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 worldly figure. this is dangerous. i hope we don't lose sight of that. some of the language i heard today is dangerous. i just want to mention i do support the measures before us. thank you. >> mr. grayson?

>> thank you, mr. chairman. this bill in terms of what it says, not what it does, accomplishes two things. one is that it increases aid to ukraine. the second is it imposes sanctions on some class of individuals who are in russia and the amendment goes to some substantial lengths to strengthen the part of the bill that imposes sanctions on individuals in russia. i would like to hear from the proponents of this bill and this amendment exactly what they think will be different in the real world, as a result of the passage of this bill. i don't want to sound flip, but i will tell you with were not expecting putin to visit disney world any time in the near future. the fact this this bill prevents him or his colleagues from doing so doesn't seem to be reflective of anything that would reflect their motivations, much less reflect their actions. that concerns me.

. i understand as a congress there's only so much we can do to affect a situation so far from our shores. i think that's true in general. that there's a very narrow limit to what we can accomplish when dealing with foreign policy as a hole. i do want to hear what it is that the passage of this bill and this manager's amendment will do that will be different. that will make a difference and affect the motivations of people who are in charge in russia. >> i thank the gentleman. will you yield? >> yes. >> i appreciate that. mr. grayson? >> the people wielding power in russia are not just the officials in that country. the people who have enormous power there are people who have stolen enormous amounts of money. they have basically taken resources because of their political poll, because of their closeness with president putin. but traif transferred a lot of

the wealth offshore. they are susceptible because they do like to travel abroad, and they do like to move their money out of the country. they are susceptible to pressure if we apply smart sanctions. they are friends. they are poliaccomplices of president putin. so they have enormous influence at the end of the day, on russia's foreign policy. and the combination of putin's concentration of power, not just to his own advantage, but to the advantage of the individual who is have this wealth at risk, the combination of repression against the people, and against the political rights of all russians, and the theft f you think about it. the theft of russia's wealth through corruption have resulted now in an authoritarian system that is pursuing an aggressive

foreign policy. one that started in the ukraine but may not end there on the basis of president putin's last speech to the douma. so we have an ability to send a message, cross current with that approach or a message that instead says to the russian people we stand with you against those who have received ill gotten games, in particular these individuals have benefitted, as we know, from the disillusion of rule of law in russia. and so this as we're looking for leverage, this is a way to put enormous pressure on moscow. that would be the calculus in terms of the smart sanctions that we have, in my view, in the bill. >> i'll reclaim my time. just to pursue this further.

what we're talking about here is using the fact that the russian oligarchs have e massed a large amount of offsure outside of russia assets to use pressure against them to get them to pressure presumably putin to change russian foreign policy and make it more, shall we say discreet. so, for instance, one could picture the united states and the the european union working together to actually cease through sanctions the action of russian oligarchs that are held outside of russia, including the owner ship of the brooklyn nets. i'm not sure that would be worth very much, but one could do that. so is it in fact anticipated that had this bill would be used for the purpose of actually seizing assets of russian oligarchs that are held offshore in the united states or europe or elsewhere? >> our president will be meeting with heads of state in europe to discuss next steps.

this would give the president the ability to freeze those assets. and i would argue that the specter of those assets being freezed will focus the minds of those close to president putin. this is not as confrontational as other approaches that might be suggested, but it is one that i think is effective because the amount of wealth we're talking about, the amount of ill gotten games and the amount of influence that these people have is truly disproportionate. russia is no longer a society in which the direct influence of the people are as influential as those who replaced them by being close to the head of state.

and so their input, i think at the end of the day, is going to be important. i've raised other leverage that we have in the legislation as well. but for this issue, that's the calculation. >> thanks for the explanation, mr. chairman. >> thank you. >> we go now to mr. connelly. >> mr. chairman, i was simply going to observe. i find it interesting that our friend from florida has made a passionate case for the justification of the power grab in crimea because of russian heritage and the will of russian mf majority at the expense of a very minority and we ignore the process of the rationalization, the fact that russian thugs were bust into crimea, deliberately to influence the outcome. deliberately to intimidate those who may have a different point of view. >> will the gentleman yield? >> my only point is i find it

odd having given that statement, we're now concerned about the sanctions in front of us. which is it? do you favor the power grab in crimea, or do you in fact simply want to make sanctions even more effective? i yield back. >> will the gentleman yield to me? >> certainly will. >> okay. it's both. i yield back. >> we recognize mr. yoho of florida. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i appreciate it and i understand the intent of what we're trying to do here. i do support the intent of supporting the people of ukraine, however, i think the process that we're going through is la little bit misguided, and what we're talking about is, you know, russia stepping up and showing their power. i've got in front of me the kind of history of the crimean peninsula. and it says that crimea is in an

