has given us the largest trade deficit in the history of life on the planet. i yield back. this morning we're pleased to be joined by mr. economy, deputy assistant secretary foreshew asia and specific affairs. mr. moye previously served as deputy executive secretary in the office of secretary of state clinton. he was director of the executive secretariat staff and deputy director of the office of maritime, southeast asia. we're going to ask him to summarize his prepared statement if he would. we'll remind members that you all have five calendar days to submit statements or questions or any extraneous material you want to put into the record for this hearing. and so mr. moye. you have the floor. >> thank you so much, mr. chairman. around members of the committee. . .

the resilience and development of our robust relations with taiwan over the past 35 years have been greatly fostered by the framework that congress established in the tra. the u.s.-taiwan relationship is grounded in history, shared values and our common commitment to democracy and human rights. maintaining and deepening our strong relations with taiwan is an important part of the u.s. rebalance to the asia-pacific region. through the american institute in taiwan, we were close with

taiwan authorities on a wide range of issues. insecurity, maintenance of peace across the taiwan strait is crucial to stability and prosperity. the obama administration has notified congress of over $12 billion worth of arms sales to taiwan. this is a tangible sign of the seriousness with which we regard i want to secure. we encourage taiwan to adopt an innovative approaches to maintain a credible self-defense capacity on an offspeed offense budget to deter coercion or aggression but a reasonable -- that is experienced tensions come united states appreciates taiwan's cooperative efforts to peacefully resolve disputes and share resources. in the area of the economy and economic engagement, in 2013, taiwan was the 16th largest export market for u.s. goods,

and the eighth largest export market for u.s. agriculture, fishing and forestry products. in 2012, direct investment from taiwan to the united states stood at approximately $7.9 billion. our commercial relationship with the people on taiwan is vibrant and continues to grow. last year we were pleased to host to large delegations of taiwan business leaders. first at the select you as a summit of the end of october, and begin in mid-november during a visit of taiwan ceos led by former vice president. his delegation brought news of over $2 billion in new or ongoing taiwan manufacturing investments in the united states. in march 2013 we restart our engagement with taiwan under our trade and investment framework agreement, otherwise known as kiefer -- tifa. we have him as a willingness and

capability of joining and regional economic integration initiatives. the united states will continue to encourage taiwan to further liberalize its trade and investment measures. and as you noted, mr. chairman, the area of concern also to us is taiwan's international space. as a top 20 world economy and a full member of the wto and aipac, taiwan place and structural in the asia-pacific region and worldwide. i want to participate in about 60 international organizations as well as hundreds of international nongovernment organizations. the united states supports taiwan's membership in international organizations that do not require statehood for membership and we support i want to meaningful participation in other international organizations. we are pleased that since 2000 i once participated every year in the world health assembly as an observer. we welcome taiwan's participation at the

international civil aviation organization, otherwise known as icao. that assembly in montréal in 2013 as guest of the icao council president, and we support taiwan's -- taiwan's extent that his bigamy future. we encourage other international organizations to increase taiwan participation in technical or expert meeting. taiwan's role as a responsible player in the global community has been will be mistreated by its disaster believe efforts in the region. taiwan was a quick and generous donor of supplies and funding after the 2011 triple disaster in japan, and after last november's typhoon haiyan on developing. in short, taiwan, a stable and capable friend in the region contributes to be censored in the region. finally, mr. chairman, members of the committee i think you can for the opportunity to appear today to highlight the strength and durability of ties between the people of the united states and the people of taiwan. and to underscore the substance

and success of our cooperative efforts within the context of unofficial relations. taiwan has earned a respected place in the world, every society wishes dignity for itself, and people on taiwan are no exception. thanks to the taiwan relations act, people of goodwill in the united states and on taiwan have a firm foundation on which to strengthen, or further strengthen a robust relationship. without, thank you so much i look forward to answering your questions. >> well, i think you, mr. moy. i have to tell you, there's one really disappointing thing to me, and that is, i frequently speak to assistant secretary danny russell on the phone about different issues. and i believe he intended to be here to testify. i believe i talked to him twice about it, but time after time, in and do something that the subcommittee on asia-pacific has talked to me about, for whatever reason the administration pulls

the witnesses. and i know it isn't a lack of engagement on the part of danny russell's part, because we have talked to him repeatedly about issues, but there is something about the relationship here with the state department when elliott engel and i make these requests, or subcommittee chairman chabot on the asia-pacific subcommittee, for some reason the witnesses are always canceled. and what we want to talk about is asia policy. and as far as i know danny russell and i are in conference on a lot of these issues but i don't know about further up the administration. so when i ask questions, for some reason the state department, i'm going to ask a question now, for example, as i mentioned in my opening statement, i strongly believe that taiwan should be included

in the trans-pacific partnersh partnership. does the u.s. government support taiwan's inclusion in the tpp? >> that's my question to you. can you speak, you know, on behalf of the administration here? >> thank you very much. i do appreciate your comments, and i did have a chance to speak to danny, danny russell before coming up, and he wanted me to pass on his regrets and also his appreciation for your setting up this meeting. i can say that from our part, i don't think that it's anything preventing us from talking about taiwan issues here. >> it's not just taiwan. if subcommittee chairman chaddock was an equally concerned about this, equally disappointed, as he brought up

with the secretary of state here yesterday, i probably wouldn't bring it up. it's just a pattern that at this point to us, the asia-pacific region is vitally important. we spent a lot of time on it, on this issue. and we want the administration to be equally engaged on this. and so if you will carry that information back, but again, but again, particularly given taiwan's almost singular reliance on cross strait trade, does the u.s. government support taiwan's inclusion in the tpp? >> well, thank you and i will relay those comments to my colleagues. it certainly isn't a statement about our commitment to very strong u.s.-taiwan official relations. in factrelations. in fact, i think the with a very strong record ended with a very good story to tell about that. with regard to questions about

tpp, we welcome taiwan's interest in it. and we've heard from them very recently about their interest. we also welcome, and i think that you met with president ma ying-jeou and we welcome his steps to liberalize taiwan's economy. i think that, as you know, we are in ongoing negotiations on tpp. and i think what i can say about this is that, you know, perhaps it's best if we move toward conclusion on those negotiations before we discuss additional membership to but i think that we're taking a step-by-step approach your. we have heard from taiwan as well as others about interest in

tpp, and we certainly, again, welcome that interest and we are willing to definitely consider, along with some countries that i've approached us, most recently we are willing to discuss tpp in the future. >> one of the most important aspects of tpp beyond the important trade related benefits is that the grouping will help shape east asia's multilateral political architecture by firmly anchoring nationstates in a binding legal agreement. i want to make certain that taiwan is part of that agreement. i think it's critical to taiwan that it be included, not only because it's in one of the world's top 20 economies, but also because it is in our own strategic interest. and adding taiwan to tpp will allow it greater access to other

trade agreements with europe, for example. it's going to serve as a strong symbol of american support. and that is why i strongly support this, and -- there was another issue i want to just pretty talky but that's the f-16 upgrades. does the united states remain fully committed to taiwan's f-16 upgrade program? >> we do. just back on tpp, what we would encourage taiwan to do, as you know, tpp is a consensus type membership. and so we would encourage taiwan to raise its interests in membership with all of the other parties as well. now, absolutely. i know that, congressman engel

