reserves. the gentleman from new jersey. mr. pallone: mr. speaker, i yield three minutes to the gentleman from oregon, mr. blumenauer. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oregon is recognized for three minutes. mr. blumenauer: thank you, mr. speaker. thank you, mr. pallone. i cannot express my disappointment with the proposed additional temporary patch o the sustainable growth rate, the s.g.r., the doc fix. it's morphed no an annual ritual, disrupting the provision of medical -- medicine in this country as the physicians plead with us to not do something crazy. it's simply today an accounting sleight of hand. it's a power play and a fundraising tool, to be sure, that disrupts the practice of

medicine, but we have absolutely no intention of ever having the s.g.r. cut occur. it may bite for a day or two, but we're not going to allow a reduction on that order of magnitude. we will find some sort of adjustment, as we always have, that will not be satisfactory and will continue the uncertainty and the indignity that is inflicted on people in the health care space and more important on the people that they serve. if you want to actually cut health care spending, we could do so, and if we would stop this charade of meaningless gestures of repealing the affordable care act and actually get down to cases, fine tuning and moving forward, we would be there. there are a range of potential savings within the health care space that is acknowledged by virtually everybody in the industry and every expert that's looked at it. but it can't be done in a cavalier fashion, according to

some ritualistic formula, and it can't be done overnight and it's going to require a steady hand, slug politicians acting like grownups. in the meantime, i think it's important to stop this trafficesty. remember, when we had a similar pointless exercise with the alternative minimum tax, realizing that the supposed savings were not real, that the full bite would never take effect, what did we do? we finally reset the budget baseline and moved on. and that's exactly what we should do with the s.g.r. and then deal meaningfully in the adjustments in accelerating health care reform, not a 54th time to repeal the affordable care act. we should be rewarding people who are providing high-value care and finding ways to be more efficient and adjusting the system to slowly squeeze

out our areas of inefficiencyy. it won't be -- inefficiency. it won't be easy but it is definitely in our capacity and it is already starting around the country. maybe congress should consider debating this issue with an open rule, allowing everybody to come to the floor to speak, to offer amendments, to debate it fully and see what we can come up with. it won't be any worse. let's end the charade, give the health care space some certainty and get down to work being a full partner in the reform and enhancement of our health care system. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? mr. pitts: may i inquire of the time? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from pennsylvania has 2 1/2 minutes. the gentleman from new jersey has 12 1/2 minutes. mr. pitts: could i inquire of the minority how many speakers

they have left? mr. pallone: i have at least two left. mr. pitts: ok. i'll reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from pennsylvania reserves. the gentleman from new jersey. mr. pallone: i yield now three minutes, mr. speaker, to the ranking member of the energy and commerce committee, mr. waxman. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for three minutes. mr. waxman: i thank the gentleman for yielding to me. mr. speaker, today congress will vote on another patch to the medicare physician payment system, but it should not be that way. we need a permanent fix. earlier this year, we seemed on track for a permanent fix. we reached a bipartisan agreement on what a permanent fix should look like. that bill was introduced by both republican and democratic leaders, mr. camp, mr. upton, dr. burgess, myself, senator baucus and senator hatch.

that bill is supported by the ysicians and the patient groups. it would not cut payments and that bill would fix this problem permanently. the bill before us today is not a permanent fix. it's a short-term fix. two weeks ago republicans brought up the bipartisan bill for the permanent fix with a poison pill offset that undermines reform for low-income families. that was two weeks wasted where we could have worked toward a permanent solution. i heard my colleague -- republican colleagues say it's too hard to find offsets or we don't have enough time to come up with the offsets to get a permanent bill done. let's not forget, republicans do not insist on offsets on things they really care about. trillions in tax cuts for the wealthy, no need to offset that. a medicare prescription drug

bill that costs far more than this permanent fix to the s.g.r., no need to offset that. but when we talk about protecting seniors' access to their doctors, their answer is different. . speaker, i would urge that in the end this is a vote members will need to make up their own minds about. we may be forced to support a short-term patch, but i am not ready to concede that so i'm not ready to support this bill that's before us. let's keep working on getting a permanent solution, and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized. mr. pitts: i continue to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from pennsylvania continues to reserve. the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. pallone: mr. speaker, i yield three minutes now to the ranking member of the ways and means committee, mr. levin. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan is recognized for three minutes.

