they will investigate -- >> i have no comment for that. >> the u.s. supreme court heard oral arguments on the new health care law. the two cases look at women's access to contraceptives to their employers's health care plan and religious freedom. the house foreign affairs passed sanctions against russia. legislation that would end the government's bulk collection of metadata. journal,xt washington the cato institute discusses the president's proposed plan and the nsa storage of telephone

data. supreme court health care contraceptive mandate case. your phone calls, facebook,, and suites. washington journal is live each morning at 7:00 on c-span. the health care law says have to provide health coverage that provides all sorts of contraceptives. we will hear from one of those companies. anthony hahn.

>> we believe americans do not lose their religious freedom when they open a family business. we were encouraged by today's argument. we are thankful the supreme court took our case and we prayerfully await the decision. thank you. >> since my family first opened in my dads garage 50 years ago, we sought to glorify god. by the principles that inspire our lives every day. we believe in hard work, good

citizenship, and the dignity of our customers and our employees who are all created in gods image. we never thought we would see a day when the government would tell our family we could no longer run our business in a way that affirms the sanctity of human life and the government would force us to be complicit to the potential destruction of human life. that day has come. family and many others have chosen to take a stand to defend life and freedom against government coercion. we did not choose this fight. our families would've been happy to continue providing good jobs and generous health-care benefits, but the government forced our hand. we hope and pray that the supreme court will uphold the religious freedoms of all americans who seek to glorify god. thank you.

>> we will hear from some of the attorneys in the case. after the oral arguments on tuesday. we are gratified the court heard these cases, accepted both of them. it was important for them to understand the religious objections. took thesee court cases very seriously, took them under consideration. we do think there are real concerns when the government takes the position that even a kosher deli that was told it would have to be open on a saturday, they would have no basis to get in the court and make that claim. that is a very difficult argument to sustain. a for-profit medical clinic would have no ability to raise a conscious object to and only if congress provides the objection,

would they be in a position to do that. we covered a great deal of territory. >> [inaudible] >> the court got to that issue by saying there is really no sayson either side that the for-profit corporations have religious exercise and no case that says they definitely do not. of saying thatns a for-profit corporation under no circumstances can even get into court to raise claims, it is untenable. the solicitor general seem to concede that if it discriminated against religion, a corporation would have the basis to bring that claim.

>> what did you say two comments that [inaudible] >> the options provided for the stat you to -- for the statute is the option to either pay a 470 $5 million per your fine work to pay a $26 million per year find or comply with the government mandate. any of these companies are asking for something or special treatment. congress passed the statute that provides every person in this country a right to be treated on the basis of their person and not on the basis of their religion. if the government puts a substantial burden on a person's religious exercise and they cannot support that with the compelling interest, the claim is supposed to be vindicated. the fundamental problem is that an agency has provided this

accommodation or exemption from a subset of the employers protected by the mandate and a subset of the persons protect did -- protected. did -- protected. >> [inaudible] >> the only sense i have is the court took this case very seriously. we are gratified we have the opportunity to present our case to the courts and we await their decision. thank you very much. >> [inaudible] different it's -- different perspectives. the heads of planned parenthood's and the national women's law center spoke to reporters after the case. we will bring you the oral argument friday at 8:00 eastern.

>> my name is marcia greenberger and i am copresident of the national women's law center. on behalf of 70 organizations speaking for the women whose health and futures are at stake with respect to their access to contraceptive coverage. the supreme court has said in decidet, being able to when or whether to have children, ability to participate equally in our nation's economic and social life, access to birth control has improved women's status and overall financial as where is there -- as

well as their health and the health of their children. its use is nearly universal and its benefits are extraordinary. what was at issue in this case is whether when the government preventivethat health care that is essential for women must be provided to them can be overridden by any for-profit corporation that decides to do so would be objectionable to the corporation. my organization heard from someone who was not heard from in the supreme court. that was a woman who was an itself. of hobby lobby she spoke, and i can read from her words specifically, about

the importance of contraception to her and to her family and she said it would allow a woman to lead a responsible life. the ability of women to be responsible and to protect their own health that is at stake in this case today. thank you very much. >> i am the president of pro-choice america. what the court heard today is the if it was to find for plaintiffs, it would be the first time the courts of this country had proactively extinguish the right of any american. this is about all women, women's health, women's freedom.

we are the 99% and we will not have our rights extinguished. our bodies are not our boss's business. >> i am the president of planned parenthood. i am proud to be here on behalf of the 3 million patients we see every year. what we saw today was the importance of having women on the supreme court. i was so proud to be here to have the justices talk about that what is at stake is whether millions of women and the right to preventive care is trumped by handful of ceos who have their own personal opinions about birth control. it was a wonderful day for women and i believe this court understood that women have the right to make their own decisions about their health care and birth control. it is not their bosses decision.

what wanted to see organizations covering the high court today heard during argument. supreme court signal support for corporate religious claims. justices skeptical of white house position. ruling as supreme court weighs contraceptive coverage. another 5-4 decision seems likely. john roberts sounded firmly in the camp of those challenging the act. several justices sided how they might extend rights under the religious freedom restoration act to for-profit corporations without opening up the door to broadly.