autonomous repib lick in ukraine, but they stand as kind of an independent state from what i see here. 58% of the state of crimea is ethnic russia. again, i support the intent of what we're trying to accomplish, but i think what we're seeing in russia is mr. putin stepping up. he's emboldened. you're seeing venezuela emboldened. you're seeing china emboldened with iran and syria, and i think the reason we're seeing that is we're trying to project strength, but they see us as weakened. i know i don't need to remind everybody that we're $17.4 trillion in debt. the government was shut down in september and october because of the lack of funds, and yet we want to give more money to a country, and we have to borrow that money, yet we have people in our own country who can't get health insurance or send their kids to school, and for us to project strength, i think it's

time we strengthen america and rebuild america, and that's the only way that you can show up dpl a fight or in a confrontation. you can't show up when you're heam rajing. i think the rest of the world knows that we're hemorrhaging. again, i support what we're trying to accomplish. and i need just for information to pass this out, that we gave the ukraine over $102 million last year, and we've committed or obligated $3.6 billion since 1990 to help them do all the the things a we should have been monitoring that has brought us to this point, and to go forward in saying money is the solution without being from a point of strength i think is erroneous, and i think it just sends the wrong message that we can solve this problem. >> will the gentleman yield? >> yes, i will. >> okay, this bill only addresses already appropriated fiscal year '14 funds.

not any new money. what we're doing in this legislation for the members edification here is we're prioritizing and moving the funding that was appropriated, specifically focused on what we can do in democracy building in the ukraine here with respect to taking such issues as the overseas private investment corporation, which pays for itself, but we're giving added for those businesses that are going to invest there, the opaque insurance policy will stand behind those businesses and other funding to build civil society with respect to the training of law enforcement and so forth. >> will the gentleman yield back? >> i will. >> on page 6 of the bill it says congress finds the following. ukrainian economy is weak and vulnerable. then it goes on the to say a financing gap within the

government of ukraine as estimated will amount to $35 billion over the next two years. that's deficit spending, and a large underground economy has developed. the economic condition undermines and, i want to emphasize this. this economic condition undermines democratic prospects in the ukraine. again, we're at $500 billion in deficits. and it's soon to return to a trillion dollars because of our economy, and it goes onto say years of poor economic management and performance economy. it says it may continue to undermine political stability and unity within ukraine. >> if the gentleman would yield, i just -- >> we could almost be talking about the united states on the way this is put. poor economic management and performance. >> i think when the gentleman reads that statement, it sounds as though this measure would appropriate $35 billion. that is not -- it referenced the fiscal problem. >> i understand. >> that exists in the ukraine. but the lion's share of that is

being shouldered by europe. i think if you totaled -- and i'm doing this by memory. but if you totaled up the provisions here in terms of supporting law enforcement in the ukraine, et cetera, it's about $68 million. the reference that you are citing is simply the facts on the ground in ukraine. not what we're committing to. i do want that to be you said stood. and the $68 million or so that we do commit heresaid stood. and the $68 million or so that we do commit here is money already appropriated for the budget for foreign affairs that we are reprioritizing for this purpose. so i think that clarifies a little bit. >> if i had my druthers, i'd rather pay off our debt with that money. i'm out of time. >> i ask for unanimous connecticconsent. >> absolutely.

>> my reading of the bill is that we're actually taking money from the pakistani aid budget and putting it into ukraine instead. i yield back. >> and i believe -- would the gentleman yield? >> yes. >> in terms of that portion of the budget, i think it's broadcasting in pakistan that we're taking the funds and applying it here. for the record. now, are there any second degree amendments to the manager's amendment? hear nothing second degree amendments, the question occurs on the manager's amendment. all hose in favor say aye. all hose opposed no. >> no. >> in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it and managers amendment is agreed to. and i would now like to call up on block this is a number of amendments from colleagues on both sides of the aisle that were sent to your offices last night.

they're in your packets this morning. so i'm going to ask unanimous consent that the following items be considered. grayson amendment 232, keating amendments 27 and 28, lowenthal, amendment 23. messer, amendment 120. without objection, so ordered. do any members seek recognition to speak on the block amendment amendments? ing all those in favor say aye. all those he opposed no. the ayes have it.ng all those i. all those he opposed no. the ayes have it.g all those in. all those he opposed no. the ayes have it. all those in . all those he opposed no. the ayes have it.all those in f. all those he opposed no. the ayes have it. are there any other -- >> mr. chairman -- >> mr. connolly. >> i have an amendment at the desk, amendment number 98. >> the clerk will report the amendment. >> amendment to hr 4278 offered by mr. connolly of virginia at the end of title i add the

following section 110, annual report on security developments in the russian federation and their efforts on -- >> without objection, the amendment will be considered read. the chair recognizes the author to explain the amendment. >> i thank the chair. and i think this amendment has been provided both to the chairman and ranking member for their consideration and clearance. this is a complimentary amendment providing security developments in the russian federation. the report includes an assessment of the security situation and including the crimea. and the goals are shaping the security strategy of the government of russia including potential annexation of nonrussian territory, trends in russian security behavior that would be designed to achieve russian security goals and assessment of the security

