could be an actual conspiracy. they are going to do their investigation and make a determination they need more, they will have to come back and do the r.a.s. test again. >> it's two hops. in the beginning, it's the two hops, but again, getting intelligence, this is where i have a problem with sensenbrenner, in the ongoing investigation, we wouldn't get any of that. it would make us less safe. you get the two hops and after you do the investigation to move forward, you need to pass the r.a.s. test to get more information. based on your field investigation with the f.b.i., you might want to go to the court and use the foundation of the intelligence to get to the improbable cause. >> no content. this is really important. there is no content in this collection, zero. it's only that metadata. >> no name, no address.

and if they want content later, there is no recording, that doesn't happen. they have to take that information, and have to again rate the case in order to go out and determine who it was if they could build probable cause to get content. those are pretty solid protections. >> we are concerned, we already from pre-court on the process and procedure, but there are those who feel strongly that you need the pre and the post together. our concern is that it would take too long. you need flexibility in the process. but if it turns out down the road after six months or a year, we can always look at that issue pre versus post and make sure we have the correct balance. we have the obligation to protect us.

look at the unsophisticated attacks from the two brother in boston. al qaeda and other terrorist groups are much more sophisticated than those two brothers were. >> thanks everybody. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> i am aware that xenophobia exists. judeo phobia, christian phobia, it is all part of it. but what happens is that the islamists lobby, the brotherhood lobby, and the iranian lobby have hijacked to notion and made it into a weapon. it has nothing to do with the religion, having to do with the five pillars.

they have been accused of his phobia.obia -- of islamo even at the international level, it has become very dangerous. >> u.s. policy in the middle east. onapril 6, more discussion the middle east with military strategist and former assistant defense secretary being west with your calls and comments live in depth starting at noon eastern. book tv every weekend on c-span two. court heardsupreme oral arguments on the new health care law tuesday. the two cases look at women's access to contraception through their employers health care plan and religious freedom. we get reaction in a moment. floor, a u.s.

ukraine package versus sanctions against russia. >> on our next washington journal, julian sanchez of the cato institute discusses the proposed plan of stores data. diana degette on supreme court health care contraceptive case. later, reach early talks about the recent article on first lady michelle obama in the white house. plus your phone calls, facebook comments, and tweets. washington journal is live each morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. the health care law says that employers need to provide health care for their employees that include contraception. some for-profit corporations have said that they should not have to pay for all of the services, especially those that

conflict with the religious beliefs. lobbya grain of hobby followed by anthony hahn. >> our family started hobby lobby based on our faith and together as a family. we have kept that tradition for more than 40 years and we want to continue to live out our faith in the way we do business. government has forced on us is unfair and not in keeping with the history of our great nation founded on religious freedom. we believe that americans don't lose their religious freedom when they open a family business. we were encouraged by today's arguments. we are thankful that the supreme court took our case. and we are fully awake the justices decision. thank you.

since my family first opened, notought to glorify god, only in the quality and craftsmanship of our products, but by the principles that inspire our lives every day. we believe in hard work, good citizenship, and the dignity of our customers and employees who were 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 affirm the sanctity of human life. and the government would actually force us to be complicit in the potential destruction of human life. sadly that day has come. rather than sacrifice our obedience to god, my family, the green family, and many others have chosen to take a stand to defend life and freedom against government coercion. we did choose this feiss -- we didn't choose this fight.

our families would be happy to provide good jobs and generous health-care benefits. but the government forced our hand. we hope the supreme court will uphold the religious freedoms of all americans who seek to glorify god, even as they go about making a living. thank you. >> where do you draw the line? some of thear from attorneys in the case, including paul clement who is representing hobby lobby. they spoke after tuesday's laura -- tuesday's oral argument. say, we arejust obviously gratified that the court heard these cases, accepted both of them. forhink it is important them to understand the religious objections of both the greens in the hobby lobby case and the haunting the calistoga case. took thesee court cases very seriously, took them very seriously. we believe when the government comes in and takes the position

that even a kosher deli that was told that it would have to be open on a saturday at they would have no basis to even get into court and make that claim. that is a very difficult argument to sustain. the nature of there are unit would also say that a for-profit medical clinic and have no ability to raise the conscious objection and only if congress provides the conscious objection would they be in a position to do that. those are the arguments that were presented to the court today. we covered a great deal of territory. >> what about the argument from the other side [indiscernible] court really got to that issue by saying there is really no case on either side that says either the for-profit corporations definitely have religious exercise and there is no case that says they definitely don't. thei think that with arguments explored is the ramifications of saying that a for-profit corporation under no circumstances can even get into

court to raise a free exercise claim is just untenable. at one point, the solicitor general seemed to concede that an exercise claim that discriminated against a religion, incorporation would have the ability to bring that case. i don't know why a corporation has the ability to vindicate that claim and not the claims at issue here. >> what do you say to the justices comments that they denied forcing anywhere --. provided by the statute for a company like hobby lobby is the option to either pay a 475 million dollar per year fine or to pay a $26 million per year fine or comply with the government's mandate. the point is not that any of these companies are asking for something in special treatment. commerce hasthat passed a 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 come a not to be disseminated on the base of their religion. putif the government substantial burden on a person's religious exercise and they cannot support that with a compelling interest, then the person's claim should be vindicated. the fundamental problem with the government's program is that an agency has provided this accommodation or this exam should for a subset of the employers are affected by the mandate and a subset of the persons protected by rip up. when the congress passes a statute, it is not for an administrative agency to provide protection only for a chosen few. >> [indiscernible] have is thatense i the course took this case very seriously as it does every one of its cases. we are certainly gratified that we had a chance to present our case to the court. thank you very much. differentwill get