the supreme court releases the audio of the contraceptive mandate cases on friday. we will bring it to you on friday night at 8:00. this year, it has been very difficult for me to offer the kind of moral leadership the organization needs because every time i have tried to talk about the needs of the country, the needs for affordable homes, every time i have tried to talk about the need for minimum wage, ,he need for daycare centers embracing ideas on both sides of the aisle, the media has not been interested. they wanted to ask me about petty personal finances. you need somebody else.

i want to give you that that. i will offer to resign from the house sometime before the end of june. be a total payment for the anger and hostility we feel towards each other. republicans, please don't get in your head you need to get somebody else. democrats, please don't feel like you need to get somebody on the other side because of me. we ought to be more mature. .et's restore this institution the rifle priorities -- the

rightful priorities, let's work together to try to achieve them. the nation has important business and cannot afford these distractions. i have enjoyed these years. i am grateful for all of you who have taught me things and have been patient with me. horace greeley had a quote that harry truman used to like. fame is a vapor, popularity and accident. riches take wings.

those who cheered today may curse tomorrow. carrote thing and doers, endures,s -- character. i am a lucky man. god has given me the privilege of serving in the greatest institution on earth for a great toy years and i'm grateful the people of my district in texas and i'm grateful to you, my colleagues, all of you. institution.s god bless the united states. [applause] >> find more highlights from 35 years of house floor coverage on our facebook page. created 35 years ago and

brought to you today as a public service. >> the house foreign affairs committee passed a ukraine aid and russia sanctions bill that does not include imf changes. after this house markup, the senate moved to drop the imf provision from its bill. the committee chairman is ed 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 five days to submit statements for the record, and any extraneous material on any of today's items. and we'll now call up the ukraine support act.

h.r. 4278. without objection the bill is considered read and open for amendment at any point. 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's 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 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, tartar language, the languages spoken in ukraine and this part of the world, there will be the ability for people to hear in realtime what's 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. into eastern your honor. 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 exporters of energy as a nation has the potential to change the security environment around the world notably in europe and in the middle east. so as we look at our strategies for the future, i think we've got to pay more and particular attention to energy as an instrument of national power. the reason we're concerned about this is this is 70%. 70% of the exports out of russia today. it is 52% of the entire budget

for the russian military and russian government that is coming, because2 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, to undermine the 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've 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. 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's 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, 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'd like to commend president obama for imposing sanctions that have already started to impact russian economy, and for leading the effort to suspend's russia's participation in the g-8. finally the bill expresses support for continuing u.s. security assistance to ukraine, and reafirms 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 on the interest of the united states that congress act as soon as possible to maintain the imf's critical role in international crises. i'm 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, and so that ultimately, the russian aggression will prove a detriment to what they think they've 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're 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. >> thank you mr. engel. miss ros-lehtinen had asked for some time for a brief opening statement. >> 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 list, revoking the 1-2-3 agreement with russia and re-examining 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, the language reasserts that the administration must comply with reporting requirements to fully implement this act. language that was aproved by the full house of representatives last congress by a vote of 418-2. the reports have been delinquent for four 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 incsa ledge nation through this year. 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. that's why i've 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 mark up this bill soon, mr. chairman. three more were killed yesterday in venezuela, and one of the opposition leaders maria corona 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's 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 flothroughout the entire hemisphere. i thank the chairman for the time. >> let's go to mr. brad sherman of california. >> thank you. i think it's important that we adopt bipartisan legislation as quickly as possible, and that we avoid controversial and partisan division and avoid those divisive elements that are only tangentially related to helping the ukraine. i think it's 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 is, 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-ukraine -- russian government in kiev, and now they have a pro- -- a russian government only in the crimea. putin backed a klepto crat. he lost the ukraine and now he's trying to look like a winner in the world and a winner to his old people by seizing one province wrongfully, because that's 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 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 key ef to do everything possible to refute putin's charge that this is a regime of the 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 madan, 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 affected in the short or medium term by whether we export natural gas. i don't think we're-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 some oil and maybe more natural gas. i'm hoping that our focus today will be on things that affect the ukraine in the short and medium term and i yield back. >> 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 a 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've seen the ability, the use of a gas lines, that exist in

eastern europe with the reverse flow of that gas to send 2 billion cubic meters last year in to 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 in to eastern europe, that we can use existing pipelines to get it to the ukraine is an important consideration. now, clearly, it would 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 we already begin 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, i read in the financial press, is now saying it's going to double the price ukraine pays for natural gas, which would really cripple the economy there. so that is why mr. sherman, that is why i raise this as a consideration, a geopolitical tool here that could be used in order to send the message that we've got a strategy in order to undercut the ability of putin to do this. do any other members seek recognition? >> mr. chabot. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to commend you and the staff for getting this timely legislation on ukraine before the committee this morning. it's 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 a

taiwan relations act as we commemorate the 35th anniversary of the tra, let us rather 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.r.s. 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. >> go to 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's 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 democrats and republicans, because the issue involves, or is important to all of us, and that we look at those areas of which are our common denominators 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 that also, that we have to listen to the voices of our nato allies. because, if it's just something done on a bilateral area, and not a multilateral area, then that then differ identifies us and it weakens us and the resolve to make sure that -- that mr. putin doesn't go further or look to divide us