also raised his concerns about the issue of decades program. so as i understand, the u.s. air force funding for decades program will continue through 2014. the u.s. air force f-16 program office has determined that the lack of u.s. air force participation beyond fiscal year '14 will not have a significant impact on the taiwan program it and that all funding can be covered in taiwan's current letter of offer and acceptance. as a result of potential cuts in u.s. air force funding for that program will not negatively impact that taiwan f-16 retrofit program. mr. chairman, we certainly are committed to the f-16 retrofit program. i think that we've demonstrated that, and we have certainly had

discussions with taiwan in that part. >> it's discouraging to me and to others, because of course many of us here, including myself, wrote you, talked to the administration about sale of new f-16s. so now we're talking about retrofit. we want to make certain that this goes forward. i would suggest the sale of new f-16s would be an easy solution to this. i strongly support this, but my time has expired my time has expired. i best go to mr. elliott engel of new york. >> well, mr. chairman, thank you. let me pick up where you left off. of course, in my opening remarks i talked about the f-16s and the capes program. i'm very, very concerned about it, and you know, the taiwan defense ministry now faces a tough decision on how to move forward with the upgrade of its fighters at a reasonable cost. this is an upgrade that it

desperately needs. so you know, maybe they will continue with it, maybe they won't. i'm concerned about taiwan being able to maintain its fleet of f-16s. and certainly the decision that we apparently made, u.s. air force made not to fund the capes program, or the poor decisions. it just makes no sense to me whatsoever. you know, when it comes to taiwan, there's this sort of undercurrent that we feel over time where, you know, we bend over backwards to try not to upset the sensitivities of the beijing regime. and, frankly, it irks me. not that i don't wish to have good relations with beijing because we should, but not at the expense of our relations with taiwan. or not the expense of our friendship with taiwan. and so it really just irritates me that we make a decision like

this which has an adverse impact on our friend, taiwan. and doesn't seem to be for any good policy purpose other than to placate beijing. so i just, chairman and i have said the same thing. we haven't even really discussed this. we both independently come up with this because we are just very disturbed about it. >> well, thank you very much. i regret are not able to speak for my colleagues in the air force for that. i do understand your concerns and i will relay those to my colleagues, but what i do want to do is to strongly emphasize that our improvements in bilateral relations with the prc does not come at the expense of our relationship -- in fact i think our relationship with

taiwan right now is as strong as it ever has been. and we have oftentimes emphasized that point, that certainly we have an interest in strengthening relations with beijing. but absolutely not at the expense of our very strong relationship with taiwan and the people on taiwan. >> well, i certainly hope that that continues to be the case. because sometimes it appears that that's not really the case. but i certainly take your word. you know, want to do a note we on this committee feel very strongly about it. let me ask you this. what steps is the administration taking to ensuring that taiwan is accorded an appropriate level of participation in international organizations such as the world health organization and the international civil aviation organization?

>> young, thank you very much. as i stated in my introductory marks -- yeah. it is an area that is of primary importance to us. it is a priority that the expertise from taiwan is recognized. there is so much professional expertise, so much knowledge in taiwan that it deserves to be recognized in the international organizations. this is not just a matter of knowledge, however. it's a matter of dignity, too. we take it very seriously. so we do review different opportunities to expand. i think just one that the chairmachildren had noted and yy also as well earlier, was the international civil aviation organization, icao. and they think that working together with a number of other countries, we have supported not

just taiwan sort of guest participation as they appear as a guest lecture at december, but more frequent interaction with icao because there is a lot of technical expertise and they can bring to those types of meetings. but as you noted, world health assembly, we also look at opportunities working on climate change issues, there is types of international organizations. we often consult, because the oftentimes, there are oftentimes are issues where taiwan has a unique ability to provide knowledge, recommendations. imaginative ideas beyond just their technical expertise. and we want to take advantage of that and we will continue to do that. >> thank you. let me ask you this final question. is the administration providing

taiwan the defensive weapons it requires, required by the taiwan relations act? on their defensive weapons systems that taiwan has requested but we have decided not to provide? and if so, what are they? >> i'm not aware of such systems, but we are absolutely in compliance with the taiwan relations act in making available to taiwan defense articles and services that are necessary to enable taiwan to maintain sufficient self-defense capabilities. we will continue to be in compliance with that. we often review, we, meaning the u.s. government, often review their defensive capabilities. everything that we have a very strong record in this administration of providing

that. >> thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, mr. angle. -- mr. angle. chairman emeritus. >> thank you so much, mr. chairman. thank you to you and to our ranking member for holding this important hearing. because relations between the u.s. and taiwan are at a critical juncture. i'm concerned, as all of us are, about china's continued rise and aggression in the east and south china sea. and the feeble response by our state department to north korean missile launches, which are a clear violation of international sanctions. the people of taiwan have every reason to fear development in the west pacific, to worry about the future of their land, and to question both the resolve and the commitment of the united states, how tragic.

and as we approach this 35th anniversary of the very important and essential taiwan relations act anniversary, we remember that this crucial legislation forms the cornerstone of u.s.-taiwan relations. it is the foundation of policy that has been and will be, and will remain for ever more the anchor of peace and security in the west pacific. but as we reflect on the promise of the taiwan relations act on this 35th anniversary, we must also engage the fulfillment of its specific policies and re-examine the lack of strategic vision on this part of the world, and talk about where we go from here as we watch china a game increase its defense budget by double digits, begin construction on a second air craft carrier, establish an air defense identification zone in

the east china sea, and continue its aggression over the island. there is no better time to reaffirm, to clarify and to strengthen relations with their democratic allies and our strongest friend, taiwan. but instead of recommitting to taiwan we continue to hear our state department speaking half-truths, invent a laundry list of items that hinder our relations with taiwan and our pacific allies, and everything it can to not provoke china. and that sadly seems to be our policies with taiwan. don't antagonize china. that taiwan policy act introduced by my colleague, pictures of the taiwan caucus, and me, passed out of this committee last august, the bill aims to rectify these problems by advancing the sales of the essential defense articles.

i would like to point out that the new sales of f-16s is included in this bill. it encourages high level visits between u.s. and taiwan officials. it promotes bilateral trade agreements. what is the administration's policy on the taiwan policy act? secondly how does the administration plan to counterbalance china's power when we don't even commit to our democratic ally, taiwan? and by extension from any of our other regional allies. and thirdly, what is the magician going to do to develop -- what is the administration going to do to develop the bond, its independence, strengthen our economic bond? what is the state department's policy, the obama administration's policy on taiwan, other than don't make china met?

