back.
Chairman Royce. I thank the gentlelady for yielding. And I
do think that one of the things we often miss is the importance
of an independent judiciary, sort of this concept of the locust
effect of what happens when you do not really have enforcement
of law, because you have a judiciary and law enforcement that
are ineffectual. So, we support enhancing democratic
institutions in the Ukraine, and I think this amendment does a
lot in that direction.
I think a member here seeks recognition. Mr. Duncan of
South Carolina, to speak on this amendment?
Mr. Duncan. Yes. I just wanted to applaud the gentlewoman
from Hawaii because in countries where even they have the Rule
of Law, if they don't have the courts that are necessary, or
the non-corrupt courts necessary to prosecute then you see laws
being avoided and the continuation of bad practices. I think
this is spot on, and I applaud you for going down that trail,
and I support the amendment.
Chairman Royce. Any other members seeking recognition? If
not, the question occurs on the amendment.
All those in favor say aye.
All those opposed, no.
In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it. The
amendment is agreed to.
We're going to go first to Mr. Salmon of Arizona.
Mr. Salmon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment at
the desk.
Chairman Royce. The clerk will read the amendment.
Ms. Marter. Amendment to H.R. 4278 offered by Mr. Salmon of
Arizona. At the end of title I, add the following: Section 110.
Sense of Congress on suspension of all activities and meetings
of the NATO-Russia Council. It is the sense of Congress that
the United States should work to suspend all activities and
meetings of the NATO-Russia Council until Russia ends its
aggression against Ukraine, including by removing forces from,
and reversing its illegal annexation of, Crimea.
[The information referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Royce. The gentleman is recognized to explain his
amendment.
Mr. Salmon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
It's common sense that if Russia is going to practice these
renewed aggressions and engage in expansionist activities then
NATO's previous mission of Russian containment may need to be
reinvigorated if Russia insists on foregoing its opportunity to
be in the room.
We all know the history of NATO. It was created as an
alliance of allies to counter Warsaw Pact countries led by
expansionist Russia. But since the collapse of the Warsaw Pact,
NATO was expanded to include several of the former Warsaw Pact
countries. And while security remains key in the mission, in
recent years the focus has shifted to the fight against
terrorism and against global destabilization.
In 1997, NATO countries signed the NATO-Russia Founding Act
which provided the formal basis for bilateral cooperation with
the goal of easing Moscow's concerns about NATO's expansion
being a threat. Five years later in 2002, the NATO-Russia
Council (NRC) was established.
My amendment is very simple. All it will do is call on NATO
to suspend all former NRC, NATO-Russia Council, activities
until Russia stops its aggression against Ukraine, removes its
troops from Crimea, and reverses its annexation of the
sovereign territory.
It is important to note that this does not cease dialogue.
And, in fact, follows the example of NATO's actions after
Russia invaded Georgia in 2008. At that time, all formal
activities were suspended for a period.
I understand that engagement is still critical, and we have
to have dialogue. There is an avenue for that continued
dialogue at the United Nations. But as the President has began
escalating sanctions and looking for all the tools in the
toolbox, I think that this would be a good addition. Thank you,
Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Chairman Royce. So, if I understand the gentleman, the
language is to work for, or work toward suspension. I notice
the NATO Secretary General Rasmussen raised the possibility of
suspending the NATO-Russia Council saying, ``It can no longer
be business as usual with Russia.'' I agree with that. I think
Russia must understand that aggression will not extend its
influence but will, instead, lead to economic and political
isolation. That's the sense of the amendment.
Do any other members seek recognition? Mr. Grayson.
Mr. Grayson. Mr. Chairman, I think that this is a mistake.
What the NATO-Russia Council actually does is, among other
things, make it less likely that we go to war against Russia.
And I think that that is still a valid goal regardless of what
Russia has done in the Crimea. I think most members of this
committee would agree that we should try to avoid war with
Russia.
In addition to that, the NATO-Russia Council serves many
purposes that are in our direct strategic interest as a
country. For instance, through the NATO-Russia Council we have
obtained logistical support for our war in Afghanistan from the
Russians. Because of the NATO-Russia Council, the Russians have
provided us with logistical support for that war which,
apparently, will continue at least through the end of this
year.
Secondly, through the NATO-Russia Council we have joined
with the Russians to fight terrorism. Up to this point, the
Russians have a very positive and helpful record with regard to
fighting terrorism. They have been the victim of terrorism just
as the United States has been the victim of terrorism.
The way that we accomplish that cooperation is through the
NATO-Russia Council. Withdrawing from the NATO-Russia Council
or forbidding Russia to participate in the NATO-Russia Council
will actually, in a sense, promote terrorism.
In addition to that, the NATO-Russia Council has served to
help prevent proliferation of nuclear weapons in other
countries. Obviously, we need the Russian's cooperation if
we're going to have any hope of preventing Iran from obtaining
nuclear weapons. That cooperation comes through the NATO-Russia
Council. If we disband the NATO-Russia Council we are, in
effect, making it more likely that Iran will obtain a nuclear
weapon.
Therefore, for these reasons and among all the other things
that the NATO-Russia Council accomplishes that are in our
direct strategic advantage, I don't think that we should
withdraw from the NATO-Russia Council. I don't think that we
should attempt to disband it. I don't think that we should do
anything to harm the productive accomplishments of that
Council. I yield my time.
Mr. Salmon. Mr. Chairman, may I respond?
Mr. Grayson. I'll yield to the gentleman.
Mr. Salmon. Thank you very much. There is nothing in the
language that says that we would disband it. It says it
suspends it for a time until they pull back from their hostile
invasion of Crimea. It doesn't say that it would be disbanded,
or that it would be done away with. It would be suspended.