perspectives on the supreme court health care contraceptive mandate case. the heads of planned parenthood, pro-choice, and the woman's law center spoke to reporters after the case. as a reminder, we will bring you the oral argument friday at 8:00 a.m. eastern here on c-span. my name is marcia greenberger and i am copresident of the national women's law center. the court friend of brief on behalf of almost 70 organizations speaking to the women whose health and whose futures are at stake with respect to their access to concert active -- concert to -- contraceptive coverage. the supreme court has said in the past and i want to read this -- "being able to decide when or whether to have children whose women's ability to participate

equally in our nation's economic and social life, access to birth women'shas improved status and overall financial security" and i will add as well as their health and the health of their children. its use is nearly universal. and its benefits are extraordinary. casewas at issue in this is whether, when the government determines that preventive health care and that is essential for women must be bevided to them, can overridden by any corporation that decides to do so would be objectionable to the corporation. organization, the national

women's law center, heard from someone who was not heard from in the supreme court. and that was actually a woman who was an employee of hobby lobby itself. and she spoke and i can read rom her words specifically about the importance of contraception to her and to her that -- "ithe said would allow a woman to lead a responsible life." and the ability of women to be responsibility -- responsible and to protect their own health that is at stake in this case today. thank you very much. president of pro-choice america. i want to say one simple thing. what the court heard today is that if it was to find for the

plaintiffs in this case, it would be the first time the court of this country had proactively extinguished the right of any american. women, allut all women's health, all women's freedoms. we are the 99%. we will not have our rights extinguished. our bodies are not our boss's business. >> thank you. cecile richards, president of planned parenthood. i am proud to be here on behalf of the 5 million patients we see every year for health care. i think what we saw today in the court was the importance of having women on the supreme court. i was so proud to be there as a woman who cares about women's health, to have the justices talk about the fact that what is at stake in this case is whether millions of women and their right to preventive care, including birth control, is trumped i a handful of ceo's who

have their own personal opinions about birth control. it was a wonderful day i think for women. and i really believe that this court understood that women have the right to make their own decisions about their health care and their birth control and it is not their boss's decision. thanks. the u.s. supreme court is looking at whether corporations have the right to be exempt from part of the new health care law to provide coverage for contraceptives for their employees. review the audio on tuesday's case friday at 8:00 p.m. here on c-span. >> senator patty murray came to the senate floor to weigh in on the supreme court case on the contraceptive mandate. democratngton state spoke for eight minutes. eal washington to this one. with that, madam president, let me change gears a bit and

address one of the most significant pieces of legislation for women in my lifetime, the affordable care act. on sunday, madam president, this law celebrated its fourth anniversary, serving as a very stark reminder of where our nation's health care system was just four years ago. four years ago our health insurance companies could deny women care due to so-called preexisting conditions, like pregnancy or being a victim of domestic violence. four years ago women were permitted to be legally discriminated against when 2 came to insurance premiums and often were paying more for coverage than men. four years ago women did not have access to the full range of recommended preventive care like mammograms or prenatal screenings and much more. four years ago insurance companies had all the leverage and all the power and too often it was women who paid the price.

well now, thanks to that affordable care act, for the first time women, not their insurance companies or their employers, are now fully in charge of their own health care. in fact, women make up over half of the 5 million people that have already signed up for coverage in the new marketplace. and over 47 million women have already gained guaranteed access to preventive health services thanks to that affordable care act. that is why i feel so strongly we cannot go back to the way things were, and while we can never stop working to make improvements, we owe it to the women of america to make progress and to move forward and not allow the clock to be rolled back on their health care needs. unfortunately, there are efforts under way all across the country, including here today in our nation's capital, to severely undermine a woman's access to some of those most

critical and lifesaving services this were provided under the affordable care act. and no provision of this law has faced quite as many attacks as the idea of providing affordable, quality reproductive health services to the women of america. for this reason i was very proud to lead members of my caucus in filing an amicus brief with the supreme court in the two cases that are being considered their today. those cases were brought by c.e.o.'s who want to take away their employees' right to insurance coverage for birth control, which is guaranteed under the affordable care act. and just like the many attempts before this case, there are those out there who would like the american public to believe that this conversation is anything but an attack on women's health care. to them, it's a debate about freedom. well, except of course when the

freedom comes for women to access care. it's no different than, we are told, attacks on abortion rights aren't somehow a right an infringement 0en a women's woman's right -- on a woman's right to choose. or when we're told that restricting emergency contraception isn't about limiting women's ability to make our own family planning decisions; it's somehow about protecting pharmacists. or, just like last week when an alaska state senator proposed placing state-funded pregnancy tests in bars but rolled out providing -- ruled out providing contraception because "birth control is for people who don't necessarily want to act responsibly." well, madam president, the truth is, this is about contraception. this is an attempt to limit a woman's ability to access care. and this is about women. allowing a woman's boss to call the shots about her access to

birth control should be inconceivable to all americans in this day and age, and it take us back to place in history when women had no voice and no choice. in fact, contraception was included as a required preventive service in the affordable care act on the recommendation of the independent nonprofit institute of medicine and other medical experts because it is essential to the health of women and families. and after many years of research, we know ensuring access to effective birth control has a direct impact on approving -- improving the lives of women and families in america. we have been able to directly thing to declines in maternal and infant mortality, reduced risk of ovarian cancer, better overall health care outcomes for women, and far fewer unintended pregnancies and abortions, which is a goal we all share.