>> thank you very much -- china mad. >> thank you very much. i don't think that our taiwan policy is founded on the principle of let's not make china mad your in fact i think that if you look at the record, we have done an enormous amount to expand our relationship, strengthen it. in all areas but it's not just the secret aspects. it's the economic sector is also the people to people cite as well. as you may know with the help of others, we granted taiwan -- >> i apologize but time is limited. i only have 35 seconds. have you read the taiwan policy act we have filed? i would like to give that to you and have an administration policy on it. and how are we counterbalancing china's power and committing to taiwan? >> thank you very much.

i think that -- i am of course very pleased to take a look with my colleagues at the legislati legislation, but i think again we have a very strong record of support for taiwan. and to our unofficial relations and in accordance with the taiwan relations act. as i noted, the 35th anniversary is a reason to celebrate. a reason to also commemorated just how far we have come. what we need to do in the future. we can still, you know, refine, and it's -- >> excuse the, i appreciate that and i know my time is up, mr. chairman, that i don't believe that the people of taiwan share those sentiments. i don't think that they see it as upholding the principles that are enshrined in the cornerstone of our u.s. foreign policy related to taiwan, which is the taiwan relations act.

it promises a lot and i think the people of taiwan would think that we haven't really fulfilled those missions. do you think that we have? >> i do believe, i mean, i haven't seen any recent polls but i would imagine that the people on taiwan regard the u.s. relationship, if not as, if not the most important relationship for taiwan, it has got to be right up there. they are good friends of ours. they think like we do. their values we share. i would think that they are very supportive of the things that we have done. >> do you think we need to do more? >> we can, we are always looking for ways to strengthen relations, just as we are looking in the larger context in our rebalanced asia. we want to strengthen our relationships with our allies. we want to strengthen our

relationships -- >> and new sales of new f-16s and higher technology, planes for defensive needs of taiwan? >> again, we've had a very strong record of providing defense articles to taiwan. and -- >> thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. >> we go now to mr. brad sherman of california. >> thank you. one issue we brought up with president ma, one of the red flags in a democracy isn't working really well, is the former president is in jail. that's true in just about any country. what are we doing to seek either the humane treatment or the humanitarian parole of former president chen? >> thanks.

as you know, the former president was convicted on corruption charges after, you know, his 2000-2008 presidency, including the transfer of presidential office funds to his private swiss bank accounts here we believe that his conviction was in a system that is fair, impartial and transparent. rule of law exists in taiwan. in regard to your specific question though, certainly, you know, we have heard varying accounts --

>> we would like, that would be

a minimum. finally, come what are we doing to push taiwan to adopt better laws against purity care websites -- peer-to-peer websites for piracy of movies? >> well, i think that this is part of our economic engagement with taiwan. what we have said in the past, and this is in terms of all of our dialogues, we would like to have a look at more confidence, especially in areas like intellectual property protection spent but are we specifically focusing on peer-to-peer websites, the lack of legislation in that area? and the pirating of our movies. >> i'm not aware of that specifically. >> i would hope you would make that -- >> property protection is a priority of ours, absolutely. >> a general statement about intellectual property protection won't have the specific effect,

may have no effect, compared to the specificity. and i hope that you will specifically focus their attention on the peer-to-peer website piracy of our movies. finally, what steps is the administration taking to make sure that taiwan has appropriate participation in international or position such as world health organization, icao, and the climate control, u.n. fcc see? >> thank you very much. as i noted earlier, international space is a priority of ours, and we are looking for opportunities for taiwan, you know, experts and professionals to shine in their fields in international fora. will continue to do that. it really does help those organizations that it would does help the global community when

they're able to participate. >> thank you. >> mr. kris smith of new jersey. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. moy, thank you for your testimony. over the past few years and across two different administration's we witness an alarming number of gushing statements by senior american officials on the u.s. one china policy. last year deal a general, during a visit to washington that suggested hillary clinton stated that u.s. policy maintains there's only one china in the world and that taiwan is part of china. not long after that admiral mullen said he shared the view of a quote peaceful reunification of china. well, let me ask you, mr. moy, to the people's republic of china as all know is a dictatorship. it's a gulag state, and would we have wished that reunification of west germany into east

germany when they were going as a cruel decade in east germany? i think not. so i think those kinds of statements are not helpful. i do believe and i want to ask your view on this, as to whether not the time is, that the cold war relic, and i know all about the shanghai communiqué. i've read. i had an argument once in china when we brought up human rights and he said the shanghai communiqué said nothing about human rights. at all, and that's true but he was used as a dodge, away from precluding any discussion on human rights. but shouldn't have a one china, one taiwan policy? and secondly, if you could, the act, section two, points out that the enactment of this act is mr. to help maintain peace, security and stability in western pacific. what are the consequences of the u.s. security if taiwan were to come under prc controlled? do we fully realize that such a

shift in a devastating implications for u.s. long-standing security partners and allies in east asia, including japan and south korea? >> thank you very much but i think i might've been in that meeting that you speak of. it was a few years ago. thank you very much for your comments. what i would like to point to it is most recently i think as you probably, you may have seen in the press that there has been more dialogue between the two sides of the state recently. the head of the mainland affairs council from taiwan met with the head of their taiwan affairs office. we've got a record as saying we support that kind of warming of ties. and i think one of the reasons why there's been such a discussion is that we have been so supportive of taiwan giving them the confidence that, so

they can have these kinds of dialogue. so i think that we do have a very strong record of that year we do support the increased dialogue between the two sides. in terms of consequences, i wouldn't want to get into any sort of hypothetical kinds of scenarios here. i don't think that this is something that we view as very likely right now. and -- >> what happens? we do have scenarios that we certainly consider at the pentagon and at stake. >> i don't, you know, it's not something that is sort of a normal feature of our discussions, these types of the

hypotheticals. what i can say is that, you know, i know, i heard your remarks about the one china policy, but this is a policy that has endured through many administrations. and again i think what we have done, and much of this has to do with the taiwan relations act, but it has given taiwan a great deal of confidence over the last few years to increase the kind of intensity of discussions with the prc. knowing that the united states is always in support is i think greatly comforting to the taiwan side. >> but, frankly, some our diplomats, including our former ambassador have suggested that the ambiguity and the statements

that have been made could send the wrong signal to the prc, particularly as the buildup militarily in and around or in proximity to taiwan. and, of course, with the saber rattling we see occurring in the south china sea, and an ever expansive foreign policy, the ugliness of towards japan coming out of beijing, you know, the useful diplomatic friction, perhaps it was useful for all, seems to be could inadvertently to ms. kagan ration from beijing by what happens if they take taiwan. >> i don't think that beijing questions u.s. resolve on the taiwan issue. we continue to be extremely supportive, and we continue to expand our unofficial relations, and i think does a great deal to help strengthen and to allow for

a more sort of peaceful and stable environment across the strait. >> thank you so much sir. >> mr. lowenthal of california. >> thank you, mr. chair. i have one statement i would like to before ask any questions, act with the chairs comments. i recently visited taiwan and found it met with many government officials and found it very, very educational. and i, too, believe very strongly that the state department and the government should understand the importance of taiwan being part of the tpp. and i think that should be a message back. so before ask a question, that many of us i think really strongly believe, and that we should do whatever we can to encourage that. when i was there i was very impressed with the cross strait

dialogue that was going on between -- between taiwan and the people's republic of china. and i would like to know what is our state department, or our involvement in that dialogue between taiwan? how can we be helpful in promoting engagement between taiwan and china? it seemed to me that president ma was very proud of the agreements that already had been made, especially the trade agreements, the increased tourism that was going on, the increased flights that were going on between mainland china. i would like to know what our involvement in that has been. and the second question is, what is your perspective on the current and forthcoming political situation in taiwan, including a 2016 presidential election in which president ma would be turned out, how will that affect the cross strait

relationships? and will that be one of the defining characteristics in terms of that election? >> thank you very much but in terms of the cross strait dialogue, we don't play a direct role, of course. they have had direct -- in fact the dialogue i was referring to between them was really the first time in 60 years they've had such a discussion. what we have done, however, is i think we have given taiwan a great deal of confidence through our policies, through our direct assistance, and that has enabled them to i think have more engagement across the strait. and we believe that more engagement, especially if it's on, or at a pace that is