The President has talked about a lot of red lines. I'm
trying to make that line just a little bit redder.
Mr. Grayson. I'll reclaim my time. At this point, it is
equally likely that the Russians will withdraw from their so
called hostile invasion of Crimea, and that the United States
will withdraw from its so called hostile invasion of Texas in
the 1840s. It's not going to happen.
If we pass this amendment and, in fact, we do suspend all
activities and meetings that take place of the NATO-Russia
Council we are, in effect, disbanding the Council. That's the
reality of the situation. The reality of the situation is that
doing this hurts ourselves, hurts our strategic interests,
hurts our role in the region and throughout the world. That's a
bad thing to do.
Mr. Salmon. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. Grayson. Yes, I'll yield.
Chairman Royce. Let me recognize Mr. Keating first, and
then we'll go to Mr. Sherman. Oh, the gentleman still has time.
Yes, absolutely. So you've yielded----
Mr. Grayson. I'll yield to Mr. Keating, I think. No? Mr.
Sherman.
Mr. Keating. Mr. Chairman, no. I have my own amendment
pending. That's all.
Mr. Sherman. Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Royce. The gentleman will be recognized.
Mr. Sherman. I think we could achieve the purpose of this
amendment by stopping it at the word ``Council'' and
eliminating the words ``until Russia ends its aggression
against the Ukraine.'' Then you would simply say, ``suspend our
involvement in this Council.'' And I think we need to do that
for an appropriate amount of time. Obviously, if Russia
withdraws from Ukraine I'd be the first to want to visit the
Council, but to say that we are going to suspend our activity
really forever goes beyond what we ought to do given the
importance of the Council.
Chairman Royce. Will the gentleman yield? Yes, Mr. Sherman,
I had marked up a suggested amendment here just before we went
to you thinking about doing exactly that, because I think if we
just go to the issue of the meeting of the Foreign Ministers
which is the Council and we drop the other reference, I think
it's much more likely that we're going to have unanimous
consent of this body behind this resolution.
And I'm going to suggest that at this time to the gentleman
from Arizona that you look at taking the sentence, ``It is the
sense of Congress that the United States should work to suspend
all activities and meetings of the NATO-Russia Council,'' and
then that's the end of the amendment.
Mr. Salmon. Yes, that sounds great.
Chairman Royce. I ask unanimous consent----
Mr. Grayson. Will the gentleman--well, I'm not sure whose
time it is right now, Mr. Chairman, but may I address that?
Chairman Royce. Reclaiming my time, I recognize the
gentleman from Florida, Mr. Grayson.
Mr. Grayson. All right. With all due respect, and I
appreciate the chairman's efforts to make something good out of
this effort by the gentleman from Arizona, it sounds to me like
the amendment that's being offered suspends all activities,
would suspend all activities and meetings of the NATO-Russia
Council forever. And, in effect, disband it.
If the chairman were to offer an amendment that would do so
for a limited period of time, a limited defined period of time,
then I think that that, in fact, would be constructive. But to
go from ``will suspend the activities and meetings of the NATO-
Russia Council until Russia withdraws from Crimea'' to ``will
suspend the activities and meetings of the NATO-Russia Council
forever'' does not seem to me to be a step in the right
direction. In fact, respectfully, maybe a step in the wrong
direction. I yield back.
Chairman Royce. Mr. Sherman.
Mr. Sherman. I would say the word ``suspend'' means you
suspend for a while. This is a sense of Congress. I would think
that we would allow the gentleman, give him his unanimous
consent to change his amendment, and then if people want to
vote for it----
Chairman Royce. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. Sherman. Yes, I will, to the chair.
Chairman Royce. The word ``temporarily suspend'' would
probably satisfy the members of the committee.
Mr. Grayson. Will the gentleman yield?
Chairman Royce. Yes.
Mr. Grayson. I find that it would satisfy me. However, the
grammar police might be upset because of the split infinitive.
Chairman Royce. That is true. However, for government work
I think it's close enough, Mr. Grayson. If it secures the
support of the members of this committee, and I think this is
the one way to do it, so I'm going to ask Mr. Salmon for
unanimous consent that the Salmon amendment be read as follows:
``It is the sense of Congress that the United States should
work to temporarily suspend all activities and meetings of the
NATO-Russia Council.''
[The information referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Salmon. I would support that.
Chairman Royce. All right. Any other members seeking--yes,
the gentleman from California.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Let me just note that this is exactly the
opposite direction that we should be going in, no matter even
if we change the wording.
The bottom line is, if we are going to--if we have major
differences with a country as powerful as Russia, which we have
to admit has its interest, and we have our interest, and there
are people, other people in this game, as well, around the
world who would like to see countries that, what was the Soviet
Union but now Russia and the United States when they have a
problem, it would be a good thing for us to talk things out.
What we have here is an example also of what we're doing
internationally when you have the G-8 now has removed Russia
from the G-8, now it's going to be called the G-7.
Mr. Chairman, this is the type of vehicle that we should be
promoting. We should be promoting discussion between the top
leaders of various powerful countries to see if we can overcome
differences rather than suspending talks at a time when we need
to be talking to one another.
Look, Russia helps us in Afghanistan. They have since 9/11
played a very positive role in helping us supply our troops. We
need that cooperation. We need cooperation when it comes to--if
we would have had a higher level of cooperation we probably
could have averted the bombing at the Boston marathon. We need
to cooperate where we can, and when we have differences we need
to talk it out. And to kick Russia out of the G-8 and not to
have a discussion among these top leaders goes against--is
exactly the wrong direction to go.