what's at stake in this case before the supreme court is whether a c.e.o.'s personal beliefs can trump a woman's right to access free or low-cost contraception under the affordable care act. madam president, i strongly believe every american deserves to have access to high-quality health care coverage regardless of where they work or where they live. and each of us should have the right to make our own medical and religious decisions, without being dictated to or limited by our employers. contraceptive coverage is supported by the vast majority of americans who understand how important it is to -- for women and families. in weighing this case, my hope is the court realizes that women working for private companies should be forwarded th affordede

access to cofnlg regardless of who signs their paycheck. we can't allow secular cooperations or their shareholders to deny female employers access to comprehensive health care under the guise of a religious exemption. it is as if we're saying that because you are a c.e.o. or a shareholder in a corporation, your rights are more important than your employees who happen to be women. as i sat inside that supreme court chamber this morning listening to the arguments being made on both sides, i couldn't help but think, if these c.e.o.'s are allowed to evade this law, what would happen to the other legal protections for employees? could your boss decide not to cover h.i.v. treatment? could an employer opt out of having to comply with antidiscrimination laws? corporations should not be able to use religion as a license to

discriminate. madam president, i'm proud to be joined in filing the brief by 18 other senators who are in office when congress enacted the religious protections through the religious freedom restoration act way back in 1993, when we -- and again when we made access to women's health care available through the affordable care act in 2010. we are senators who know that congress did not intend for a corporation or its shareholders to restrict a woman's access to preventive health care because we all know that improving access to birth control is good health policy and good economic policy. we know it will mean healthier women, healthier children, healthier families, and a healthier america. we all know it will save money for businesses and consumers. but, madam president, i know many of our colleagues believe that repealing the affordable care act and access to

reproductive health services is somehow a political winner for them. but the truth is, this law and these provisions are a winner for women, for men, for children, and for our health care system overall. so i'm very proud to stand with my colleagues who are committed to making sure the benefits of this law do not get taken away from the women of america because politics and ideology should not matter when it comes to making sure women get the care they need at a cost that they can afford. so thank >> to tell you the truth, this year, it has been very difficult for me to offer the kind of moral leadership that an organization needs. every time i tried to talk about the needs of the country, about the need for affordable homes,

jack kant's idea, and others identity -- others developing here. the talk for the need for minimum wage. others talk about the need for daycare centers and raising ideas on both sides of the aisle. the media have not been interested in that. they want to ask me about petty personal finances. you need somebody else. i want to give you that back. we will have a focus on tuesday. then i will offer to resign somewhere at the end of june. forthat be a total payment the anger and hostility we feel toward each other.

let's not try to get even with each other. don't need, please you have to get somebody else because of john tower. feel you, please don't need to get somebody on the other side because of me. we ought to be more mature than that. let's restore to this rightfulon the priorities for this country. let's all work together to try to achieve them. the nation has important business. we cannot afford these distractions. and that is why i ought to resign. i have enjoyed these years in congress.

i am grateful for all of you that have taught me things. a quote that harry used -- harry truman used to like. 'riches take wings. those who cheered today make curse tomorrow. only one thing endures. character." i am not a bitter. i'm not going to be. i am a lucky man. god has given me the privilege of serving the greatest institution on earth for a great many years. i am grateful to the people of my district in texas.

i am grateful to you, my colleagues, all of you. god bless this institution. god bless the united states. [applause] >> find more highlights from 35 years coverage on our facebook page. cable companies 35 years ago and brought to you today as a public service by your cable and satellite provider. >> the house foreign affairs committee passed a ukraine eight and russia sanctions bill that does not include international monetary fund changes which the obama administration had wanted. after this house markup, the senate moved to drop the imf provision from its bill. the committee chairman is, smith edward. wood.congressman ed

>> this committee will come to order. pursuant to notice, we meet today to mark of three bipartisan measures. with alt debts without objection, all members have the items fory to submit the record and we know call up the ukraine -- the ukraine support act. ishout objection, the bill considered read and open for amendment at any point. i willy brief remarks, recognize our ranking member, mr. elliott ringel from new york, and then any other members seeking recognition. 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, with respect to gas in to ukraine, and eastern europe, and breaking the monopoly that russia has, it's 70% of the export, out of russia, it is 52%

of the entire budget, military and government, in we do this along with the other steps we take here to build democracy, to build support for institutions within ukraine, i think we have taken a desissive step to create those second thoughts, to create that leverage, and my time is expired so i'll now go to mr. grayson of florida. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, ranking member engel. i want to join in some of the comments that were made by my friend dana from california. less than two weeks ago, in response to a question from the gentleman from central florida, secretary kerry said that without a doubt, if there were a free and fair election in crimea, crimea would vote to join russia. i think that's an important fact, and in fact, i think that's the central fact of the situation that we face today. all over the world, millions of people are stuck in the wrong country.