objectives that would affect nato, middle east or people's republic of the china. assessment of the military effects on russia's neighbors and any other developments that the secretary of state considers of strategic importance to our national security with respect to the subject. and with that, mr. chairman, i yield back. >> hathanks for yielding. i support your amendment. given russia's continued aggression toward ukraine which may yet stepped to other countries in the region, i think this report will be very useful in helping to gauge the potential impact from the future development of russia's armed forces and from its foreign policy. therefore i would support its inclusion. >> i thank the chair. >> do any other members seek recognition to speak on this amendment?

hearing no further requests for recognition, the request occurs on the amendment. all those in favor andsay aye. all those opposed say no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. >> i have an amendment at the desk. number 46. >> amendment offered by congressman jeff duncan of south carolina to hr 4278, ukraine support act. section 28 following quote increased natural gas exports and energy efficiency, insert in ukraine which could be greatly enhanced by the advances in energy extraction and exploration technologies, end quote, should read, quote, to support energy diversification initiatives to reduce russian control of energy supplies to ukraine and other european countries, including united states promotion of increased natural gas exports and energy efficiency in ukraine which

could be greatly enhanced -- >> without objection, the amendment will be considered as read and chair reserve as point of order and recognizes the author mr. duncan to explain the amendment. >> thank you. i applaud the efforts in drafting this bipartisan legislation in support of you ukraine. it really comes down to what side of history do we want to be on. when this is rewritten, do we want to be folks that members of congress and americans that support sovereign nation. a sovereign nation and facing aggression that harkens of the cold war. and so i believe we should use every tool in the tool box to support like minded nations like ukraine. i support this legislation, but i believe can do better to support the efforts and reduce russian control of energy supplies to ukraine and other european countries by increasing cooperation on energy extraction and exploration technologies such as hydraulic fracturing.

this actually is larger than ukraine because europe is looking west to the u.s.. we talked about the lng exports to lessen european dependence and ukranian dependence on russian sources of energy. in the past about 80% of ukraine's oil and natural gas came from russia. and according to the eu energy commissioner in 2000 20 12, about 60% of russian natural gas went through the ukraine, pipelines that go through the ukraine. total dependence on russia and that concerns our friends on the other side of the atlantic. russia has used its leverage twice. in 2006, and in 2009, to cut off the gas supply to ukraine. again, it's used its leverage twice to cut off the gas supply to ukraine. in today's volatile situation, russia has considerable leverage over ukraine through its energy capabilities. according to a recent forbes article, ukraine can hold more than 40 drill i don't know cubic feet of recoverable shell gas.

that's a move toward energy independence if they can harvest those resources to use those within the ukraine. with the incredible growth in u.s. natural gas resource, particularly from shale gas, with growth up 72% since 2000 and 49% since 2005, i believe that the u.s. and ukraine should consider energy extraction and exploration technologies on how to increase our cooperation to use u.s. expertise in fracking to help meet ukraine's needs to develop this capability. we're not forcing this technology on ukraine. they have asked for it. last year ukraine signed a natural gas exploration deal with both royal dutch shell and chevron. this is something ukraine wants. this is something technology that we have. regardless of where you come down on the political spectrum of the guard of hydraulic fracturing, we're talking about ukraine as a sovereign nation wanting to pursue this. we say it does more good to

teach a man to fish rather than simply give him a fish. well, i believe that we'll be more sustainable for ukraine in the long run if we apply this same principle. and with that, mr. chairman, i think we should support this amendment and i urge my colleagues to support it. >> do any other members seek recognition to speak on the amendment? i'm looking for baseball signals. mr. grayson and over here. mr. grayson is recognized. >> thank you, mad tame chair. i'd like to ask a few questions specifically regarding the second part of his amendment. why does the gentleman think it would be constructive for this congress to tell the ukrainian congress what it should be passing or not passing? >> well, what we're doing is trying to give them the ability to have access to the hydraulic fracturing technology. >> i'm referring to the second part of the gentleman's amendment, perhaps i'm

misreading it. but the second part says that in section 102 b 5, you would add following terms reducing corruption and you apparently are trying to give examples of how to reduce corruption. supporting reform efforts of the government of the ukraine to pass legislation, et cetera, et cetera. that's what i'm referring to. is the gentleman offering that amendment? >> i have that amendment coming up next. >> oh, that's coming up next. >> yes, that would be amendment 45. we're on 46. >> i'll yield back. thank you very much. >> did you want to speak to this amendment, mr. sherman? >> yes. i rise in cautious opposition to the amendment simply because we're going to spend all day tomorrow talking about energy, talking about energy exports. then our subcommittee will have and the gentleman is welcome to come and participate i'm sure hearings i think a day after that on petroleum exports from the united states.