Mr. Salmon. Would the gentleman yield----
Mr. Rohrabacher. What it does is give them the idea what we
want is a hostile situation. We're rushing in to a reigniting
of the Cold War when we didn't talk to one another. We should
be, instead, suggesting that we all sit down and see if we can
work things out at a table rather than simply cutting off all
discussion with someone.
Mr. Salmon. Would my good friend from California yield?
Mr. Rohrabacher. I certainly will.
Mr. Salmon. Thank you very much.
I think that right now is the most appropriate time to
isolate Russia. They have been increasingly with the activities
in Georgia, now the activities in Crimea, they are emboldened
by our weakness. And our standing in the world has diminished
greatly over the last several years, and lots of red lines have
been drawn. And every time a red line is crossed we draw a new
red line. And I think that the international community has lost
incredible respect for the United States and our standing needs
to be bolstered. And we've got to draw a line that actually
means something sometime, somehow, somewhere.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Okay, well let me reclaim my time and let
me just say that I've heard the word ``Georgia'' over and over
again. And I will have to say, I sat here in this room and I
sat and listened to the reports on what had happened in
Georgia, and we have this invasion, Russian invasion of
Georgia, never mentioning that the Government of Georgia had
initiated the military action 2 days before the Russian
retaliation. And that the Georgians had broken a 14-year truce
with Russia dealing with Ossetia and Abkhazia which wanted to
be--again, people who wanted to be independent and have their
self-determination.
Now, we can create this fantasy world where that didn't
exist. The Ossetia and Abkhazia, that the Georgians didn't
attack and, in fact, Russia had invaded Georgia on its own. And
we can ignore the fact that the people of Crimea want their
self-determination, and that Russia is being an aggressor, but
we need to sit down and talk to them, and talk to each other,
and be honest about it, rather than trying to be pushed
headlong into another Cold War.
And that's what I see happening here. And believe me, I was
a Cold Warrior, but that's when it was the Soviet Union, and
that's when communism guided their decision making to try to
put an atheist dictatorship in charge of the world. That's not
what Russia is today. It's a very powerful country with its
interests, but it is not the Soviet Union.
Let's seek peace with these people and seek cooperation,
and it will make it a better world. And you do that through
talking to somebody at a moment of crisis, not cutting them off
and saying screw you. Pardon me.
Chairman Royce. I'm going to recognize myself for a moment,
because I think we should clarify the operations of the
Council. It's essentially a meeting of foreign ministers. It
has no practical operation. This is a symbolic action to push
back. It is not the case that we do not have conversations with
the Foreign Minister from Russia on almost a daily basis now,
as do the rest of the European Union. But the point is that we
need to symbolically send a message that in terms of being part
of that organization, they are suspended for conduct as we
continue the dialogue. And the dialogue is certainly going to
continue on a daily basis with Russia.
This sends a signal to go back to the Secretary General of
NATO, General Rasmussen's comment that ``it's not business as
usual.'' And I think we do have to send that signal.
Do any other members seek recognition?
Mr. Grayson. Will the chairman yield? I've already claimed
5 minutes of time.
Chairman Royce. Yes.
Mr. Grayson. But I'm asking for the chairman's time.
Chairman Royce. Yes, I will yield to the gentleman from
Florida.
Mr. Grayson. I understand the chairman's point, but I
respectfully disagree. You can't have it both ways. Either
we're talking to them or we're not talking to them, and we're
not talking to them by shutting off our conversation with them.
The fact is that the NATO-Russia Council, the very
institution that we're discussing here, is the means by which
we have obtained logistical support for our war in Afghanistan
from the Russians. That's a fact.
The fact is that this institution is the means by which we
cooperate with the Russians to fight terrorism, Islamic and
other terrorism around the world. That's a fact. This is the
means by which we try to accomplish nonproliferation in the
Middle East and elsewhere with the cooperation of the Russians.
That's a fact.
Now, we have spent years on this committee, years trying to
make sure that we do what we can to prevent Iran from getting a
nuclear weapon. Either we can work with the Russians the way we
have done in the past, or we stop that. If we turn them away,
if we push them away, if we won't talk to them, if we disband
institutions like the NATO-Russia Council, the inevitable
result of that will be that we no longer cooperate with the
Russians, that there is, in fact a de facto second Cold War.
And the result of that is that we lose the benefit to us that
we get from cooperating with the Russians to fight terrorism
for nonproliferation and otherwise.
It is simply impossible to give you one example to have any
effective institution of economic sanctions against Iran
without the cooperation of the Russians. If the Russians do not
cooperate with our institution of economic sanctions against
Iran, the whole regime collapses. And I'm not talking about the
Iranian regime, I'm talking about the institution of our
economic sanctions against Iran.
Without those economic sanctions we have no hope of
preventing Iran by non-military means of getting a nuclear
weapon. So, we have a choice. You can't always have it both
ways. You can't have your cake and eat it, too.
Either we talk to the Russians when it's in our own
interest, our interest as a country, with our own strategic
objectives talk to the Russians and get their cooperation, or
we don't. And this amendment puts us in the direction of not
talking to them, not getting the cooperation and, therefore,
hurting ourselves.
Chairman Royce. Reclaiming my time. Well, the first point,
of course, would be that we continue those conversations with
the Russians. But the second point, the more important point
that I wanted to make is that I believe the reason the Russians
cooperate with us on nonproliferation is because they perceive
that as being in their own self-interest. The reason they
cooperate with us on gas in Syria is because that is in their
strategic interest. And that's what nations do.