mr. levin: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. levin: so let me describe briefly the challenge before us. this bill is very disappointing. the three committees have to ed on a bipartisan basis put together a bill that would address once and for all s.g.r. and would reform the payment system. indeed it would transform this bill that we worked on a bipartisan basis, the physician payment system into one that's acceptable for high-quality care rewards value and provides needed stability for providers and beneficiaries. the bill has a much larger cost than this patch. though patches themselves are expensive, but i want, in

response to the gentleman, the chairman of the energy and commerce, to make a few comments. there's been no serious discussion all of these weeks out how we would pay for the permanent fix. there just has been a dare gation of -- darigation of responsibility. also, what's happened here is a product that hasn't gone through the legislative process , this patch. instead, it's a complex $20 billion bill, no public hearing, no committee hearings, no regular order. the draft of the bill became publicly available at midnight tuesday, and there were flaws so it was refiled and we got this bill just, what, 24 hours ago? in this present legislation, it

contains a completely new unvetted lab payment system. it undermines delivery system reforms for dialysis patients. it includes promising things for patient care but fails to include key protections to minimize discrimination against certain patients. so, look, in a few words, we deserve better and we need to do better. as a result, a large number of physician groups have expressed their opposition to this. so what this bill does today is miss the opportunity to do full-scale repeal and replace the physician payment system. the senate still needs to vote on a permanent fix. the chairman of energy and commerce said, well, we passed

that kind of a bill. yes, the 10-year fix was a partisan bill that had no chance of passage in the senate. zero chance of passage. the senate still plans, as i understand, to vote on a permanent fix. we should let the senate process unfold. we have more time to get this right. we do not -- i ask for an additional minute. i ask for an additional minute from mr. -- mr. pallone, i ask for an additional minute. mr. pallone: i yield an additional minute to mr. levin. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. levin: so we have more time to get this right. it is not correct that if we don't act today that there will be any impact on seniors. we could let the senate act, to try to do something permanently and come back next week if we

have to and take up this bill. so this is the challenge before us. we're here once again doing something that's very temporary, that's very, very expensive, and we are failing to step up to the plate on permanent reform, on permanent reform and a permanent fix. and doing it with a legislative process with a product that has not gone through committee, has had no public hearings, has had no real hearing. we should not be acting blindly. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the time of the gentleman from michigan has expired. the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized. mr. pitts: mr. speaker, i continue to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from pennsylvania continues to reserve his time. the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. pallone: mr. speaker, i yield one minute to the

democratic leader, ms. pelosi. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from california is recognized for one minute. ms. pelosi: thank you very much, mr. speaker. i thank the gentleman for yielding. i thank him for his leadership on issues that relate to the health and well-being of the american people. i also commend the leadership of the previous speaker, our ranking member on the ways and means committee, mr. levin, as well as that of mr. waxman. they have been two champions on the subject of health care in america and doing so in a fiscally sound way. and while i appreciate the concerns that they expressed here, and i share them, and i will speak to that, i do think that we have to think carefully about the decision that we make. i know that they have. this is an example -- the leadership bringing this bill to the floor on the short fuse

that the expiration date is march 31 without most people in this room without ever having on what is in the bill what is a missed opportunity. we should be considering right now a bill that would permanently, permanently speak to the s.g.r. for those in the public, i know it's inside baseball talk, s.g.r. that is the rate that docs are compensated for treating medicare patients. so don't think of s.g.r. think of the patients. and that's what we're doing here. think of the certainty that they need in terms of their health care, and that is our seniors. think of the certainty that a permanent fix, paid for or not, but let's say paid for, would mean to remove the uncertainty from this debate. the american medical

association is opposed to this bill that son the floor today -- is on the floor today because it is a pitch. how many times have you heard people talk -- how many times have you heard people talk about a band-aid? we're just putting a band-aid on it. we are not getting to the underlying challenge that we face. this is a band-aid and that's why the docs oppose it. this patch. now, i did hear the distinguished gentleman from florida, bilirakis, say if you don't like these pay-fors, suggest your own. we've suggested our own. overseas d oco, the account. the republicans said it's a gimmick. it wasn't a gimmick that's in the ryan -- when it was in the ryan budget. it works for you when it works for you but you don't want to put it to work for america's seniors. here's the thing. the senate majority and the house majority came together to produce this patch, this

band-aid. it's the wrong way to go. it does not address the underlying problem. we could have done that. we've been trying to do it for 10 years. and it's always, always, always something that the republican majority has backed away from and limited and done in a short -- on a short fuse. there's so many things that are wrong with this bill, but the simple fact is that the clock , ticking, and on march 31 it's bad news for seniors and for the doctors who treat them in the medicare program. our seniors depend on medicare. they depend on medicare, and this is a weakening of it. so it's just the same old, same old, let's see what we can do to find some pay fors that really

undermine the health and well-being of the american people. those same pay fors done properly could be part of a permanent fix. but instead they are part of the band-aid. this is all to say to my colleagues, you are a going -- you're going to have to weigh the decision as you weigh the equity. is it better to just succumb to what we have, no matter how mediocre and how missed an opportunity is? is it better to say let's hold out until our republican colleagues agree to the full g.r. essentially a fix forever, paid for by o.c.o. it's really important to note the following. the shorter the fix, the more expensive it is. we have been seeing that year in and year out. if we had dealt with this, six,

seven years ago, it would have cost much less. year to s to patch one next, sometimes less than a year to the next. so this is not about reducing the deficit. it's not about the good health of the american people. it's just an ideological reality that we have to deal with from the republican side of the aisle. so when the docs, a.m.a., says we are opposed to this, vote it down, that's important to us. i say to them talk to your republican friends. they have the power to do a permanent fix paid for by o.c.o. they refuse to do it. so we have something less good that we can do for the american people. and if this sounds a little confusing, it's because it is. and members have to make the decision as to whether they will vote for this just because we