and the great accomplishment of the 20th century was to seek the end of colonialism. the end of colonies millions and millions stuck in the wrong country by means of military force by european powers. maybe the goal of the 21st century is to see the fulfillment of that principle, that groups of people can join together and create a country, join another neighboring country, be part of the country that they want to be part of. the principle of self determination. we can't ignore the fact that 2 million people in the crimea feel, at least until now they were stuck in the wrong country. this country was created in 1956 he gave the gift of crimea to ukraine. at that point it didn't matter too much because both ukraine and russia were part of the soviet union. since the disillusion of the

soviet yun in the 1990s, it's mattered a lot. in fact, the there are large groups of russian speakers beyond the border of russia. one of the great issues of russia foreign policy for the last 20 years has been what do we do about that? how do we deal with the fact there are substantial numbers of people now outside of our border who is identify themselves as russians, are indistinguishable from the people within our borders. it contained 15 stateers with borders that were arbitrary. there are points that are fundamentally different from russia. for instance, if we saw military action against lithuania, we would repudiate that, we would do everything we could to stop that. the lithiuanians are different from the russians.

the crimeans are not. since it was an independent country hundreds of years ago, the crimean population has shown it is royal to the russians. it identifies with the russians. it has voted over and over again with the russian party, conte contesting elections into crime ya. now recently we saw the russian speaking candidate was thrown out of office. now, you may say he was thrown out of office for good reason. there are allegations against him that he was corrupt. but the fact is, from the perspective of the crimeans, their leader, the one they placed in charge of their country was thrown out of power. so it should come as no surprise as secretary kerry recognize that had the crimeans had had enough and wanted to leave this artificial sbi called the ukraine.

now, the russians did assist. they assisted by disarming the local ukrainian army and navy. they did it virtuously bloodlessly. that's the fact of the matter. why are we pretending otherwise? whoo rewe speaking of naked aggression? why are we speaking of stealing crimea? why are we speaking of bullying, our thuggery, or audacious power grabbing or cold war ii? i'm surprise the judge didn't tell us he was sad the iron curtain has descended. the fact is, as the chairman has recognized, this is not some new cold war that's occurring. in fact, it's quite the contrary. we should be kpleezed to see when a virtuously bloodless power is determination for someone in the world. anywhere in the world. and in fact, what we're seeing here instead is the vilification

of putin, the vilification of anybody. before that it was saddam hussein. before that it was assad. this does not help. the basic principle is self determination that's what happened in crime ya. it's not for us to determine otherwise. >> will the gentleman yield? >> yes. >> i want to make clear that the adjectives used or referenced are not the adjectives we use in the carefully worded resolution. first of all. second, the problem or the difficulty isn't so much with the example of lithuania. the problem is with example of

eston estonia, countries in which people were moved out during stalin's tenure into siberia and replaced with ethnic russians so that today in those two countries you have strong minorities of russian speakers in estonia and latvia. you have the same situation in crimea to a greater extent because in crimea, the majority of the ethnic population, in fact, perishedperished. so with the migration of russian speakers into the area, you have a different circumstance. part of the problem in terms of the way in which the referendum was held was clearly it was unconstitutional. it was illegal. it occurred under russian military occupation and coercion. but you also had a situation where opponents were silenced. international monitors were

barred. and most importantly, voters were not given the option of preserving crime ya's current status with ukraine. because the only choice on the ballot was independence and defak to fin dependence, and frankly, i think the vote itself was unnecessary, because the ukrainian government had made it clear it would discuss increasing autonomy for crimea, and frankly, that was probably the way to solve this thing. by allowing crimea to have the autonomy within whatever you wanted to call, you know, let's say one country, two systems. but you would basically be giving to crimea the autonomy that the local population desired. the presidential elections that are now planned for may 25th are going to provide a legislate opportunity for all ukrainians

to make their voices heard on the the future of the country. i'm going to lead a delegation in april. we are going to speak to all factions in ukraine. mr. sherman spoke to the issue we want to convey. one of an attitude of national reck sigsuation for ukrainians. right now we are faced with a certain challenge. that challenge is if we don't send a strong message here, what happens wrpt to estonia or latvia if a similar situation surfaces where the argument is made that a russian population lives within those two countries, and we can, of course, extend that to any number of countries as you have pointed out, i think that we have got to get back to a process whereby, this is done in consultation with the international community and there isn't an excuse given for

russia to move aggressively on or countries, using as an argument sfrks frankly propaganda that is not really occurring. and the propaganda component of this was the thought that et in addition russians were being beaten. this is why in our legislation one of the most important aspects to me is also the inclusion of radio free europe. radio liberty broadcasting into the country in these languages to allow ethnic russians to know in realtime what's actually happening in the country to offset propaganda. i did want to bring up the points with respect to the underlying resolution. >> we are going now to mr. smith of new jersey. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman and ranking member engle for introducing this

comprehensive legislation to support ukraine. russia's land grab in crimea violates the core principles of the treaties between russia and ukraine, the united nations charter as well as the helsinki final act. it includes a strok component against russians responsible for this aggression. this also authorizes targeted sanctions against ukrainians involved in undermining the democratic processes and provides assistance to the ukrainian government for identifying and recovering stolen assets. it is after all the criminal officials including and especially yanukovych and his cronnies who have harmed the yew yanian people and placed them in the vulnerable position which russia has ruthlessly exploited. another key part of the bill provides support for the civil

society. i want to recognize the important of supporting the faith based groups and organizations that play such a prominent role and in supporting the movement for democracy in a rule of law. the ukrainian gox movement is in large part a religious movement. ors dox and catholic cler ji were prominent in the protests and the prominence of priest carrying icons became as much a symbol of the movement as anything else. religious and faith based organizations are very much part of civil society and demock a i yield back. >> we go now to mr. loenthal of california. >> thank you, mr. chair. i want to thank you, chairman