there is no reason to put in this resolution and this bill things that divide americans, things that raise hot button issues about environment and energy. we ought to be focused as narrowly as possible on the ukraine. your amendment does only a little bit to effeaffect what i already in one sentence of the bill. but as for the idea that we need to focus on this now, we could do that in a separate bill months there now, weeks from now. as to petroleum, no amount of effort in the united states is going to have a significant impact on the worldwide price of petroleum. as to natural gas, they pay in germany $10 roughly a unit. in japan, 16.

unless the gentleman has become a socialist, and i'm confident that he is not, he propose that all of this energy development and export will be done by private companies. who are going to sell for $16 rather than for $10. and so we may tomorrow have an interesting debate. japan has homoth balled all of s nuclear generation facilities. it is buying a huge amount of natural gas and maybe that natural gas could come from the united states, but what does that have to do with the ukraine. whether we export natural gas, how much we drill, is an interesting issue. that's why i'll be here tomorrow. and to think that if only we developed more natural gas in the united states our private companies would choose to sell to the ukraine for much less than japan will pay for it seems

unlikely. the ukraine buys virtually all of its natural gas without it having to be liquified and regassy filed. japan being an island have to have its natural gas liquified and then turned back into a gassy state at great cost. so i don't see a reason for this resolution to focus on a red button hot partisan environmentalist versus economic development energy issue. and for that reason would oppose the amendment. i yield to the chairman. >> i take the gentleman's point. but if we think through another alternative, what if we were to use the permitting process on lng as basically a strategic asset for foreign policy. and what if we were to just for

sake of argument grant that permit on the condition that the export in this particular case go to eastern europe or ukraine. because our situation is this right now. we are flaring gas because of a glut. we're capping wells. it seems to me that -- and again, i'm moved somewhat by the ar arguments made. i understand your point, and it was simply the argument that if you were to expand to every market in the world. but what if we reached some kind of compromise on the idea that the additional increase in the export of lng would be for a national purpose? now, it would have the added benefit of increasing -- it would actually increase the deficit for russia if we did

that. it would decrease our deficit if we did that. it would create more jobs in the gas and oil industry here if we did it. but i just raise it -- >> reclaiming my nonexistent time. i think that is an interesting issue to discuss tomorrow. it doesn't have to be dealt with in this bill. it will raise even some questions on the right as to whether we should tell a land owner who wants to drill for natural gas, export that natural gas to japan and get paid $16 per unit for it, that we're not going to let that land owner do it, we're not going to let that oil company do it, they will have to sell the ukraine for $9 a unit or $10. that's a discussion for tomorrow. i hesitated to criticize people in my own party other in the other body for not moving as

quickly as possible to help the ukraine. so far not a single piece of legislation has been signed by the president on the ukraine and crimea has been invaded, seized and annexed. i would like this bill to go forward and i look forward to tomorrow's hearings. and what you're proposing -- and speaking of seizing territory, i think we should seize the jurisdiction of the energy and commerce commission so -- committee so that we're in a position to decide not only whether or not energy is developed and up dwer what conditions, but to whom it is sold. and there is one kind of naked aggression and power grab that i'm in favor of and that's it. >> will the gentleman yield? >> i yield back to the chairman. >> i appreciate the gentleman for yielding. it is our responsibility to set broad parameters on foreign policy. i do think this is a case where an absolutist position is probably not going to prevail.

either the absolutist position that all permits be granted or the position that none be granted. i do, however, think it is worth contemplating this concept originally raised by the chairman of the joint chiefs that additional permits granted be in our foreign policy interests. and this is something that i think as the weeks unwind here is worthy of consideration because it might be a way to bridge the divide. i think mr. meeks was seeking recognition. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i just wanted to join in with mr. sherman. i heard your idea and it is something that is intriguing to me because i've been going back and forth as to what we should do. and talking to individuals within my district and making sure i have foreign policy considerations, also. but you've done such an excellent job i think in making

sure we have a bipartisan agreement where we don't have any of those agreements and we can have a separate and i think that will take place tomorrow. i'm listening, and i think that they have an intense debate focused on this issue and this issue alone would be beneficial to members. i know it would beneficial to this member to have a real debate on what we should do and maybe if we can show that we just are doing it for the ukraine and it helps us overall in our natural interests, et cetera, that could win over some other members. but to do it in a bifurcated way i think is tremendously important in moving forward because you've done such apexcellent job i think on this bill in a bipartisan way. so i would agree with mr. sherman. let's debate that tomorrow. and i am intrigued by what the chairman has indicated, setting up an example of how we could do it and would love to hear more, but i think it should not be included in this bill. >> will the gentleman yield?