consistent with the aspirations of the people on taiwan, both, people on both sides of the street. we would very much support that because we think it creates a more stable and peaceful environment. but it does have to come at the pace that the people feel countable, the people on taiwan feel comfortable with. in terms of the upcoming election, i mean, we don't really speculate on how that's going to affect cross-strait relations. but it is a good time to highlight how supportive we have been, and still are, of the thriving democracy that exists on taiwan. it is really remarkable, i mean, just personally, i, the first time i went to taiwan was in 1978. you just cannot imagine the change that has taken place there. and, thank you when you go to

taiwan -- and mr. chairman, it just highlights the kind of values they share with us. and you know very well that it is this very kind of energetic kind of democracy that exists there. i won't speculate on come we don't get involved in their sort of domestic politics and how that's going to play out in terms of their foreign policy in the future of the cross-strait policy but it is really a good time to celebrate what is a remarkable story in asia, the democracy that exists in taiwan. >> thank you, and i yield back my time. >> thank you. we now go to steve chabot of auto, the asia subcommittee. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. i would like to personally thank mr. sherman for raising the issue of president chen, which he did strongly when we were on the codel recently in taiwan. and prior to that trip i've been about a year ago, with another of my democratic colleagues, the ranking member of the

asia-pacific committee, and on that particular codel, we went down to the prison where president chen is being held, and he's been there going on five years now, and you are correct, there's conviction for corruption charges but we understand that completely. there's a whole lot of aspect of that which we can discuss in great detail. for example, there's an argument that there was a judge that was more favorable to him it was replaced by judge lester table. there's all kinds of stories you hear and i don't want to go into the details about that, but the fact is he's been in prison now for going on five years. and i've read the medical reports. i've talked to the doctors that have examined him. i've seen them with my own eyes. i have met with them many times when he was president of taiwan. he's the second democratically elected president, served for eight years. and i think mr. sherman is right when he says that there's

something wrong when one administration comes in and the next, you know, a previous administration is in prison. something, something is not right. you know, i sing again with my own eyes, a man has parkinson's, he shakes almost constantly. he's got cardiovascular problems. deep depression, a whole range of things. and we've talked to president ma and others about it. and i believe that medical parole as mr. sherman mentioned is the logical conclusion here as to what ought to be done. does the administration have a position on granting president chen medical parole? we're not saying he would be free, but at least could go home to his family with whatever years he has left. >> sure.

and thank you, congressman, for raising the issue again. as i noted earlier, we have confidence in the fairness, impartiality and transparency of taiwan's judicial system. and we have made clear to taiwan, our expectation, that procedures governing the terms of president chen's imprisonment and access to health care of the transparent, fair and impartial. and so if there are occasions, and this is just i think a general statement from the u.s. government when the our cases when the our such health concerns, we would certainly make note of that, too, in this case the taiwan authorities, but the governments as well. when there may be some humanitarian considerations that could be made. but certainly we believe that

the original case was tried speeders are not tied by the original case but i'm talking about now. i still haven't gotten an excellent answer but my question is does he mr. schneider position on medical parole? >> welcome is very position? he ought to be treaty men in prison, we are saying he shouldn't be in prison at this point in time. he's been imprisoned. is there now. we are saying that medical parole at this point should be granted. >> what i think that what we have done and -- >> i'm just asking, do you have a position on that? if you don't have one, that's okay but i would just like to know. >> i don't think that we take a position. >> okay, thank you. that was my question. all right. ask you another position, if you have this. the president, the vice president, the defense secretary, the foreign minister, defense minister and foreign

minister, can't come to washington, d.c. we want to meet with them. we have to go to san francisco or baltimore or somewhere. they are not allowed to come to the capital of the united states which i think is a travesty for an ally, close ally of the trendy. we've introduced legislation in innumerable times to make that, to dump that policy which i think is unfair to taiwan. does the administration have a position on that? >> well, we continue to have our company, one china policy that is set forth in the street -- the three joint -- >> i'm aware that. do you have a position on whether they should be able to come here -- >> in terms of the tribal of taiwan authorities, that is consistent with those policies, our one china policy. >> you believe we should continue the president, the vice president, they should not be allowed to come to washington, d.c. to?

>> i think our policy has been very consistent over a number of -- >> i'm asking for a yes or no really, and -- >> i believe it will continue. >> so you are saying that they should not be allowed to come here, continue with the policy. we are saying we should change that policy. you are saying stick with it. >> i say our policy has been consistent, and i believe it will be consistent in the future. >> thank you. >> just announced to the committee, we will go through a couple more speakers, but then we're going to recess for about 25 minutes or two votes, and then come right back so that the junior members will be able to ask their questions. with that said let's go to mr. gerry connolly of virginia. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i look forward to the questions of the junior members of the committee. i do want to complement

mr. alley at for being such worldly correct today. he is resplendent in green and shamrocks, and as an irish-american number of this committee i did the appreciate it. mr. moy, briefly, what, in your opinion, or the administration's opinion, that's the taiwan relations act commit the united states to do with respect to the military relationship with taiwan? >> well, we are obligated to make available to taiwan defense articles and defense services that are necessary to enable taiwan to maintain a sufficient self-defense capability. it is an obligation that we don't shirk, these obligations are under -- not the obligations, but the needs of taiwan are under constant --

>> okay, good. i would agree with you. would you also agree that something beijing does understand is that big stick of teddy roosevelt? we can talk softly but they got to know we carry a big stick, we'll keep our commitments and that whatever happens ultimately in the taiwan strait will happen peacefully. it is not going to happen by military force and the united states is prepared to make sure that it doesn't happen i noted force. do you think especially in light of the china's behavior in very a sundry islands throughout the specific -- the pacific rim, but that message may be more important than ever from the united states with respect to taiwan speak with well, i don't think, i don't think the prc doubts our resolve, our continued positive presence in east asia pacific region.

>> really? with respect to taiwan because i think absolutely. >> all right. well, gee, the united states in 2001 tentatively agreed to sell submarines to taiwan. 13 years later, where are we on those submarines sailed? >> i think as you know we continue to refuse, review the defense needs and we make decisions that are appropriate. >> mr. moy, that we sold a single one of those diesel submarines to taiwan 13 years later? >> are not aware that. >> no. and by any chance the beijing object to that sailed? >> we don't discuss arms sales, our defense -- >> did they express themselves publicly or privately through any channels that you are a web? >> i am not aware. >> what would be the end of? why not sell them the diesel's?

>> again, we make decisions not with the people's republic of china in mind. we make those decisions based on what we feel our needs. >> so the decision timidly to sell submarines to taiwan in 2001 is still under consideration as to whether it really needs your definition of appropriate defense for taiwan? >> there are a range of systems. there are a range of different packages that we constantly -- >> what about f-16s? congress has repeatedly said the sale of 66 f-16s make sense to us. is that also under review for whether it's an appropriate part of the defense of taiwan? >> we made a determination that the f-16 be retrofit was the most appropriate type of weapon system to sell to taiwan, and we continue to believe that's the case.