from our allies. so it's important, as conversation and the president's negotiating it, we're doing certain things, that 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, but 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 have on mr. putin. so we've got to make sure that we are mindful of, you know, where our allies are, especially i know i've talked to some members yesterday, from the german parliament, and they have deep concerns in regards to mr. putin 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 to the. and i think what i've heard by the president talking about that if there's some further movement by mr. putin, then our allies

are ready to escalate the sanctions and we should be ready to move forward and tighten those sanctions in that regard. but, i just, you know, want to be mindful, you know, it's easy to say sometimes, to go to war, to send weapons or do that, that's the easy thing to do. it's the hard thing to do sometimes to sit down and try to figure out how we stay in line with our allies and work to the. i hope that they do that. i hope that we do that. just as it's important for us to stay together and come together, it is important for us to make sure with our international allies, and to that regard, you know, we talk about, you know, our colleagues to the west. it's important for us to be re-engaged and reinvigorate those relationships. and so, as we talk about the ukrainian issue, we've got to make sure, i couldn't agree more with what you said mr. chairman, and what mr. sherman said about the ukrainians coming together, it is now time for them to unite, to speak with one voice, also, that's tremendously important. it's 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's not wait until there's something else that happens, and then we all of a sudden are jumping in. let's show, and i think that that's what this bill does, it shows that we're going to stand by the ukraine, we're 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 thereby it will send the right message to our allies in the region. that is tremendously important. and again, i end as i started, mr. chairman, because we could get in to a lot of other debate here that could dive a us. but you and mr. engel have chosen not to do that. you've 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. >> thank you mr. meeks.

we go to mr. row buck. >> 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 you my life at risk several times, i was not in the military, but put myself at risk 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, a

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 wee 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 trying to utilize this controversy as a means of defeating them and pushing them into a hole because after all they're russians and they're thugs and they're gangsters, and of course our people are -- would -- have never committed such crimes as sending an army into crimea. i'd 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, had 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 that 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. let's, you know, let's be just in our criticism. yes, putin should not have sent in those troops. but this was a -- 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, especially those of us who have been there, ten years ago i visited crimea, they all spoke russian. now, what is that? it's an historic reality unfortunately, because stalin murdered so many people there, and ethnic russians moved in. we know that. and we're 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's 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 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 gave 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 in to a hostile

relationship with us and i oppose that whole concept. thank you very much, mr. chairman. >> we go now to mr. connally of virginia. >> i thank the chair. i'm 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 they 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. >> would the gentlemen yield for a question? >> if i may continue for a second. we need to stop talking about he

better not go no further. i'm stuck at crimea and i hope my colleagues are, too. it's 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're going to help make it so. until he relents. until they pay a price that's so great, systematic, comprehensive, in think 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. >> 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 ukraine -- or excuse me 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? >> well, you've 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 -- a unilateral action by the russian parliament -- >> would the gentleman -- >> and an action by the parliament in crimea. >> would the gentleman yield? >> i would. >> thank you, and i agree with everything that 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's any kind of analogy between what happened in crimea, to 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 to actually murder 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's 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's 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. chairman, i know my colleague brad sherman wanted to ask a question. would the chairman indulge me to yield to my colleague? >> if you wish to yield at this time. >> i thank the chair. >> i'd 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're an autonomous region. they continued to have their language rights. there's a difference. i yield back. >> mr. chairman, i just want to say on a point of personal privilege -- >> i think the gentleman's time has expired. >> 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. >> thank you. >> i thank the chair. >> we now have -- we now go to judge ted poe of texas. >> i thank the chairman.

mr. chairman, this issue is of importance to the united states' national security interests. 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'm not talking about the state of georgia. in the south i know some of my georgia friends are concerned about thinking that the georgia has been invaded and they didn't know about it. but, in any event, he watched to see what we woo do. he took one-third of the country. we said that's not nice. you shouldn't do that.

you're innovating a sovereign country and we moved on. and he's 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're wondering about whether he's going into moll dove yeah, the rest of ukraine, estonia, belarus. those are possiblibilities. and what happened in crimea. he marched in. we watched. and dealing with putin. he has started cold war. we should be aware of this. and whether we like it or not he chose this activity. so i think it's in our national security 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, nope, you're 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 the napoleon of siberia know he just can't invade countries and the rest of the world just moves on. and there should be consequences. i support the legislation. >> would the gentleman yield time to the chair? >> i certainly will. >> well, thank you. i did want to make one observation here. mr. poe, and that is what we're 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're 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's chosen aggression. aggression against the ukraine, aggression against other countries. i don't think we can allow him to proceed unchallenged, or we're 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 in to this, and eastern europe, and breaking the monopoly that russia has with 70% of the export out of russia. budget.% of the entire if we do this, along with the other steps that we take care to build democracy and support for institutions within ukraine, i think we've taken a decisive step to create the second thoughts, to create the leverage , and my time has expired. i will go to mr. grayson of florida. >>