>> mr. duncan, if i could first explain mr. duncan's amendment very succinctly. to support energy canity verse if i indication initiatives to reduce russian supplies and other european countries including u.s. promotion of increased natural gas exports and energy efficiency in ukraine which could be greatly enhanced by the advances in energy extraction and exploration technologies. this specifically is what mr. duncan is proposing. the one advantage of the language we have in the underlying bill is that, frankly, it is so broad it goes to the concept. as you correctly identified as the gentleman from california stated, the specifics of this will be debated tomorrow. all i'm attempting to do here is

to advance the argument that the focus should be on ukraine to the september that we can increase, you know, energy independent insidependence in y ukraine. i don't believe that is that debatable or decisive an energy. divisive an issue. if i were on that committee, that's where i would be sanzing advancing the arguments i just made. but that's not for the debate here and now. the language we're using i don't see it as objectionable because it is so broad based, it goes to the the intent basically to leverage russia. and with that, i should yield finally to mr. duncan. >> you've matt poinde the pointi was going to make so i don't really need to say anything

further other than russia wants to control the ukraine territory. they have the ability to control the ukraine energy sources. just the nature of where we are with the natural gas and petroleum coming into ukraine supplied by russia. this would give diversification for the sovereign nation of ukraine to possibly go after its own resources, be energy dependent, lessen dependence on russia and support its own sovereignty. and i yield back. >> as i see it enhancing cooperation with our european allies on advances in the technology and energy field, that will provide the opportunity to increase those supplies. that will undermine at the end of the day president putin's ability to leverage his energy supplies for increased political influence and so i support the amendment. but i think you wanted to speak. >> i know the question was

raised when we considered the earlier resolution. and i don't think anyone is suggesting diversification is not a sound policy. but that's actually not what the amendment does. it adds language that says which would be greatly enhanced by the advances in energy extraction and exploration technologies. we haven't had any discussion about that. that's actually what the amendment says. it adds that language. and i think for precisely the reasons my colleagues on the top tier mentioned, this is going to invite a much broader debate between the environmentalists and industry about advancements in energy extraction and exploration technologies. and it raises the danger that in this moment when we should be speaking in a very unified voice, it's bringing into this discussion not energy diversification. that's already in the underlying manager's amendment, but new language about great advancements in -- >> will the gentleman yield?

>> it doesn't say what tahat technology is. it's just a statement that it would be greatly enhanced by energy extraction and exploration technologies regardless what those may be. if the u.s. has the ability to help ukraine become energy independent, regardless of what those extraction techniques or exploration technologies are, they should be -- we should be open to giving those to the ukraine should they ask for it. i think it's just a statement. >> that may well be the intention. i think it will likely invite the kind of debate that undermines the importance of doing this in a unified bipartisan way. >> will the gentleman yield? the language -- i guess i'm looking at this very legalistically. but the language says in ukraine which could be greatly enhanced by the advances in energy

extraction and exploration technologies. does not give you any comfort? it's basically a statement of fact in other words. not his explanation, but the actual amendment. >> i've had the benefit of the discussion in this hearing and it doesn't give me grave concern. i'm saying that language i fear will lead concerns to cause people not to support this and i think that would be very bad. that's the reason i raised it. >> as i dealt with a week ago when we talked about this, i am a huge supporter of the idea of exporting our natural gas. i'm a huge supporter of what the gentleman from south carolina is trying to do here. but this has been weeks and we're finally getting a bill out. and i'm glad.

and i commend the chairman on all his hard work do it. but we saw the senate getting mired down in a lot of issues. and i hope we don't do that here. for that reason, and again, i'm completely supportive of the idea. i'm also on the energy and commerce committee, so mr. sherman, we may have a battle on the jurisdiction. but as a member of energy and xler commerce, we're talking about this and i'll be on the side of helping ukraine become energy independent. but i will oppose this amendment because i think at this point we have got to move forward, get this thing out of here and you've seen by what we're doing on the committee and the battle we're having right now, this is going to be repeated on the floor and while i disagree with my colleagues that would vote against it for that reason, there will be colleagues that will vote against it for that reason and i think we're miring ourselves down in a situation similar to what the senate had. and i think frankly as the section reads already is

actually pretty sufficient for what we're trying on do for this. >> could i ask the gentleman, if we attempted with mr. duncan for work out some kind of diversification language, could you see yourself -- >> sure. >> then let me go to the real question which is to mr. duncan. mr. duncan, if we were to work during the next half hour while we move forward with these amendments to try to get some type of language to the issue of diversification of energy for ukraine, would that be permissible? okay. you'll withdraw -- >> i withdraw the amendment. >> -- pending our staff to work out language. >> and i have another the amendment at the desk. amendment number 45. >> the clerk will read the amendment. >> amendment to hr 4278 offered

by mr. duncan of south carolina, page eight line five, insert before the period at the end of the following, quote, such as by supporting reform efforts of the government of ukraine to pass legislation related to greater accountability for government officials, greater protection of private property, and increased transparency of government funds, he saend quote. page 16, line 14, insert for the government of ukraine should make greater efforts to secure the protection of classified information and military equipment, end quote. >> chair will reserve a point of order and recognize the author to explain the amendment. >> thank you, mr. chairman. folks, ukraine is effectively bankrupt. it needs at least $20 billion in aid to sustain its finances. although an association agreement was signed, ukraine's financial situation and geographic divide alone present enormous challenges.