royce and mr. engle for bringing support the ukraine act which i strongly support. it's critical for if united states to back ukraine sovereignty, the territory integrity and inthe dependence. i strongly support the angsts for individuals responsible for the loss of ukrainian assets who have significantly undermined democratic processes in the ukraine or have committed human rights abuses. however, i would like to raise an issue that is contained in the support ukraine act, which is probably not within the jurisdiction of this committee. as we seek to promote democratic values in ukraine and uphold those values, we must not lose sight of our own democratic values here in the united states. the bill provides broad discretion the administration

and staff in the department of state and homeland security to revoke visas for individuals theyiteria criteria. while i understand and support the need to provide discretion under these extraordinary circumstances, i remain concerned about the lack of any judicial recourse for those affected. as this bill moves forward, which i do support and hope it does, i will not support this lack of discourse. thank you, and i yield back. >> will the gentleman yield for one moment? >> yes, i could. >> if i could respond to mr. lowenthal. the sections of the bill regarding visa sanction, including the procollusion of judicial review, these are not

eamdable at our markup. those portions which concern the immigration and nationality act and parts of title 28 of the u.s. koez, that deals with the judicial proceeding portion of this, they're in the legislative jurisdiction. is judiciousry committee. so that will be part of the process. we go now to mr. weber. of texas. >> thank you, mr. chairman, with great respect for my friend from california who is from the best named city there, sherman oex, i want to address the idea that there's a brewing stroefrs over drilling and selling natural gas, and i want to bring my colleague's attention to the fact that when president bill clinton was in office t there was a controversy other drilling in the anwor. and i think my colleague from california said drill, the brewing controversy of drill, baby, drill. there was a bumper sticker that

was prevalent in texas back there that said drill here, drill now, pay less. walk you might remember that. and the comments were made, those who were against drilling anwar that it would take ten years for any of that oil to reach us. by the time the pine line was built. by the time production was done, it would be ten years before we would see the oil, it's pointless. and so if memory serves me correct. bill clinton left office in 2001. had we drilled this then, we would have the benefit of that energy now. i think the current crisis points out the fact that it is indeed a controversy that when america can become energy fin dependent, it not only serves to create jobs in this country, which we sorely need right now, but it also produces energy independent, national security for america, and even produces national security around the world. ask our friends in the ukraine if they would rather be buying

lng, and i have three in my backyard or in my district. ask them if they would rather be buying gas from america or the russian -- as judge called him. i think that answer is pretty straightforward. we cannot, in my opinion, ignore the fact that this is a national security controversy, if we want to use my colleague's words from california. but that it is an important one that needs to be had. and had we drilled in the anwar 15 plus years ago, we would be in a lot better shape. the world would be a safer place. so the question i pose, ten years from now, are we still going to be saying, oh, we've got this brewing controversy about drill for lng and natural gas and expord it to other countries? it means jobs for us. it means a balance of trade for us. it means national security for us. and i would argue it means international security around the world so that the kinds of

things that we saw putin do to ukraine and cutting off their energy supply cannot be done. now, i'm going to switch gears to part "b." when you have a crimean legislature that votes unanimously to be reannexed into russia, where are the people to stand up and say no? i was told by one of my colleagues, if you had a gun aimed at your head, sild say no, too. and i reminded him that 56 signers of our declaration signed their name on the document, stuck their finger in the eye of the bigger tower of it will world, king george, the most powerful country with the most powerful army and in signing the declaration they signed the death warrant, knowing they would be shot on site or hung as a traitor. if people in crime ya did not want to be annexed, where were the voices to stand up and say no? it troubles me that we're guaranteeing them money and that we're getting involved, as my

friend from california says, in a situation where clearly it seems as if either they were unwilling to stand up and fight for their own liberty, or unwilling to pay that price, and yet, we're going to get involved, and we're going to get between the two. that's very troubling. i have great respect for chairman royce. i've been oversees with him in washington amongst the other countries and the knowledge he has and the the way he's respected, so i'm going to wrestle l with this one. and i have great respect for my colleague from mr. sherman, sherman oaks, the best named city in california. i will yield. >> we're about to have hearings on the whole issue of energy exports. my hope is to keep that out of this resolution here because it can be controversial. had we drilled in anwar, there are various things that would have happened, but i think russia would be hurting just as

much for every barrel of oil it exports as today. i don't think it would have affected world prices. and i would point out in japan now they're paying triple what we are for natural gas. they're paying 1.5 times what they are in germany. and i doubt that we're going to see a decline in what europe is is willing to pay for natural gas. i yield back to the gentleman. >> i think the gentleman for his comments. mr. chair, i will shut up and yield back. thank you. >> thank the gentleman from florida. we're going to have to move to consider other amendments. i've got -- miss frankel from florida seeking time and mr. keating, i thought i would recognize them, and then try to move to -- since we're going to have members who are going to have amendments, sfw let's go now to miss frankel. >> thank you, mr. chair, and i do support this act.