>> and what about military exercises? any consideration to maybe include taiwan, for example, in ram pack? >> well, we always consider, and this is our policy worldwide. were always considering the you know, different participants. i'm not aware of such consideration, but i think my colleagues in the defense department can better address that. i just, you know, we don't want to ever be provocative, but we need to stand by our alliances. we want a good and productive relationship it seems to me with the people's republic of china but i also know from history that beijing respects strength, peace through strength. and our commitment to taiwan is an extraordinary test case.

beijing doesn't have to like it, it will have to respect it. with that i yield back. >> thank you. we're going to go to mr. randy weber of texas. >> thank you. mr. moy, i'm going to follow-up on mr. connolly's comments about actually selling or being concerned about taiwan's defense capability, i guess. you said earlier i think with chairman chris smith questioning, you don't, when you make decisions you all don't consider beijing in your decisions, and you just reaffirms that with my colleague, mr. connolly. i think chris smith raise the issue of a one china policy. does it not bother you that that

exists, that there are statements that people have made, high level officials have said they agreed on a one china policy? does the minister should not view that as a problem? >> our one china policy is one that has existed for several decades now. >> okay, well i take that as a no, but let me follow up with what gerry connolly said. so you haven't sold submarines yet. you don't take beijing into account. people around the world watch us, words and actions have consequences. would you agree that you all would be okay with a one russia policy when it comes to the crimea and the ukraine? is that they can do the same kind of ideology? >> i can't speak to those issues, but again, we are obligated to provide those

defense materials and services to taiwan, and we have been through several administrations. i think very vigilant in terms of providing that. >> but in view of recent events would you agree the administration ought to b be thk about we'v we then think it's policies that perhaps we would want to get in gear? i forget the exact date of the sale of diese diesel submarinesi think mr. connolly said 2001, that's 13 years. has the world changed in 13 years? >> in what sense, sir? >> well, how about in your view of the imminent danger of perhaps mainland china trying, whatever you want to call it, take back over taiwan. i mean, we've said that there our close friend and our ally to the fact that their officials cannot come to washington, d.c. is a problem. events around the world should indicate that now more than ever we need a stronger relationship

with taiwan. does the administration understands the series does, especially in light of recent events, russia, ukraine, crimea, you can go right down the list, things aren't getting any better so is it possible that y'all could mike -- you all might step up the sale of those to taiwan? maybe before the next 13 years. >> thank you, sir. does, as i noted, they are under constant review. i take your point about the world changing and having to adjust to the changes. remarkably as i noted earlier, there is more dialogue between taipei and beijing than there ever has been before. >> let me ask you, i'm running out of time, so there's going to be some exercises over hawaii. beijing was invited, taiwan was not. why? >> i think that our policy in

terms of, you know, strengthening military to military relations with beijing are fairly apparent. .. show insist with this recent innovation in crimea and ukraine

so to speak. we seem a lot more worried about beijing do you all take that into account? >> i don't think that we balance or consider -- we don't think -- >> well, that's obvious. >> what i can tell you is i think it's a very smart thing to expand relations with all countries in east asia, and i don't think this comes at the expense of taiwan and i think our relations have been extremely strong and continue to -- continued to strengthen those relations. >> thank you mr. weber and mr. "capito we will reconvene approximately 25 minutes. >> thank you, mr. moy. an audible conversations link

back will conversations [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> this hearing on u.s. taiwan relations taking a break as members have headed over to the

house chamber for a series of votes on medicare payments to doctors. you can see that live on c-span and about 20 minutes. in the mean time a congressional delegation has traveled to ukraine to check out the situation there and talk with government officials. this added sunday's referendum on whether or not ukraine wants to be part of russia. we've been reading some of the tweets sent by members of the delegation. john mccain to senator from arizona said good to sit with officials from ukraine's interim government and also senator durbin tweets to stand with ukrainian people working for a more hopeful democratic future. here's some of the members of the congressional delegation. senator mccain as i mentioned, senator barrasso of wyoming, durbin of illinois, senator ron johnson of wisconsin, chris murphy of connecticut and sheldon whitehouse, democrat from rhode island. secretary of state john kerry

and the russian foreig russian r laughter off our meeting in london today where they each said they are glad to be meeting before sunday's referendum in crimea but there are no signs they would prevent the region from voting sunday to break off from the rest of ukraine to join russia. secretary kerrey and the foreign ministers have spoken almost daily as the crisis has unfolded and have yet to find any common ground. ground. while we wait for the hearing on u.s. taiwan relations to resume, we will show remarks from house minority leader nancy pelosi as she gave her weekly legislative briefing. >> good morning, everyone.

yesterday the prime minister of ukraine was welcomed to the white house by president obama so what ivy league is a productive meeting. last night he met with members of the senate and earlier today, the prime minister was welcomed by speaker boehner and house leaders. we emphasized that the united states stands firmly behind the democratic aspirations of the ukrainian people and if they have the right to determine their own future free from interference of any foreign nation. i told him that our message is a promise to congress and the president we associate ourselves with the congress and the president of holding a promise of word and deed to support the ukrainian people. the commitment continues with the act of the government through economic aid and political support and i myself

personally convey to the prime minister that i believe the imf provisions that have passed out of the committee should be also passed by the house of representatives, and it's my hope that would be in the final comprehensive financial package. nonetheless, very pleased the house has passed the loan guarantee package and i commend the speaker for that. the united states and allies seek to empower ukraine with the tools and resources to engage in the transparent elections and those would be consistent with the highest standards of the international community. the international community must offer essential assistance to ukraine on the ground with the participation of international elections and monitors. while he was president obama and

secretary kerry, we must ensure that ukraine's future is one of its own choosing. yesterday a bicameral house and senate group of democratic leaders on women's issues also had the opportunity to sit down with president obama at the white house to address the challenges facing women and working families. as the president declared in the state of the union address when women succeed, america succeeds. that is not just a trace. it is a statement, a fact. house democrats agree, for many of the voting women, families and children and veterans have been our life work. that's why we delivered our agenda again when women succeed america succeeds. paycheck fairness and raising the minimum wage, paid sick leave and affordable quality

child care as a third pillar. we look forward to working together on our agenda. hopefully it is nonpartisan. taking the message we have had over 50 when women succeed america succeeds coming together across the country and more to follow. and we look forward to working on the president on the white house summit on working families which he announced yesterday. here in the capital democrats are taking action on behalf of the 2 million americans who left their lifeline of emergency unemployment insurance thanks to the republicans countless and refusal to act and we shouldn't mix our words here. 2 million people. it's not abstract as the emergency and 2 million workers and their families who are

already dealing with the crisis of long-term unemployment. it has over 150 signatures. this is important because of the number of people over 200,000 of them are veterans and many of them are women, a million children are affected and americans are barely hanging on. i might hasten to add that unemployment insurance has always had a stimulative effect on our economy. people receive this on a plane and insurance which is part of our safety net, not of these individuals but the cycle when unemployment is high and jobs

are not where they are that they have access t to this service is money that is spent immediately with the demand into the economy and creating jobs. americans deserve a vote. to get america to wage and close the opportunity gap and build an economy that works for everyone. what the republicans are bringing upon the floor, not only are they failing to address the priorities of the american people, but the 51st vote to repeal and undermine affordable care act but a toxic place against hope and security of the nation's seniors. yesterday aarp, the national committee to preserve social security and medicare, the council on aging and other seniors advocacy groups wrote the congressional leadership to make it clear that republicans

act -- actions that the republicans are taking on the sgr have partisan politics in the bipartisan legislation undermining the hard work done by the committee added the bipartisan way. the staff and concerned stakeholders, providers and insurance companies have already also rejected the approach the republicans are putting forward. republicans are wasting time that could be sent to beat co. spent on creating jobs here at home, investing in infrastructure and working to pass a bipartisan permanent medicare shall we say fix. on the subject of that yesterday the democrats fault of the road back to common sense by introducing a fully paid for bill written by congressman john kerry of massachusetts that includes the reforms of the sustainable growth rate in the sustainable sgr growth rate supported by both democrats and republicans. republicans blocked the house from considering -- in the house

they blocked us from being considered. it's time for both two and their obsession with the striking the affordable care act and quality affordable health coverage is already providing. republicans should stop this reckless and destructive partisan tactic, these tactics come and work with democrats to advance a bipartisan, permanent medicare fixes the seniors need. we are almost bare whe there whd the majority working together and pharmacies made by the republicans. -- promises made by the republicans as you can see have not been kept. nothing is going on on the floor. but a great deal of advocacy is going on outside of the chamber and outside the capital. whether it's when women succeed america succeeds, whether it's outside mobilization or immigration, whether it's outside mobilization on the fix, you name the subject -- the

country is aware and active on it. the only place that nothing is happening is here. and the opportunity cost of wasting time on the floor instead of creating jobs and addressing the challenges of the american people is something that the public must be aware of because they have to know why their needs are not being addressed. with that i would be pleased to answer any questions. it either you or the rug. [laughter] schemata given the results of a special elections this week how is the healthcare law on democrats and how can other democrats voice? >> i am very proud of our house democrats and how they have not only embraced the affordable care act but they helped create it and how proud they are of it. i think that the republicans are wasting their time using that as they are evil electoral issue and they will find that out.