And at the end of the day, we have so many forums in order
to continue that conversation that I am convinced the
conversation will continue. But at the same time, to
temporarily suspend in terms of the G-8, or in terms of this
action with NATO, it is warranted that we send some type of
signal. And this is, I think, helpful in that regard.
Any other members seek recognition?
Without objection, the Salmon amendment is considered as
read. During my earlier UC request we reference here
``temporarily suspend'' and stopping after NATO-Russia Council
into the language.
The question occurs on the amendment. All those in favor of
the amendment signify by saying aye.
All those opposed, no.
In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it, and the
amendment is agreed to.
Are there any other amendments at the desk?
Mr. Keating. Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Royce. Mr. Keating has an amendment.
Mr. Keating. Mr. Chairman, with Ukraine so clearly in the
spotlight, we really don't have to--we really should lose sight
of the regional pressure from Russia, especially in----
Chairman Royce. Mr. Keating.
Mr. Keating. I'm sorry.
Chairman Royce. The clerk will report Mr. Keating's
amendment.
Ms. Marter. Amendment to H.R. 4278 offered by Mr. Keating
of Massachusetts. Page 4, after line 7, insert the following
(and redesignate subsequent paragraphs accordingly): (10) to
reaffirm the sovereignty, independence, and territorial
integrity of other countries in the region, including Moldova
and Georgia, and to condemn any Russian Federation political,
economic, or military aggression against those countries in the
region.
[The information referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Royce. The gentleman is recognized.
Mr. Keating. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
As I mentioned, Ukraine is clearly in the spotlight. We
really can't lose sight of the regional pressure from Russia,
especially Moldova and Georgia. And that's the reason Mr. Poe
and I have put forward a resolution calling on allies to offer
Georgia a membership action plan at the September NATO Summit.
And it's also the primary reason why this committee's
longstanding support for the European Union's Eastern
Partnership exists.
Just as we condemn Russia's illegal activities in Ukraine,
we must also condemn Russia's aggression, threats, and
political and economic pressure on Georgia and Moldova. In
Georgia, Russian troops are forcing communities apart by
building illegal fences along the administrative boundary line.
In Moldova, Russia has threatened to cut off trade and gas
supplies if the government moves ahead with an Association
Agreement with European Union, exactly the same thing they did
in Ukraine.
At the moment, Russian propaganda is fanning the flames of
separate extensions in Transnistria. We must make clear to the
Russians that their efforts to Balkanize Eastern Europe will
not stand, and that any further acts of aggression in the
region will also bring sanctions.
This amendment does that. It also states clearly and
unequivocally that the United States will continue to stand not
just with Ukraine, but with Georgia and Moldova. And with that,
I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Rohrabacher. I would like to ask the gentleman a
question. Does--so this suggests that if the people of Abkhazia
and Ossetia who were put under Georgian--in the same category
of Georgia by Josef Stalin and he, of course, separated them
from the other Abkhazia and Ossetia which remain part of
Russia, that if those people determine, let's say 90 percent of
them voted to become--they'd rather be part of Ossetia and
Abkhazia, and not part of Georgia, that your amendment would be
that we should not support their right of self-determination.
And that Georgia should have the right to come in with armed
force and keep them as part of Georgia. Is that right?
Mr. Keating. Will the gentleman yield for a response?
Mr. Rohrabacher. Yes.
Mr. Keating. Clearly, as I stated in my remarks on the
overall piece of legislation, that there's legal means to do
this internationally and through existing constitutions. What
this provides a sense of is when those illegal acts occur, such
as they did occur in Crimea, and that's simply what this
states. The distinction I'd make with your remarks is the
difference between illegal actions and legal actions.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Right. So, do you believe the Georgian
breaking of the truce with Russia and going--sending their
troops into Abkhazia and Ossetia, which provoked--which at that
time resulted in the retaliation, which we call an invasion of
Georgia, that you would say that that was illegal or legal on
part of Georgia sending their troops in and breaking the truce?
Mr. Keating. Will the gentleman yield back?
Mr. Rohrabacher. Yes, sure.
Mr. Keating. Thank you. In fact, the occupation by Russia
in Abkhazia and South----
Mr. Rohrabacher. Ossetia and Abkhazia.
Mr. Keating. Yes. That occupation is, indeed, illegal.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Well, I was referring to what caused that
situation to arise was that there was a truce between the--
Abkhazia and Ossetia were trying to win their independence.
They are friends of Russia, they want to be part of Russia.
They don't like the Georgians, they're a different religion.
They're a different group of people. And in order to prevent
violence from happening there was a cease fire in that area,
and the Georgians broke that cease fire and sent their troops
in 2 days before the ``Russian invasion of Georgia.''
Would you say then that the Georgians were violating law or
they were in accordance to the law when they sent their troops
in?
Mr. Keating. Will the gentleman yield back?
Mr. Rohrabacher. Yes.
Mr. Keating. With all due respect, I think the statute of
limitations on Josef Stalin has already passed. I think that
this clearly deals with the actions that are happening right
now, and that have happened in the recent weeks where Russia
illegal aggression----
Mr. Rohrabacher. I think it comes down--I'm reclaiming my
time, and I'd just say that it does come down with an honest
disagreement of whether or not people have a right of self-
determination. And our Declaration of Independence makes it
very clear that that's one of the essential elements of what
our country was supposed to be about, is that people have a
right through the consent of the government, and a right to
rebel if their consent is not being adhered to, that we do
believe in the right of self-determination.
Right now what we're hearing is that is not the case, not
just from you, but from--as part of the general debate here.