furthermore, russia's invasion of the crimea capture of ukraine's air base and seizure of a crimean naval base yesterday add risks of volatility to the region. so while the u.s. must support those seeking greater freedom from russian pressure, we also have a responsibility to american people to require accountability of u.s. tax dollars. i'm concerned u.s. government is not prioritizing anti-corruption efforts in ukraine strongly enough. on march 14, representative of public organizations and initiatives made bold public statements to parliament of ukraine where they said it will be impossible to implement measures offered to ukraine by the united states without large scale anti-corrupt difference strategy. the parliament has yet to pass any law enabling new leaders to change the system.the parliamen any law enabling new leaders to change the system.

there are no guarantees that money received for reforring and reloading of the state will be used traps pansparently and forr designed purposes. ukraine must not need a single crept until necessary anti-corruption legislation will be adopted and we as taxpayers who repay the debt offer signature instruments of control. all those were quotes from that meeting of last march 14. my amendment is very simple. there are two sections that require the u.s. policy toward ukraine must emphasize more strongly anti-corruption efforts by the government of ukraine and urge the government of ukraine to require greater -- this amendment urges the government of ukraine to pass legislation to counteract corruption since there have been many problems with the protection of valuable assets. again, this amendment urges the

parliament in ukraine to do these sort of things, to speak i think to the original question from the gentleman from florida earlier, this is not the mandating that the ukrainian parliament do anything. this is urging them to pass legislation related to greater accountability for government officials. i think part of the revolution that we saw in ukraine recently and the running off so to speak of the existing president was part of that anti-corruption mindset. and so i would urge my colleagues to get behind this amendment and pass it and with that, i'll yield back. >> thank you, mr. duncan. i don't see this as being controversial because i think all of us agree that ukraine must confront corruption head on. that's why the bill prioritizes a number of anti-corruption initiatives here, including in the initial statement of policy, including in the subsection dealing with other donors and international institutions. if you read through the section

regarding the recovery of assets and in the section imposing sanctions upon certain individuals and entities in the ukraine that were involved in corruption, so adding this additional language with respect to the parliament, et cetera, i think is -- >> and that's correct. i reclaim some of my time here. this is really a statement of the sense of this congress with regard to corruption, with regard to private information, classified information, military equipment. what should the ukraine do. we are responsible for american taxpayers. we're supposed to make sure that it's not given to a government that will continue corruption, that there is a democratically elected parliament that will address that would be a good thing. with that, i yield back. >> do any other members seek recognition to speak on this amendment? mr. grayson. >> i think that the bill as it is now actually takes appropriate steps with regard to

corruption. i think this amendment does not. in context, what this does is this amendments a part of the bill that describes the policy of the united states to work with other countries and institutions to stabilize the ukranian economy while promoting critical needed structural economic reforms in the ukraine, including, and then it lists a number of structural reforms. the last one being reducing corruption. i think that that actually is apt. i think that is sensible. and i think that that correctly describes the policy of the united states. i think that this amendment if i may say this butchers that provision by adding in a whole bunch of november secretary nse. this says it's the policy of the united states torous corruption by among other things providing greater protection of private property. i don't see how that has anything to do with reducing corruption. in addition to that, the whole premise of the amendment is to do these things by passing

legislation in the ukraine. so i return to my original question. i don't understand why the gentleman from south carolina thinks that the parliament to the ukraine needs pointers on how to deal with corruption in the ukraine. >> will the gentleman lead? >> i will yield with regard to the specific question. can the skra tell us the existing state of law in the ukraine to fight corruption and what additional provisions the gentleman thinks are needed? >> thank you. i point directly to the statements that i made earlier on march 14th, representatives of ukranian public organizations and initiatives made by some bold public statements to the parliament of ukraine and a visiting bipartisan u.s. congressional delegation where they said this, and you weren't in for this part of my testimony or opening statement, but it will be impossible to implement measures offered to ukraine by the united states without a large scale anti-corruption strategy. these aren't my words. these are their words. the parliament of ukraine is yet

to pass any law enabling new leaders of ukraine to counteract corruption and change the system in their department starting from how. so far there are no guarantees that money received by new ukranian authorities before presidential election for reforming and actual reloading of state will be used transparently and for their designated purposes. and the last one, ukraine must not receive a single cent until necessary anti-corruption legislation is adopted and we taxpayers, ukranian taxpayers, will repay the debts. those are all quotes from the ukranians. >> i'll reclaim my time. does the gentleman from south carolina seriously believe there is no anti-corruption legislation in ukraine, that corruption in fact is legal in ukraine at this point? >> i believe corruption is rampant in -- >> i'm asking is it legal or illegal? >> for the parliament or --