i wasn't pleased with the results. i wanted to win of course but we have a district that for 58 years has been republican. the 15-point advantage to the republicans we reduced it down to two points on and as the speaker would understand, we set ourselves up for the next. this is a 1-to play in the district. and the fact that it is an off year election. and the special election like a double whammy in terms of reducing the turnout. but the other effort that was made to get out the vote, she's so excellent, so superb and i said many good things about the affordable care act are good for the health and well-being of the american people. there are some things that needed to be fixed. let's do that and that is the message of the members. so this is for us within two

points but again we feel confident about the further participation in november and what that will mean for that election. >> is that a problem we might get some time down the road and not have a package to send ukraine because the legislative process and moreover what you anticipate a problem reconciling the differences declaring what the house and senate passes? >> the house did pass out of the three votes from the senate foreign relations committee which is the package. the loan guarantee plus the imf

reform and i salute that. i think that was important and the hope that the house will come to an understanding of how important the reforms are. so, it is $600 million either way, and diplomacy and the economic cooperation that we have with ukraine and their leadership gives them leverage in their conversations should they take place. so the current would only be able to do a billion dollars which is a huge amount of money but imagine the difference of a billion at a time when economic issues are being able to meet the needs of the people. imagine what putin would say to the russians if the economy didn't have its best shot.

so we have passed our bill and we are very proud of that on the loan guaranty. on the ominous bill and in the actions we have taken we don't have the imf. but i believe the evidence of why this makes a big difference are the countries that we really want to help and that hopefully this discussion will lead to passing the reform. >> [inaudible] >> i don't know. the senate hasn't acted. it depends when the senate acts. >> they view this as such a sensitive important issue and it isn't the important fact. >> the options are we can send the loan guarantee package and that is a good thing. but we are falling short of what we can do to help the people of

ukraine. >> is there another major practice out there of 100,000 in the major humanitarian crisis the sense that washington has forgotten about now what happened in ukraine. can you support any kind of new involvement? >> obviously the situation in serious does challenge the conscience of the world that so many people have died have lost their homes were refugees in their own country and pouring into other countries were displaced in their countries. i don't know how somebody could be prouder to be part of a country where they kill their own people so that's where i come from on that. but i don't think for a moment that this has in other words whatever we can do whether it is humanitarian assistance, whether it is helping countries helping

the refugees. we have to do everything we can. there is no appetite in our country for boots on the ground. that is very clear. but not to have it slip in terms of the priority because now ukraine has emerged. it's interesting to see what president putin's motivation is as far as syria and as far as ukraine. >> the ongoing killings [inaudible] >> the one success that we are having with the chemical weapons dismantling and removing those, it's hard and it takes time. but that is one way of success that is fair. again, it challenges the conscience. we have limited options, and one of them in my view as far as the public is concerned is not to

have boots on the ground. can we get engaged and what other things can we do, we certainly have to give them general consideration. we met with the president in jordan when he was here just a few weeks ago. the percentage, the impact was great. but it's something that i pray about everyday and i have so many constituents and families in serious and they've given me all kinds of things to pray over so that we have it as a priority. it's horrible. about the back-and-forth going on out on your california colleagues have serious charges

on the committee. another member of the committee said the vote is to confirm -- i wonder if you think this complicates the role and do you still have confidence? >> does this complicate our oversight? i think the actions that have been taken in the last few days in light of the revelations previous to that speak very clearly to the fact we must have strong congressional oversight. i have been an advocate for that in terms of clearance and the ranking member. i had have very serious concers about transparency and oversight

and the intelligence community honoring its responsibility to the congress in that regard. there are many very patriotic americans who are engaged in the intelligence community for years and decades now. wherever the decision is whether it's from the administration and the bush administration to withhold information from congress, i thought of that. but you don't find that without a price because they come at you and they don't always told the truth about it. now, whether that has motivated some, i don't know. and it's not to place -- to paint everyone with the same brush that whatever the situation is it should be reviewed. i don't think there's any question. i completely agree with senator feinstein that this is a matter

of great seriousness the attitude that the cia has with the right of congress in all of this and whatever else there is that should be examined in terms of what happened. this may be one of the healthiest things we can do but i know one thing. whatever it was, this is the intelligence community writes the report on it and they leave and write a book on it and it becomes conventional i wouldn't say wisdom, but congressional gossip that this is what happened, and we really have to have the ground truth. president obama on the first day in office stopped the controversial interrogations that this is about. i don't know. i mean, to tell you the truth i haven't really seen much of secretary or director brennan's

statement on this. but what i have seen are befuddling to me. i have a high regard for him and over the st. patrick's holiday and maybe get an attitude -- -- the committee at this time and again, express my appreciation to mr. moy for his testimony today. and we are going to go to mr. scott of consulting a. >> thank you mr. chairman. i appreciate your presence here. i feel like i can't get a whole lot of straight answers, so i would like to go to some kind of yes and no format if i could because it seems to be a lot of time discussing the fact that the administration is interested in talking about or considering or whatever. regarding the force buildup, u.s. analysts assist the primary

build up his progression for conflict over taiwan's status including contingencies for possible u.s. intervention. such u.s. analysts. so the question is this still the assessment of the executive branch? briefly. >> i am not a spokesperson for the colleagues -- >> but i'm talking about the executive branch. is this their assessment, it is yes or no, i don't know. how about that? >> of course we would stand by the assessment. >> so the answer is essentially yes? >> we stand by the reports that we do. >> so do you know if taiwan

shares the same assessment? >> taiwan has -- taiwan certainly has taken many precautions, and it's defense posture. i think it's best to ask them that question, but it certainly there have been discussion that goes on about this sort of thing, and i would imagine -- >> but you don't really know. >> i can't speak for taiwan. >> in the discussions the administration had you don't know their position if that is how they are posturing their forces and their strategy race on that assessment, you don't know? >> is your question whether taiwan believes that? >> yes, do they share the assessment that that's the reason for the buildup?