Mr. Grayson and I obviously plead that that should play a role
in America's decision making around the world when people feel
that they are subjugated and if they want to, again, assert
their right of independence, or to be part of another country.
That's, I think, part of the American experience. I'm sorry
that that doesn't seem to be a principle in which we are making
our determinations now. And this is not--I don't see this as
just some matter of obviously Russian aggression, nor do I see
that it was American aggression upon Serbia when we went and
bombed Serbia in order to insure that the Kosovars had the
right to independence from Serbia. So, then again, that's a
matter of consistency, but if you'd like to retort to that,
please feel free.
Mr. Keating. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. Rohrabacher. Yes.
Mr. Keating. Thank the gentleman. I'll try and stay within
the 38 seconds we have left and simply state that Russia has
committed to withdraw its troops from Georgia, and they have
not done that. And when it comes to the U.S., the U.S. also has
a constitution. We're a country where there is a Rule of Law.
And my amendment as the overall legislation deals with the
illegal actions of Russia in that region, specifically Ukraine,
but also the impending actions, and the threatening actions
with Moldova and Georgia. And that's as clearly as I could
state it.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Yes, thank you.
Mr. Keating. I am out of time. I'll yield my second back.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you.
Chairman Royce. Could I go to Mr. Sherman of California.
Mr. Sherman. I rise in reluctant opposition to the
amendment, because I think that this resolution, this bill
should be narrowly tailored to meet the immediate needs of the
Ukraine. The actions in Georgia are decades old, the actions in
Moldova decades before that. And, in any case, Georgia is not
the Ukraine; Moldova is not the Ukraine.
And I have argued in this room that we should not put
controversial energy policy into this resolution. And I think
we have been successful in having only the minimal and the most
least controversial statements about energy.
There are those who would say that IMF reform should be in
this bill, and I--you know, that's an important cause, but it
adds controversy. The IMF reform would have some applicability
to the Ukraine, but it's not immediate targeted, focused on
today's situation in the Ukraine. And as a news flash, a note
was handed to me that Senator Reid has announced that he may
remove the controversial IMF provisions from the Senate bill on
the Ukraine. So, we ought to focus this on the Ukraine. We'll
have plenty of time in the weeks to come to focus on Moldova
and Georgia.
Mr. Keating. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. Sherman. I will yield.
Mr. Keating. Thank the gentleman for yielding.
If you look at this bill so far, we're dealing with the
internal politics of Russia, we're dealing with Iran, we're
dealing with some energy issues. It's not that narrow. In fact,
the issues that deal directly with Moldova and Georgia that I
referenced in this amendment is much more narrow, in my
opinion, than the other issues that are already in this
resolution.
Mr. Sherman. Had the individual provisions been subject to
a separate vote, an amendment process, I might have taken the
same position. But we're going to have a separate vote on
whether to offend the principle of focusing on the Ukraine, and
I would like to keep it as focused as possible, much as I
commend the gentleman for offering the amendment. And he does
make a good point.
As to the issue of transfers of population, and whether the
government to be established in the Ukraine or any part of it
should reflect those who live there now, or those who lived
there before Josef Stalin moved populations, I think that we
have to institute governments to provide for governing those
people who live in particular areas now.
Obviously, the movements of population committed by Hitler
and Stalin were wrong, and yet we moved an awful lot of Germans
out of East Prussia, out of Silesia and created a new Poland on
a substantial portion of German territory.
The 1940s and prior to that populations were moved
wrongfully, and whether it is today's Poland, whether it is the
United States built entirely on conquered on territory of the
Native Americans, or whether it was the decision of Joshua to
dispossess the Canaanites and lead to the creation of the State
of Judea, those movements of population that occurred before or
in the aftermath of World War II should not--we shouldn't be
trying to undo that.
Those in my district I think recognize that California was
built on territory taken from the Native Americans by the
Spaniards and the Mexicans, and then taken by the United
States. We're not intending to leave. So, let's--we can talk
about how the population in parts of the Ukraine is the result
of Stalin's work, but those who live in any part of the
Ukraine, including the Crimea, have a right to live there, and
a right to vote there even if the presence of their ancestors
there is a result of a crime of Josef Stalin.
And, once again, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts
for his amendment, and my opposition is modest and reluctant.
Chairman Royce. Mr. Grayson, the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. Grayson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am concerned that
we are over-extending ourselves as a country by trying to
guarantee the sovereignty, independence, and territorial
integrity of Moldova and Georgia. I am in support of the
sovereignty, independence, and territorial integrity of Moldova
and Georgia, but I don't even believe that we should be giving
lip service to goals that we simply cannot control or attain
ourselves.
I heard some criticism earlier of red lines being crossed.
Maybe we should be more selective in the lines that we do draw,
whether they're red or otherwise.
In 2008, NATO promised that Georgia would one day be
admitted into NATO. Moldova is already part of a sister
organization of NATO. The fundamental purpose of NATO is to
guarantee the sovereignty, independence, and territorial
integrity of its members. If, in fact, NATO were to extend
itself to Moldova and to Georgia given the fact that there are
Russian troops occupying parts of both countries without the
permission of the formal central government in both countries,
again, for the purpose the Russians say, and I think this is to
a large degree valid, of self-determination of those areas, as
the Congressman from California has already pointed out. In
fact, what we'd be doing is possibly blundering into war
against Russia in much the same way that World War I occurred
through a web of alliances on both sides causing one country
after another, after another to say yes, fine, I'll join in on
that war.
In this case there is a slope. It's a slippery slope, and
we start down that slope when we do things like reaffirming the
sovereignty, independence, and territorial integrity of
countries when we can't guarantee the sovereignty,
independence, and territorial integrity of those countries
without going to war.