i've enjoyed this debate, and i would like to raise two questions and then i will yield my time to those who would like to answer, and this has to do with the proliferation of nuclear weapons. . under the budapest amendment of 1994, the united states t united kingdom and the russian federation made assurances to protect ukraine in the event its territory or sovereignty is threatened by a foreign entity in exchange for ukraine voluntarily giving up the uranium and nuclear war heads to russia, at time, the world's third largest arsenal. so my first question would be probably to -- i know mr. grayson and then mr. chairman, i appreciate your answer, is how would you reality this ukraine support act to that agreement? and secondly, do either of you believe that this act will in any way affect negotiations

either with iran, about iran or syria? and i would yield -- mr. grayson, you want to take a stap at that? >> yes, i think it is fair to say that the russians skated around the agreement that they signed 20 years ago. i think that there's a great deal of troubling details with regard to how the situation has unfolded. i think the chairman quite accurately enumerated many of them. the the question for me is whether that somehow trumps the desire and the need for the people of crimea for self determination. in my case, i think it doesn't. that doesn't mean we need to overlook the fact that the russians appear to have violated the agreement that you mentioned, overlook the fact that the russians doubled the legal amount of soldiers that they had in the crimea leading up to the referendum, and a number of other irregularities. but i don't think that we're on the right side of history, as

president obama might say, for staying against the right of the people in crime ya for self determination. >> mr. chair or maybe mr. engle, could you answer the question? your thought of how the budapest men ran dumb of 1994 relates to this discussion? >> would you repeat that question? >> there was a ukraine -- my understanding is ukraine voluntarily gave up its nuclear arsenal with the promise from united states, yibted kingdom and the russian federation to protect their sovereignty. so it seems there may be some precedence or implications if we do not move forward with this type of act. but i just wanted the to get your sense of that. >> well, i would just point out that the political document that you refer to, miss frankel, was

not a security treaty. the united states is not bound under that document, and so i don't think that is relevant to the debate of the resolution here, nor do i think this resolution complicated in any way the suggestion that i think you're alluding to. >> well, mr. chair, if i may -- >> perhaps i don't understand -- >> i think it supports it. i think that -- just in terms of precedent, if we do not back up in some way, an agreement, we got ukraine to give up nuclear arsenal with an assurance that we would protect their territorial integrity. obviously russia is violating that. >> miss frankel, if you would yield to me. >> i think you're right on the money with that one. absolutely. that was signed at a time when

russia perhaps felt more vulnerable. than it feels now and putin feels strengthened now for many reasons. part of which is the energy revenues that he gets making, you know, russia a power again. and therefore, he's convenient ly neglecting or aggregating agreements that russia signed back then because he feels he's stronger, he's a bully and he can afford to do it. i think you're quite right. this legislation stands up to that and says there's bad faith by russia, it's not simply a matter -- as some of my colleagues have put it, of self determination. it's a matter of putin being a bully because he just feels that he can be. >> thank you, mr. chair. >> will the gentle lady yield? >> and again the point i was making is that the document itself does not require a military response, clearly, but

prudence, logic would dictate that we take what steps we could to leverage the conduct of russia in order to penalize russia for violating the agreement that yukraine made, a you have articulated so russia understands there will be a consequence in the future if this conduct continues, and what gives us all pause is the stream he made recently in which he said the bountryes of russia are not the bountryes of the current map of russia. that russian populations anywhere are considered part of russia. that type of extraterritoriality is perhaps a signal that we have to be aware of other intentionses and hence, prudence would suggest that we need to

move decisively with leverage in order to put pressure on moscow, not to attempt this. and mr. keating. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i just want to close and frame this resolution that i am supporting, this legislation this way. what was done and what russia did was illegal. now, there are other means of dealing with issues of autonomy. there are different ways to do that. with kosovo they did it with the security council. it can be done under the ukraine constitution. and the prime minister has made clear that he's open to discussions and dialogue on these issues of autonomy. if it's done legally, everyone's rights, including groups like crimea shlgs everyone's rights are better protected. that's the way it should happen.

f the way it's happened has been at the barrel of a gun. that's what this legislation addresses. the ill legality of what should be done. i don't think that should be lost on us. and i yield back. >> i thank the gentleman for yielding back. . if there are no further speakers on the underlying bill, i recognize smoois to provide a manager's amendment which was provided to yours office last night. >> amendment officered by mr. royce of california. >> without objection, the manager's amendment is considered read, and recognize myself briefly to explain the amendment. this amendment includes several items which were shared with the ranking member yesterday and which were distributed to all members's offices there are also additions from other members of the committee. mr. smith and mr. cicilinni. it's a strong message of support for ukraine and pushes back

against russian aggression, and this amendment contains a few more items in support of that cause. importantly the amendment allows for the president to pargt those corrupt officials close es to putin, targeting them for their asset and visa bands, and last week four individuals and one financial institution were targeted for providing material support to russian officials. we can and should ramp this up. this is putin's power base. expropriation, corrupt government contracts, bribery, it's all rampant, and it's all despised by the russian people. . and this provision lets them know whose side we are on. the amendment also is calls for close scrutiny of russia's efforts to arm bah shire al assad in russia, and i appreciate your close attention to that issue.

moscow's support has been essential in assad's three-year slaughter of his own people. there is recent credible report ing that russia has violated this treaty. and on security assistance, the amendment answers increasingly bipartisan calls to do more to help improve the capability of ukraine's armed forces which have been neglected for decades. and lastly, the amendment includes technical changes to perfect the language and the underlying bill. so do any other members seek recognition to speak on the manager's amendment? i'll go to mr. en gel. >> thank you plrks chairman. i want to speak in strong support of the manager's amendment. i want to tell our colleagues this specifically. oipt to tell you what the bill does, what the amendment does.