regarding taiwan's membership, the administration's position, for or against? it's important for us to know. >> we welcome their interest and i don't think the conversations have gone so far as to be pro and con. we are a long way away from that. but we welcome -- >> i'm sure we do but you are saying the administration hasn't decided yet. >> it hasn't come up to bat. >> the issue hasn't been brought up or it isn't to the point you can decide yes or no? can make it hasn't come up to the point. certainly we know that taiwan has expressed an interest, and as i noted earlier, we are welcoming that interest. but we are a long way from discussing that. we have other negotiations and discussions that we are having on taiwan's economic policies

and we are certainly engaged in those and we want to continue warming our economic and trade relations. >> regarding the air defense identification, would have been concerns in taiwan's responds in november of 2013? >> i'm sorry? what do you mean? spin it the administration's concerns. are you in agreement? >> i think what's important is the president has gone on record as expressing concerns. what he has said in public and what is encouraging is that he wants a peaceful sort of stable environment in the region that if there are disagreements they should be resolved through a

dialogue -- >> let me stop you there if i could because if i have a little bit of time left. do you know what the response would be if there were an air force or navy intercept if they had an aircraft or marine vessels in that area was what the response the? >> i'm not going to get into any sort of speculation. kind of a hypothetical situation. but we have gone on record in response to the announcement as not accepting it. so again, i don't want to speculate on any kind of -- >> okay thank you mr. chairman. >> thanks for being here for the committee today. and as you can see, there is tremendous bipartisan support

for taiwan. it is my hope that the administration will take a more proactive stance on taiwan including working with taiwan so that it can join the transpacific partnership. the region is going to witness significant growth and prosperity in the next ten years and positioning the united states we are after all on the pacific rim. to take advantage of the opportunity is a task that we take very seriously on the committee and as the chairman of the committee, i have made the region a top priority. so, i look forward to working closely with the administration on this and other issues and i think you and the hearing is adjourned.

>> [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

put our unique challenges in defining the war in cyberspace. from the policy perspective we are trying to work our way through those issues. i think what is applicable here is the fact that whatever we do within the cyber arena, international law will pertain. if we find ourselves getting to

the point that we believe the armed conflict scenario that of the rules and the law of the conflict will pertain this domain what it does in the other. i don't think cyber is inherently different in this regard. i think that those procedures of the policy of the law and as a nation represent a good point of departure.

secretary john kerry and minister love roth are meeting today before sunday's referendum in crimea. but there are no signs that they will prevent the region from voting on sunday to break off from the rest of ukraine to join russia. secretary kerry and the russian foreign minister has spoken almost daily as the crisis unfolded but have yet to find any common ground. congress put off a vote yesterday that would have expanded sanctions against unidentified russian officials as well as a billion dollars of loan guarantees to ukraine and the international monetary fund revisions to help kiev. kiev. the senate will not vote until march 24 of the earliest while lawmakers returned from a weeklong recess. while house republicans are pushing their own bill that includes no rush of sanctions or imf provisions. senator john mccain's dark secret is wasteful of republicans for not acting, quote, when the people of ukraine are crying out for help.

he said that he would never be more embarrassed by members of his own party. here's that one hour and 15 minute debate. >> madam president, the majority leader has asked that we move and pass this legislation which was considered in the foreign relations committee resulting from the amendment, several amendments were adopted and several were rejected and by the vote of 14-3 the senate foreign relations pointed out this bill. why should we care about this legislation? i would try to be as brief as possible but i urge my colleagues attention to the latest "new york times" reports today russia asking the military forces near the border with ukraine. russian forces are massing near the border with ukraine airborne, ground, capabilities

with an individual added noting that the parachute drop was on a scale not seen since the collapse of the soviet union. the forces are by the training of units at least assault helicopters and at least 10,000 soldiers. in other words, right now as we speak, vladimir putin is either planning on or contemplating an invasion of eastern ukraine. we've seen that movie before, people having to come in and restore order. so then we see military intervention and then there is going to be another referendum such as is supposed to take place on sunday in crimea which i predict 80% of the vote will

do so when that is not what the will of the people of crania are -- crimea are. and probably there will be an objection from this side through this legislation when the people of ukraine are crying out for our help and assistance. senator barrasso will be proposing the house amendment ht that has not won a single sanction. not one sanction. i'm surprised that senator would want to propose a bill that doesn't have any punishment for the russians for what they are doing right now. and then another one of my colleagues will probably come out and object to us passing taking it and passing the bill that was put through the senate foreign relations committee open to amendments in a process that could not be criticized by anyone. so what is the message we are sending to the ukrainian people?

is the message we are sending them that we have a problem with a fix for the imf and then also, there are some that are demanding changes in their regulation by the treasury department concerning campaign contributions. what has happened? where are our priorities. no matter whether it is fixed or not and more important than the lives of people? is that what we are talking about? i would say to my friends that are objecting to this and there are a number of them. you can call yourselves republicans. that's fine because that is your voter registration but don't call your self reagan republicans. he would never let this kind of aggression no one responded to by the american people. and we are not talking about troops on the ground. we are talking about responses

that impose sanctions and punishment for voip in their putin has said that the greatest disaster was the dissolution, the collapse of the then soviet union. we know what flat on their putin is all about and we know what he understands. so now because of an imf fix or a campaign-finance fix, we are going to reject a piece of legislation that was done in a bipartisan basis with the leadership of the chair and who i see on the floor, which i'm proud of the ranking member senator corker of tennessee and we are going to say no. you know what the most ridiculous thing about all of this is? that the majority leader has filed cloture. we have well over 60 votes. so we are going to be back in about 11, 12 days, whatever it is.

cloture will have been expired, it's well over 60 votes and we would have passed us. instead, our signal to the people of ukraine today as russian military forces are on the border, wait a minute, it's more important that we get our campaign-finance fixed and that we have the imf fix as a high year priorities and the lives of the men and women who are in ukraine. i've been embarrassed before on the floor of the senate. i will tell the president. but i haven't been in there is to this way about members of my own party. one of the proudest aspects i felt of the leadership is that we stood up for people. we stood up for people when the iron curtain was there. we said appeared on this wall and now we have someone training to reinstate the empire which he

set himself and what are we saying? no. i will not object. >> senator from new jersey? >> madam president, reserving the right to object -- and it is not my ultimatein tension to object but to persuade my colleagues not to object. you know, i have been watching my colleagues on television, in committee, on the senate floor about what is happening in ukraine and about the lack of action from their perspective and here we are at a moment that after a very considered process in the senate foreign relations committee which i'm privileged

to chair working alongside with the ranking member senator corker and with colleagues as a member of the committee was a very strong bipartisan vote on a major piece of legislation that in fact when it comes time to act we have those that say no even though they go on tv and they bemoan the lack of action. i find it incredibly difficult to suggest that what the house past can be the only response to what is happening in ukraine. yes, it is a loan guarantee that we include in the legislation. but by the way, everything that we do, we pay for. so those are the fiscally conservative. and we pay for what we seek to do. that cannot be said of the house.

secondly, we go beyond the loan guarantee as important as that will guarantee is to making an expression to the ukrainian government, to the ukrainian people, to our partners in europe and nato. we say that there has to be responsibility taken for those that corrupted the government and for those that undermine its sovereignty. undermined its sovereignty. for those that undermined its security. and so, we have provisions both permissive and mandatory to sanction individuals who have been found to impact corrupt the circumstances or affect the territorial integrity or sovereignty of ukraine. one of them sponsored by senator mccain which was adopted unanimously in mandatory provision. you want to be doing something about russia you can't do it

with the house bill you can only do it with the senate bill. and then get the imf -- but i respect people who for some reason have an ideological difference about the international monetary institutions. but you want to talk about security? you will not have security in ukraine if you cannot stabilize it economically and a billion dollar loan guarantee is enough to make that happen. it is the imf that is going to be the singular force to create the opportunity for economic stability inside of ukraine, which is fundamental to meeting our security challenges. now, to hold the reform hostage to the question of whether the unlimited campaign money can go into elections without deciding whether or not it i that is beig done appropriately under the law as it exists is outrageous.