And although I understand the impulse to say good things,
to try to say things that give us all a warm and fuzzy feeling
that we're on the side of righteous and goodness, in this case
it's a real danger. So, I would say that the bill is better off
without this amendment for the reasons that the gentleman from
California and the other gentleman from California on the other
side of the aisle have both expressed. I yield back.
Chairman Royce. We have two other measures to consider and
votes at about 1:30, so we need to keep moving. I'm going to
ask the question on the amendment.
All those in favor say aye.
All those opposed say no.
And the amendment is not agreed to.
Mr. Duncan has an amendment.
Mr. Duncan. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment.
Chairman Royce. The clerk will read the amendment.
Mr. Duncan. Yes. I have an amendment in the nature of a
substitute to Amendment 46.
Ms. Marter. Amendment offered by Mr. Duncan of South
Carolina to H.R. 4278. In Section 2(8)--Following ``increased
natural gas exports and energy efficiency,'' insert ``in
Ukraine, which could be enhanced by advances in new energy
technologies.''
[The information referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Royce. The gentleman is recognized to explain his
amendment.
Mr. Duncan. I want to thank the minority for their work on
this in conjunction with us. I believe the language is
palatable to both sides, and with that I will just yield back
and call the question.
Chairman Royce. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and the
language here is, following ``increased natural gas exports and
energy efficiency,'' insert ``in Ukraine, which could be
enhanced by advances in new energy technologies.''
And with that explanation, any other member seek time?
Hearing no further request for recognition, the question occurs
on the amendment.
All those in favor say aye.
All those opposed, no.
In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it.
Mr. Meeks of New York.
Mr. Meeks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment at
the desk.
Chairman Royce. The clerk will read the amendment.
Ms. Marter. Amendment to H.R. 4278 offered by Mr. Meeks of
New York. Page 18, after line 2, insert the following: Section
blank. United States leadership in the International Monetary
Fund.
Chairman Royce. The Chair reserves a point of order that we
consider the amendment as read.
[The information referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Meeks. Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Royce. I reserve a point of order and recognize
the author to explain the amendment.
Mr. Meeks. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Royce. Mr. Meeks.
Mr. Meeks. This is an amendment I fully intend on
withdrawing. Let me state on the onset given the mood and
everything else that you and Mr. Engel have worked on, I know
that we don't have jurisdiction, so it's an amendment that I
will withdraw.
Chairman Royce. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Meeks. What the amendment that I proposed, I guess
partly being frustrated being on the Financial Services
Committee, I wish would have jurisdiction, that we would have
an opportunity to debate this and talk about this issue in the
Financial Services Committee, of which I once was the chair of
the International Monetary Policy and Trade Subcommittee that
dealt with and had jurisdiction over the IMF.
I believe that Congress as a whole needs to seriously
consider passing the reforms to the IMF as an essential
component of a comprehensive assistance package to the Ukraine.
These reforms would not cost the United States taxpayers
anything additional, they strengthen the IMF's funding base and
ability to lead during a financial crisis. And the reforms move
funds from one account to another, but they do not change our
overall financial commitment and position to the IMF. If we
were serious in our intention to support the people of Ukraine,
now is a critical time to strengthen the power of the IMF, in
my belief.
Christine Legarde, the Managing Director of the IMF, noted
in a Wall Street Journal article yesterday that U.S. policy
makers from Henry Kissinger to Condoleezza Rice believe that
the current IMF reforms are necessary for the United States'
strategic interest in the world, and the United States would be
steadfast, or should be steadfast in our support for democracy
and economic growth, for helping the people of Ukraine.
Reforming IMF quotas is a big step toward that gap.
The IMF, I believe, is absolutely vital to our national
security because a strong U.S. economy and a strong U.S. global
economic leadership is critical to our strength around the
world and to our national security. The IMF is also central,
too, to provide economic policy to support to U.S. allies and
governments whose failure would jeopardize the United States'
national security interest, and preventing financial crises
makes for more capable partners in the fight against terrorism
and the protection of human rights overall.
And, again, just the--what we would not be giving up. We
would not be giving up our veto power over the IMF decisions
which provides us with a great deal of influence.
Implementation of the 2010 IMF reforms preserves the U.S. veto
power and our leadership position without increasing our
overall financial commitment of the IMF. And failure to pass
IMF reform legislation more than 3 years after we helped design
the reforms is undermining our international credibility.
So with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my
time.
Chairman Royce. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I do
appreciate you withdrawing the amendment because, as you noted,
Rule 10 of the House would grant jurisdiction on this to the
Financial Services Committee over this issue. So, by
withdrawing we expedite the process of passing out the bill.
Without objection the gentleman's amendment is withdrawn.
Hearing no further amendments to this measure the question
occurs on agreeing to H.R. 4278, as amended.
All those in favor say aye.
All those opposed, no.
In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it and the bill,
as amended, is agreed to. And without objection 4278, as
amended, is ordered favorably reported as a single amendment in
the nature of a substitute. Staff is directed to make any
technical and conforming changes.
We now move to consideration of our two bipartisan Asia
resolutions for today. As your offices were previously
notified, the ranking member and I propose to consider en bloc
both resolutions and their respective substitute amendments
which were sent to your offices last night.
So, without objection the following items will be
considered en bloc, H.R. 418 urging the Government of Burma to
end the persecution of the Muslim Rohingya people. And then
Amendment 97 in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 418 offered
by the Chairman on behalf of myself, Mr. Engel, Mr. Chabot, and
Ms. Gabbard.