>> i'm asking you whether you think the act of corruption is legal or illegal presently in the ukraine. >> well, i'm not sure whether it's illegal or legal in the ukraine. >> i'm going to go out on a limb -- >> i'm going to say in most countries it's illegal. >> could the gentleman from florida yield? >> yes. >> i would just make a point. and this would be an example of what was legal and what they're attempting to change. if you were well connected to the prior president in you the ukraine, you could get loans at 3%. if you were a farmer, you were getting loans at 17s. the consequences of that was that oligarchs close to the previous president were in fact using this. it was legal. and the eu was straining every sinew to try to get the parliament in ukraine to move on these types of reforms.

p in this case, i think mr. duncan has a very real point. if we con join with the eu in pressing the parliament to take concerted action, there is no question that there are going to be some interests in the ukraine that will resist this, mainly who are alley garoligarchs. but those are the people we're targeting in order to bring the rule of law. so at the end of the day, i think this amendment is helpful for the reason that i've explained and in fact certain thing which is we would consider illegal are in fact legal under their system because they have not been reformed. that's why i think it's in order. but if we could go to the vote. >> i'd like it reclaim the me ma remainder of my time. >> absolutely. >> i appreciate the chairman's comments. i think the chairman has offered facts that actually have a direct impact on my view of the situation. i remain concerned about the provision in this amendment that says that one means of fighting

corruption in the ukraine is to pass legislation it that promotes the greater protection of private property. to me that remain as nonseqitur and i am concerned about that roigs. i will yield to the gentleman from south carolina if he can explain why the protection of private property somehow reduces corruption in the ukraine. >> i have to look that particular section up real quick in chair son to the bill. but -- >> i'm going to suggest that the time has expired for the gentleman. because of time constraints, are there any other members that seem time on this? if not, i'll suggest we go to a vote on the gentleman's amendment. hearing no further request for recognition, the question occurs on the aemgd. all those in favor say aye. all those opposed tho. >> no. >> in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it, the amendment

is agreed to. and we question to mr. castro for his amendment. >> number 23. >> the clerk will report the amendment. >> amendment to hr 4278 offered by mr. castro, texas, page five, strike line 23 through page six and insert the following. supporting ukranian efforts to foster greater unity among people in regions of the country, combat anti-semitism and discrimination and promote respect for religious freedom. >> the chair reserves point of order and we recognize the author to explain the amendment. >> mr. chairman, it's a simple amendment. all i'm adding is two words, and discrimination. that's it. >> the chair is in support of

the amendment. any members seek recognition? >> i strongly support my friend in his amendment. >> thank you. >> the yes oquestion occurs. all those in favor say aye. all those . . i have amendment 74. >> i'll take this one. >> amendment to hr 4278 offered by mr. poe of texas. at the end of title one add the following, section 110 report on geopolitical impact of energy exports, a, report required. not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this act. the department of state special envoy and coordinator for international energy affairs shall submit to the appropriate congressional committees a

detailed quantitative and substantive report on the potential short, medium and long term impacts of increased united states natural gas and oil about x. ports on russia's economic and political influence over ukraine and other european countries. b, definition. in this subsection -- >> without objection, the chair will consider the amendment as read and recognize the author to explain the amendment. >> we've had much discussion about energy and the influence that it has had in the region. we disagree on what we should do regarding natural gas about porting. this simply requires that the state department use its resources to prepare a study and report back to congress whether it's a good idea or not for us to make a decision later on whether or not we should export energy to the region.

so basically the amendment is very simple. let's have some forgiven to us by the state department. >> would the gentleman yield? >> certainly. >> i support this amendment. there were a number of amendments that mr. poe was considering offering. we worked with him on this amendment. this amendment is important i think to the congress and to the administration that we have a strategic understanding of the potential for increased u.s. natural gas and oil exports to reduce putin's stranglehold officer ukraine and eastern europe. and i think it speaks to just that issue. mr. engel. >> yes, thank you, mr. chairman. i want to commend mr. poe. i support his amendment. i think it's important. i think this is something that is very relevant with the matters of discussion today and i would urge my colleagues to support it.