there is a reason that we care about ukraine. it is not simply because we want to do the right thing by a country that has been invaded and the crimea and for which thousands of russian troops and equipment are amassing along its border in eastern ukraine. it is because this has a consequence. if the west doesn't act what will china say when it's looking at it is right here in the south china sea? what will iran say as we negotiate about nuclear weapons? what will others in the world in north korea whose march 2 nuclear weapons on a great scale is in play? all of them will be looking at what we do as it relates to ukraine and making the decision how far can i go what can i get

away with? and to be able to stabilize ukraine, you won't have any to have the international monetary fund. to hold about hostag that hostaf investigations going on wherever they may lead to the question of campaign-finance money may be inappropriately ultimately being used in violation of the law is outrageous so what is at play is our national interest, the message that we will sent to the rest of the world we are standing to do. that shouldn't be hostage to political interest that has nothing to do with those issues. so for all of those that have

been getting up and making speeches and have been going on tv with 20th criticism coming here is your opportunity to act and act now and there is no reason we cannot do that at this moment. with that madam president i would yield the floor. >> the senator from tennessee. >> i will be brief. i want to say first we certainly have had some discussions regarding operations on the senate floor and the speed with which we deal with things that i want to thank him fo them for to bring this issue to a vote and for what he's going to do in a moment and that is to file cloture on this piece of legislation that passed out of our committee with strong bipartisan support so that immediately when we get back we can take it up and i wish we could do it tonight. we have a group of seven or eight senators.

nothing would be better than for them to know that we strongly cost of this piece of legislation while he was getting ready to be a referendum that could take place next week. while we have the troops on the border and a prime minister who was here last night showing extreme courage as a 39-year-old young man dealing with the issues he's facing today. so we are not going to have the opportunity as a body in the world to take action on this issue. i do want to say whenever we take it up and it appears it will not be tonight but hopefully as soon as we get back this is a strong piece of legislation that deals both with getting ukraine a bridge to the future while they are dealing with economic issues internally it deals with sanctions to isolate russia as we all know needs to have been to kee and tm from continuing this activity

and it puts in place of the reformthe reformsthat our county agreed to that congress has not taken action on that makes the imf we able to deal with this issue that is the poster child for why you would want the imf to operate in a responsible and strongman or so i would support this legislation strongly and i think the chairman for working with us the way that he did -- chair man mccain, maybe that will happen. i think him for his leadership on these issues and again i want to thank the leader for placing this on an urgent matter before the senate today and i lamented the fact we will not vote on it today but hopefully we will pass it as soon as possible turned. with that madam president i will yield the floor. >> the assistant majority leader? >> i'm going to be brief that i

want to bac too this point. it's rare that we taken action on the floor seen around the world. that's happening tonight because the crisis in ukraine and crimea has focused the attention on russian aggression by a country that hosted the olympics so that we could see the new russia today after the final ceremonies they sent their troops. that isn't the new russia that is the old russia many of us are familiar with. for those of us that have lithuanian blood, my mother was born there, what it meant to those people for such a long period of time we remember and we know that the ambitions of what america can will only be od with the results of the west and that starts here in this chamber tonight an opportunity for members on both sides of the

aisle to stand up and approved a measure thaapprovethe measure te senate foreign relations committee yesterday with the leadership of senator menendez, senator corker of tennessee. a bipartisan effort to say what the russians have done is wrong and if they continue this we will initiate political and economic sanctions and we will join the international community and strengthening the economy so that it can embrace democracy and the values we treasure. that is what is at stake in this request this evening. to hear people say let's not do it because we should debate the future of the imf can't we save that for another day for the people of ukraine? for those of dissent that have family in ukraine can we save the debate on the imf and others

have suggested that there is another course of action. they say if we want to help ukraine we have to save the u.s. department of treasury cannot investigate violations of the five o. one c. four -- 501c4. here's what it boils down to. does that mak make that demand y we cannot protect ukraine unless we are prepared to protect the coke brothers from the positivity of investigation and prosecution for wrongdoing. that's what it comes down to and that is an outrage. if that is a plot line to house of cards they would reject it and say nothing could be so outlandish that w but we heard t once but many times. let's stand up to bite the uniteback theunited states senad a message to russia and ukraine that we stand behind those people whose lives are at stake

as they try to move forward towards democracy. let's stand behind them tonight and not hide behind an effort. i will not object this measure and i hope the unanimous consent request is agreed to. >> reserving the right to object to the defense ministry announced new military operations in regions along the ukrainian border to disturbing development that comes after the feminist or visited president obama and met with members of this body. we are now based in the inescapable reality that the senate is about to enter a recess week having taken no meaningful action to aid the interim government in kiev. we are left with taking and passing the house bill that authorizes $1 billion of loan guarantees. we can pass that now by unanimous consent and am sure

ouensure ourfriends in ukraine e not forgotten. the senate foreign relations committee bill contains provisions related to the international monetary fund that are unrelated to the crisis in ukraine and not needed immediately and must be debated by this body. the bill also contains sanctions to the department of defense and other appropriations. the foreign relations committee touches the jurisdiction of several committees and is certain to be met with opposition and in contrast with the house. were we to take it up today in the face of the vehicles we are offering rhetoric despite the fact the committee bill addresses matters in the jurisdiction of the armed services committee, the appropriations committee, defense department spending the chairman of the committee refused yesterday to allow to offer amendments concerning the export of natural gas to the markets in europe. the senate should debate whether

helping export natural gas is in our interest as the dozens of newspapers around the country talk about moscow tightening squeeze of ukraine over energy. the "washington post" saying they need an alternative to natural gas. "the wall street journal" tries to loosen the grip. again, the gas boom can undercut putin into the senate should debate whether helping them in the export of natural gas is in our interest and should have that debate and should have sanctions tha but none of those matters can be addressed today. the only bill that can get to the president quickly is the house passed bill and we should pass it now. so madam president, i object. now i ask unanimous consent the senate proceeded to the immediate consideration of calendar number 328-4152 and i ask unanimous consent the bill be read a third time and passed with the motion to consider late upon the table

>> the majority leader? >> i was talking to my friend from arizona. we came here many years ago together to the house of representatives. we came to the senate together. we are separated because arizona has more people than nevada. during those years that we have been together, we have had some experiences in the senate that are memorable. i don't know as much and that is an understatement about military preparedness as john mccain, that is an understatement but he is somebody that we should listen to when it comes to

things dealing with aggression and military operations. madamadam president, ukraine isd of personal to me. abb was born and he was with his parents off to the united states and changed his name. that man is my wife's dad, my father-in-law. he was born in ukraine. my wife and i have been to ukraine. and this is dealing more with more than just someone's father-in-law, may he rest in peace. it deals with 45 million freedom

loving people who are being threatened by the big bear wanting to return to the days of the soviet union. and for my friend, the senator of wyoming, to come here and say there's nothing we can do about this today -- that is absolutely wrong. there is plenty we can do about it today. .. committees who are concerned about jurisdiction. now, how does -- how do the people in ukraine feel about that one? how do they feel about that? that the bipartisan heavy vote that we got out of the markup in the foreign relations committee, they may have stepped on someone's toes dealing with the jurisdiction of the committee. madam president, this is -- this is much more important than that. the international monetary fund is very much related