H.R. 494 affirming the importance of the Taiwan Relations
Act. And Amendment 94 in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 494
offered by the Chairman. This is on behalf of myself and Mr.
Engel.
[The information referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Royce. I now recognize myself to speak on the en
bloc amendments.
H.R. 494 affirms the importance of the Taiwan Relations
Act. For 35 years, the Taiwan Relations Act has served as the
legal framework governing the important relationship between
the United States of America and the Republic of China-Taiwan.
Since the Act came into force in 1979, there have been few
other pieces of foreign policy legislation as consequential as
the TRA. Indeed, it is the steadfast support of the United
States Congress that has helped Taiwan become what it is today,
a thriving democratic society, and a world leader in high tech
innovation.
Today we will consider H.R. 494, affirming the importance
of the Taiwan Relations Act. This bipartisan legislation which
currently has over 60 co-sponsors reinforces our nation's
unwavering support for Taiwan, and for Taiwan's 23 million
people. As chairman I led two bipartisan delegations to Taiwan
to strengthen our bilateral relationship. Last year I
introduced legislation that was signed into law to help Taiwan
gain a seat at the International Civil Aviation Organization
for the first time since 1976. Two weeks ago we held the first
Taiwan hearing in this committee on this issue of the Taiwan
Relations Act, and today we will pass this important
legislation to reaffirm our support for Taiwan.
The amendment in the nature of a substitute makes technical
and clarifying edits to the underlying legislation. The
amendment also includes bipartisan language offered by Mr.
Connolly of Virginia to strengthen the underlying resolution. I
want to thank the gentleman from Virginia for his suggestion,
and I will recognize him in a moment to explain the language.
Taiwan maintains significant bipartisan support in the U.S.
Congress. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.
Let me speak for a moment about H.R. 418 before we go to
Mr. Connolly and Mr. Engel. This resolution urges the
Government of Burma to end the persecution of the
Rohingya people and respect the human rights of all ethnic
and religious minority groups within Burma.
The Rohingya Muslim community of Burma are one of the most
persecuted minority groups in the world. For over three decades
the Government of Burma has systematically denied the Rohingya
even the most basic of human rights while subjecting them to
unspeakable abuses. According to Burma's 1982 Citizenship Law,
the Rohingya are prohibited from holding Burmese citizenship
even though they have lived in Burma for generations upon
generations.
Since 2012, 140,000 Rohingya and other Muslims have been
displaced by violence, hundreds have been killed. On January,
13 unknown assailants entered a village in Rakhine State and
killed 48 people while they slept. Sadly, this is what happens
when a government refuses to recognize its own people. In fact,
a non-governmental organization based in Southeast Asia
recently disclosed credible documents detailing the full extent
of state involvement in persecuting Rohingyas. Just a few weeks
ago the Government of Burma expelled Doctors Without Borders
from the country, thus denying once again the most basic of
human rights.
The Government of Burma cannot claim progress toward
meeting its reform goals if it does not improve the treatment
of Rohingya Muslims and other minority groups. The United
States must prioritize the protection of human rights in its
engagement with Burma. I urge the State Department to take off
the rose-colored glasses and recognize that progress in Burma
is, indeed, very limited in this regard.
The bipartisan resolution offered by the gentleman from
Massachusetts, Mr. McGovern, calls on the Government of Burma
to immediately end the State-sponsored persecution of the
Rohingya Muslim people. I am a co-sponsor of this resolution.
We cannot embrace diplomatic reconciliation with the Government
of Burma while human rights conditions in that country have
deteriorated.
I am pleased to offer a bipartisan amendment in the nature
of a substitute along with my good friend, Ranking Member
Engel, Chairman Steve Chabot of the Asia Subcommittee, and
Representative Gabbard of Hawaii who is also a sponsor and a
member of the Asia Subcommittee.
This amendment strengthens the underlying resolution by
clarifying the legal status of the Rohingya Muslim people under
the 1982 Citizenship Law. It brings the resolution up to date
by including information regarding the murder of 48 Rohingya
earlier this year, and the expulsion of Doctors Without
Borders. The amendment is further amended with language calling
on the Government of Burma to immediately recognize the
Rohingya as an ethnic minority, and to grant them citizenship.
I urge my colleagues to support this resolution. I will now
turn to the ranking member to speak on the en bloc measures,
and then we will turn to the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. Engel. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I strongly support both measures, the H. Res. 418, a
resolution introduced, as you mentioned, by Mr. McGovern, the
co-chairman of the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission.
The legislation calls on the Government of Burma to end the
persecution of the Rohingya people and to respect the rights of
all minority groups in Burma.
The plight of the Rohingya gets very little attention, and
I'm pleased that the committee is addressing the abuses they
and other minorities have suffered in Burma. And let me quote
something. According to the State Department's 2013 County
Reports on Human Rights Practices there were, and I quote,
``credible reports of extra judicial killings, rape and sexual
violence, arbitrary detentions, and torture and mistreatment in
detention, deaths in custody, and systematic denial of due
process and fair trial rights overwhelmingly perpetrated
against the Rohingya.'' This is a quote from the State
Department's 2013 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices.
As the Government of Burma transitions from decades-long
military rule to a civilian government, it's important to hold
them accountable for persistent human rights abuses. The
killings, arbitrary detentions, and destruction of homes have
caused 140,000 people to be internally displaced, and hundreds
of thousands have been forced to flee to neighboring countries,
including Thailand, Bangladesh, and Malaysia.
If Burma truly seeks to rejoin the international community
then it must abide by the human rights principles of equality
and human dignity. I support this resolution and encourage our
colleagues to support it, as well.