>> i'll kreeyield back to mr. p unless -- >> i commend the gentleman for his amendment and the ranking member for his statement. >> without objection, we'll go now to a vote. hearing no further requests for recognition, the question occurs -- >> go ahead. >> who seeks recognition? >> right after this, i do. >> all those in favor say aye. all those opposed no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. recognizing the gentleman from texas. >> mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. >> the clerk will read the amendment. >> amendment to hr 4278 offered by mr. stockman of texas. page 10 beginning on line ten, strike, quote, services to russia, end quote, and p certificate, quote, that promotes democracy and government transparency in

russia. end quote. >> recognize the gentleman to explain his amendment. >> this is just an amendment which will help facilitate which i think all country shoes want this amendment transparency and promote democracy. and i'll kreeyield to my friendm california briefly. >> i thank the gentleman for yielding to me and i would just suggest that we've had a very good exchange of views here today and i appreciate the leadership of the chair. and while i disagree with the bill, i certainly respect everyone's opinion and respect the leadership of the chair. thank you very much. >> and i want to add one other thing in reference to one of our colleagues who mentioned that china does not occupy or has invaded. i just want to point out 1991,

this congress adopted a resolution that said tibet is an occupied territory and i thought that would be relevant for the record. and i kreeld back tyield back t my time. >> so any other members seek recognition? if not, the question occurs on the amendment. all those in favor say aye. opposed no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. >> mr. chairman -- >> ms. gabbert i will is next. >> i have an amendment on the table. >> the clerk will read the amendment. >> amendment to hr 4278 offered by ms. gabbert of hawaii. page 8 after line 3, insert the following and redesk that subsequent paragraphs accordingly. promoting independent and impartial judiciary, due process and uniform application of laws,

page 13, line five, after, quote, law enforcement, insert, quote, and the judicial system. page 13, after line 12, insert the following and redesignate subsequent paragraphs accordingly. >> the amendment already considered read and we we can thiz the author to explain the amendment. >> there has been a lot of consideration today and previous days about anti-corruption efforts, our intent to offer assistance in bringing stability back to ukraine in a variety of ways. this amendment highlights our sbept intent to offer assistance in a necessary way i believe in forming a robust independent impartial judicial system. there are a lot of things we request dcan try to do in order to assist you ukraine, but without an ability for them to hold people accountable and for the people

of ukraine to feel a sense of confidence in their judicial system, i'm afraid these reforms will not be meeting their direct intent. i yield back. >> i thank the gentlelady for yielding. and i do think one of the things we often miss is this is -- the importance of an independent judiciary, the concept of the row dust feblt. what happens when you do not have enforcement of law because you have a judiciary and law enforcement inspespec in-effectual. i think this amendment does a lot.

>> if f. ththey don't have the noncorrupt courts necessary to prosecute, then you see the laws being avoided and the continuation of that practice. and i think this is spot on and i applaud you for you going down that trail. and i support the amendment. >> any other members seeking recognition? if not, the question occurs on the amendment. all those in favor say aye. all those opposed no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. we're going to go first to mr. salmon of arizona. >> thank you. i have an amendment at the desk. >> the clerk will read the amendment. >> amendment to hr 4278 offered by mr. salmon of arizona. section 110, on suspension of all activity and meetings of the nato russian council. the united states should work to suspend all until russia ends

its aggression of ukraine including by removing forces from and reversing its illegal annexation of crimea. >> the gentleman is recognized to explain his amendment. >> thank you, mr. chairman. it's common sense if russia is going to practice these renewed aggressions, then nato's previous mission of russia containment may need to be re reinvigorat reinvigorated. we all know the history of nato. it was created as an alliance of allies to counter warsaw pact countries. but since the collapse of the warsaw pact, may toe hnato has . and while security remains key, in recent years the focus has shifted to the fight against terrorism and global destabilization. in 1997, nato countries signed the nato russia founding act which provided the formal basis for bilateral corruption with

the goal of easing moscow's concerns about nato's expansion being a threat. five years later in 2002, the nato russia council was established. my amendment is very simple. all it will do is call on nato to suspend all former nrc nato russia council activities until russia stops its aggression against ukraine, removes its troops and reverses its annexati annexation. this does not cease dialogue and follows the example of nato's actions after russia invaded georgia in 2008. at that time all formal activities were suspended for a period. i understand that engagement is still critical. we have to have dialogue. there is an avenue for that continued dialogue at the united nations. but as the president mass began escalating sanctions and looking for all the tools in the tool box, i think that this would be

a good addition. thank you, mr. chairman. i yield back. >> so if i understand the gentleman, the language is to work for -- or work toward suspension. i noticed the nato secretary general rasmussen raised the possibility of suspending the nato russian council saying it can no longer be business as usual with russia. i agree with that. i think russia must understand that aggression will not extend its influence but will instead lead to economic and political isolation. that is the sense of the amendment. do any other members seek recognition? mr. grayson. >> i think that this is a mistake. what the nato russia council actually does is among other things make it less likely that we go to war against russia. and i think that that is still a valid goal regardless of what russia has done in the crimea. i think most mer