it follows it as language on ukraine and human rights. it has language on community and faith based organizations and ukrainian civil society. it has language to help improve the capabilities of ukraine's armed forces. it has abilities to allow the president to sanction those who are significant in political corruption in russia and it also has language requiring closer securityny of russia's efforts to arm the bashar al assad regime in syria. it requires the president to report on whether russia has materially breached the obligations under the imf treaty. it includes a number of technical and perfecting changes to the bill. so mr. chairman, i think these amendments strengthen the bill and are right in line with what we're attempting to do. i strongly support them, and i yield back. >> thank you very much, mr.

chairman. i rise in respect to my colleagues but in strong disagreement with them. and on this manager's amendment as well. there's no doubt there's significant corruption in russia. there's no doubt about that. and there's no doubt there's significant corruption in a huge chunk of this planet and the government that control this the people on this planet. so we know, for example, mr. yanukovych who was elected as president of ukraine, with who was then removed, i might add, from being the president of ukraine, that he was elected because the people that we had supported, and i say we because i was deeply involved in supporting this orange revolution they had.

they conducted themselveses in a very corrupt way. the people of ukraine were upset with the pro western group that was put in place. and they elected a pro russian yanukovych. right now to simply condemn the corrupt leaders of russia in a world like this is a hostile act towards russia. it's a hostile act towards those particular people that run russia. and i'm not saying we shouldn't recognize. yes, they are not anywhere near the honesty standards that we have. but for us to single them out right now as compared to what's going on in china, as compared to what's going on in so many other countries of the world, is telling them, we consider them our enemy. and this is what we're talking

about today, is an effort to rush headlong into the cold war again by declaring war on these people. that's what we're doing. we're declaring war on them as individuals, single ling them out from the corrupt dictators of the world. with assad, yes, i think assad is a corrupt dictator with a rotten regime in syria and putin has supported him, but, of course, our guys support al qaeda, the people who murdered 3,000 americans on 9/11. our allies are supporting those guys. so no, we're going to condemn russia for supporting assad because he's a corrupt dictator. what did prussia just do? they just give $2 billion the in support for general. well, thank god they did that. they're not going to do that in the future if we start singling

them out in such a hostile way that we know we're at war with them as individuals and war with russia again. that's not what is best for our country. and it's not what is best for the world. from what i understand what happened in crimea, not one person was killed. maybe there was one. what happened in kosovo when we were supporting self determination, which we should have supported, and in sudan, we're talking about thousands of people who lost their lives, and yet we have to condemn the russians, of course, when no one lost their life in an attempt to make sure that people of crime ya had a right to control they're own destiny hean their own self determination. so i would oppose this manager's amendment as well as the bill. >> i'm going to recognize myself for a few minutes here. first, i want to make it clear

that this bill includes measures to address and sanction ukrainian officials as well. these all apply in this legislation to those ukrainian officials involved in that kind of conduct, but it also applies to the russian oligarchs who have been involved in the situation. why? well, for one reason we should look at every event we have in this situation in order to make certain that moscow does not move to southern ukraine or eastern ukraine or in other eastern territories. and second, corruption is the most despised activity in russia today. it's one of the reasons russians view the actions of the state as so irresponsible. o so it's not as though in

targeting corruption we're doing something that runs cross current with the interests of the people in russia. the authorization in the legislation if you look is very permissive. in other words, we are saying that the administration has the ability to do this. why would we want to give the administration this authority? we're sending the message that moscow needs to ramp this down. that we need a resolution of this crisis. the only way to get there is if we have significant leverage here. sochlt there's a lot of flexibility involveded in the language that we have in the document. and frankly, and lastly, this group is putin's power base. we have seen the way things have been nationalized in russia and power transferred to oligarchs

that are very close to the head of state, and if we are going to succeed in this endeavor, those who have been engaged in ill gotten games need to be penalized, need to feel that there's been a consequence of that type of activity. so for those reasons, i think that this is important, mr. cisilini was waiting to be re recogni recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for holding on these issues. as we address the crisis in ukraine, i freesht that we are reaffirming our commitments to human rights in burma. ful i want to thank you, mr. chairman and our ranking member for leading this committee in a bipartisan manner as you respond to the situation in ukraine, and

leading congress in a thoughtful, unified response to this crisis. following the recent unilateral annexation, we support ukraine'soeverty and territorial borders. it's also critical that the united states make clear that our government will stand in solidarity with our nato allies. this will demonstrate our support of the ukrainian people and territorial integrity. i would like to thank for your inclusion of the support act, which calls on president obama to expand the list of russian officials sanctioned under the mcgitsvy act. this action illustrates russia's loz of the international stature due to the violation of international law and finally i offer my thanks to you, mr. chairman, for working to include my amendments language.