And, Mr. Chairman, I commend you for introducing H. Res.
494, a resolution that affirms the importance and relevance of
the Taiwan Relations Act. And I'm very pleased to be the lead
Democratic co-sponsor of that Act.
Next month marks the 35th anniversary of the adoption of
the Taiwan Relations Act, which is the cornerstone of the U.S.-
Taiwan relationship. The Act has been instrumental in
maintaining peace and security across the Taiwan Straits, and
in East Asia, and serves as the official basis for friendship
and cooperation between the United States and Taiwan.
I've been to Taiwan many times. Taiwan is a flourishing,
multi-party democracy of over 20 million people with a vibrant
free market economy. Its impressive evolution from
authoritarianism to one of the strongest democratic systems in
Asia has transformed the U.S.-Taiwan relationship from one
based solely on shared interests to one based also on shared
values. For many years, I've been a strong supporter of the
people of Taiwan, and I will continue to lead efforts in
Congress to demonstrate America's support for Taiwan. So, I
thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this markup and I want to
thank you again for working with us in a bipartisan way to move
these important resolutions forward. I yield back.
Chairman Royce. Thank you, Mr. Engel. We recognize Ms. Ros-
Lehtinen for such time as she might consume.
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. As one
of the strongest supporters of Taiwan, I also support and have
co-sponsored the resolution before us, H. Res. 494, affirming
the importance of the Taiwan Relations Act.
With the significant increase in China's defense budget, as
well as the continued threats posed by an unhindered North
Korean regime, there is no better time to strengthen relations
with our democratic ally, Taiwan. It is in our national
security interest to support Taiwan, and I think the best way
to illustrate that is to also bring H.R. 419, the Taiwan Policy
Act, which passed this committee last year to the House floor
immediately. And we must stand up for all people who are being
suppressed by authoritarian regimes.
H. Res. 418 calls for an end to the persecution of Muslim
minorities and respect internationally recognized human rights
for all ethnic and religious minority groups. The Muslim
minority continues to suffer under the current regime. The
continued prosecution and discrimination, as well as the brutal
attacks against this minority must stop. And I hope that this
resolution will help protect the fundamental rights of all
ethnic and religious minorities.
Thank you so much for the time, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Royce. Thank you, Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. We go now to
Mr. Bera of California.
Mr. Bera. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to speak in strong support of H. Res. 494, the
Taiwan Relations Act. It's incredibly important that we
continue to emphasize and strengthen our relationship with our
close friend and key trading partner, Taiwan.
In 2013, Taiwan was the United States' 12th largest trading
partner. In my home state of California, according to the
California Chamber of Commerce, we exported over 6.3 billion in
products to Taiwan in 2012, incredibly important. California
has the highest amount of exports to Taiwan within the U.S.,
and Taiwan is the seventh largest importer of California goods
and services. They're an incredibly important and valued
partner with us.
Taiwan also has a deep cultural connection to the United
States. We have a vibrant and flourishing Taiwanese American
community with almost half of them living in my home state of
California. In fact, the majority of Taiwanese Americans also
have college degrees and are making incredibly important
contributions to our country. Therefore, I strongly support
America's commitment to insure that nothing jeopardizes the
security, or social, or economic system of Taiwan's people.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Chairman Royce. Thank you. I think Mr. Grayson is seeking
recognition.
Mr. Grayson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I'd like to in support of the Taiwan resolution. Bismark
said that politics is the art of the possible, and I think that
foreign affairs should be the same way. It is not possible for
us to reverse the Russian absorption of Korea, sorry, Crimea,
the Crimea, nor should we try to defeat the aspirations of the
Crimeans for self-determination.
On the other hand, and by the same token, we should support
and we should continue to support the desire of the Taiwanese
to be a free and separate state, not being part of--absorbed by
the larger country, it's neighbor, China.
There are 20 million-plus Taiwanese who have a separate
culture, in many cases separate language, and certainly a
separate history having been occupied by the Japanese for half
a century. The Taiwanese are fundamentally different and
recognize themselves as fundamentally different from their
larger, in fact, 100 times large neighbor. And, therefore, we
can and should support their desire for self-determination.
We've done so going back to the 1940s, and I think that we
should continue to do so.
It is possible for Taiwan to be free and independent. It is
possible for us to make that happen, and I think that we should
continue to do so.
I yield the balance of my time.
Chairman Royce. We go now to Mr. Sherman of California.
Mr. Sherman. Thank you. I'd like to associate myself with
Mr. Bera's comments complete with statistics about the greatest
state in the nation, and its relationship with Taiwan. I want
to support the bill on Taiwan.
I've had a chance to travel to Taiwan with the chair and
some other members of this committee where we met with
President Ma, the leaders of the DPP. This is a vibrant
democracy that deserves our support.
I'm not sure I agree with the gentleman from Florida as to
how separate the culture or language is of Taiwan as compared
to China, but what it is clearly different is on the mainland
people live in an authoritarian regime, and in Taiwan they have
a vibrant democracy that deserves to be respected and helped.
And I yield back.
Chairman Royce. Are there any other members seeking
recognition? Hearing none, the question occurs on agreeing to
the measures considered en bloc.
All those in favor say aye.
All those opposed, no.
In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it, and the en
bloc items are agreed to. And without objection, H.R. 418, as
amended, and H.R. 494, as amended are each ordered favorably
reported as a single amendment in the nature of a substitute.
The staff is directed to make any technical and conforming
changes.
And that concludes our business for today. I want to thank
Ranking Member Engel and all of the committee members for their
contribution and assistance with today's markup, and this
committee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 1:36 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
Material Submitted for the Record
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]