i believe it's critically important to reaffirm the united states policy is to encourage ukraine to protect the fundamental rights of all individuals. the underlying bill encouraged ukraine to respect the rights of ethnical and linguistic minorities, which is important. this will make clear the united states will protect the rights of all ukrainians as they pursue freedom, democracy and equality under the law. >> will the gentleman yield? >> yes. >> i want to thank the gentleman from rhode island for yielding and for his contribution to this base text. . i think he made a very good point. when we were writing the language in terms of respecting the rights for ethnic and linguistic minorities in ukraine. his point that we should expand that and touch on the importance of promoting and protecting human rights across the board is particularly important given the troubling reports of attacks

against peaceful protesters and activists in ukraine. preblgting the fundamental human rights of all individuals are going to be successful to a -- are going no be essential to a successful democracy there in ukraine, and i thank the gentleman again for his contribution. >> mr. kissinger of illinois? >> thank you, mr. chairman. you have a situation where you have an armed force, whether shots are fired or not, you have an armed force walking into a sovereign nation and tearing a sovereign european country apart. i don't know in any way why anybody on the committee would defend that, would call that a self determination, would call that anything but an aggression and rebuilding of the soviet union. i think it is completely legislate to go after corrupt officials in russia. my friend from california is very quick to go after corrupt officials in afghanistan every time the issue of afghanistan

comes up, and it becomes the argument for why we should pull out of afghanistan. i also would like to remind folks that have talked about, you know, the issues all around the globe. i agree. china is a major threat to the united states, and probably one of our chief competitors in the world, with the exception of al qaeda and global terrorism. but i would remind everybody that china has yet to invade a neighbor in the way that russia is invading, has invaded georgia, is invading ukraine. the second we see china that do that, we ought to also respond very strongly. a lack of strong response will mean china is likely to do that exact same thing. and then i want to address the issue of assad. because, i think this is a big issue. . assad has murdered almost 200,000 of his own people. he did it initially with

chemical weapons that choke children and people to death as they basically die as they realize they're dying in their own lack of breath and unable to survive. . so now instead of using chemical weapons he's decided to use barrel bombs in which you load 55-gallon drums with ig nigh tors and drop them on an area if you want to empty. it doesn't matter if there's women there, children, men, it it doesn't matter because you drop a barrel bomb and kill whoever is in the way. there's no defending assad in syria. the opposition, some have links to al qaeda, but that's partially because assad is attacking free syrian army and allowing the al qaeda opposition to grow so he can do the narrative he's a savior of the chris channel religion in syria. so i think all of the russian influence we're seeing in syria, the rebuilding of the soviet union that we're seeing going on right now, i think it's

essential. i think it is essential that we react very strongly to this because the lack of doing this will not only mean that russia is going to continue to push the lines, it's going to continue to climb ethnic minorities everywhere that surrounds it. the baltics are next. they can claim there are russian interests anywhere. but it's not acceptable. and if we see what is going to happen, china can take the same if we standby. >> thank you, with go to mr. smith who worked to include good language on community based and faith-based organizations in this ukrainian civil society thrust in the bill. >> thank you for including it, mr. chairman. i want to make a brief point to my very good friend. you contrast this legislation and this effort with the iron sanctions act championed by lilliana ross laten, which targets the entire populous of

iran. this is targeted. it is modest. it proportionate. it holds harmless the russian people while picking out nose who have committed egregious acts of corruption and violence and my friend from california is right. yanukovych won a free and fair election in 2010. he won it. i've chaired hearings and heard from her daughter because she was unjustly imprisoned after the fact by kan cove itch. yanukovych was in a race to the bottom, corruption wise, during the demonstrations, he actually sent out his bully boys, and people were wounded on independence square. they would follow people who were wounded to the hospital, and then they would disappear, presumably tortured, and killed, and never to be heard from again. . that's where the faith based organizations, mr. chairman, in

one of their many acts of bravery stepped in, and actually opened up the monostairs and the churches as a place of refuge, brought in nurses and doctors, and denied access to yanukovych's bully boys and said, you're not coming in. so they were right there throughout all of this. but again, this legislation is all about targeting. i wrote the democracy act in 2004, ten years ago. it targeted yugoslanko who was the last dictator of europe until recently. he has a despicable regime. this man tortures his bully boys like yanukovych's, are known for their employment of torture against the civil society, and especially against those in the opposition. we tried to do this with china. i offered legislation that is law today.

that has been absolute unimpleme unimplemented, first by the bush administration and now by the target administration, that targets people who commits repressive acts into the people's republic of china. so the idea of targeting individuals is not new. it holds harmless the general population of these countries and says we're going after the the offenders, those who commit acts of human rights abuse and violence and the like. and so i think this is an excellent bill. it's a modest bill. it is proportionate. zbr can gentleman yield for a question? >> i'll be happy to yield. >> you mentioned the targeted of your legislation. the targeting of individuals in china who are engaged in those practices. am i not a cosponsor of that bill? >> yes, you are. and one is law. it passed in 2000. >> and let me know what we are discussing here is the fact that

we are not enforcing that law, but yet, we now want to enforce a law like this on people who are equally corrupt, and i would in no way try to defend these people who run russia as being anything but corrupt officials, but the fact is that they will be the ones who we will enforce this notion on. and thus, if you are the only one in the world who ends up having such a standard enforced, is there some reason for them not to think that we are going to war with them? >> well, i say to my friends enforcement, even with the act has been spotty and shotty, as the gentle lady from florida pointed out, and there's language in this bill that calls for expansion of that list. there are people who have committed horrific deeds who are not on the list. we're calling on the administration to do a better

job with that, as it is already law as it relates to russia and china. although that's not the context of this debate. and to say with regards to the ukraine and as the chairman pointed out so well. this not only applies to the russians who committed misdeeds, but also the ukrainians. >> mr. vargas from california seeks recognition. >> thank you very much. mr. chair, i appreciate it. i wasn't going to speak. i think it is important that we have a robust discussion. i think the discussion today has been fascinating. it is dangerous when we cant niz a strong man. i think the language i heard about putin filling the churches in russia and somehow unifying people around the russian area is dangerous. we've seen this in the past, where a strong man comes to power. . he's held up by his own people, and then begins to almost become an other