are forced into it or whether they want to hold out for something much better. this would be a more appropriate debate a month ago. where the clock does not run out over the weekend. but this is a tactic, it's a technique used by the majority to force the hand without the proper weighing of equities in all of it. so my colleagues, i just urge you to try to weigh those equities. i, myself, come down on the side of supporting the legislation because, frankly, i believe that any uncertainty in the minds of our seniors about their ability to see their doctors will certainly be -- republicans will say this is because the affordable care act. and i just don't want to give them another opportunity to misrepresent what this is about. if the affordable care act never

existed, we would still be here debating s.g.r. they are two separate subjects. but as we know any excuse will do to undermine the great legislation that the affordable care act was about life, healthier life, liberty of people to pursue their happiness because they have the freedom to do so. better quality, lower cost, more accessibility. that's how i come to the conclusion of -- let's not give them another false claim. let's just get this done, but let us not give up on the prospect of even before this expires of having a long-term permanent fix to s.g.r. it makes all the sense in the world. it has no partisanship about it. it is sensible. and it will cost less. to do more for our seniors.

a challenge is there, the solution is clear, the republicans have rejected that, so we are at their mercy. my conclusion is to vote yes. members will have to come to their own conclusions on it. i frankly wish that the republicans in their power would have brought the bill to the floor under a rule so we could have a proper debate on it instead of requiring a 290-vote requirement to pass it. but the shortness of receiving this information only this morning members are finding out what it is, it's really hard to predict who will vote pro, who will vote con, who will vote aye, who will vote no. this is a silly decision to bring this to the floor in this form when we know a path that is much better. but i'm not going to give you another reason to go out there and make your claims about the affordable care act which have no basis in fact.

with that i urge my colleagues to pray over it as i will and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the time of the distinguished minority leader has expired. the gentleman from pennsylvania has 10 1/2 minutes remaining. the gentleman from new jersey has five minutes remaining. the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized. mr. pitts: may i inquire of the minority how many speakers they have left? we are prepared to close. mr. pallone: at this time i have one more speaker. mr. pitts: i continue to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from pennsylvania continues to reserve. the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. pallone: mr. speaker, i yield two minutes to the gentleman from connecticut, mr. courtney, a member of the armed services committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from connecticut is recognized for two minutes. mr. courtney: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i just wanted to follow up on a point that leader pelosi just made regarding the o.c.o. account, the overseas contingency operations account. which in armed services we are dealing with right now. the president came over with his o.c.o. request for this year of $80 billion. this funds the troops over in afghanistan, the 34,000 that are still fighting courageously to

defend our country. at the end of this year, the projection is is that troop level will be brought down to, at the highest level, of 10,000, possibly even lower, combat missions for all intents and purposes will come to an end. as the congressional budget office has democrat straight over and over again, they will score savings with the o.c.o. drawdown that's going to happen at the end of this year. the ryan budget has used those o.c.o. savings to help balance its own priorities. so this is not funny money. this is not hypothetical. anyone who has been on a could he dell -- codel over to afghanistan knows we are spending money over there, and next year we'll spend less money because of our change in deployments in afghanistan. the cost of a permanent fix to s.g.r. is $135 billion over the next 10 years. you can only -- you only need a portion of the o.c.o. account to permanently fix s.g.r. everybody who has even come

close to discussing this issue knows that in this building. and hopefully the senate when they take this up next week are going to move forward with a permanent fix using totally valid, verified savings by the congressional budget office in the o.c.o. account. it is a peace dividend in terms of drawing down from afghanistan that we can finally stabilize the medicare system by making sure that these are not going -- fees are not going to be subjected to this annual cliff, that denies access in far too many cases in doctors' offices across the country. again i just want to emphasize the point. it is not like we are powerless here to come up with an s.g.r. fix for which there is bipartisan support using verifiable, valid savings by the congressional budget office in the o.c.o. account. our brave soldiers are going to be drawing down closer to the end this year to zero. we can use those savings to fix america's health care system. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from connecticut has

expired. the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized. mr. pitts: mr. speaker, i'm prepared to close. i continue to reserve. mr. pallone: i still have three minutes, mr. speaker? the speaker pro tempore: yes. the gentleman from new jersey has three minutes. mr. pallone: i'll go first. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. pallone: first of all, mr. speaker, i'd like to point out and i'd like to ask -- enter into the record a letter from the american medical association and many, many other physicians' groups as well as state medical societies in opposition to the legislation. let me just read the first paragraph. it's addressed to the speaker and democratic leader. it says on behalf of the undersigned physician organizations we are writing to express our strong opposition to h.r. 4302, and we urge you to vote against the bill when it is considered on the floor. again that's from the a.m.a.

many specialty doctor groups, and a number of state medical societies. i would also point out that it's my strong belief, and i know that my chairman of the subcommittee disagrees on this, but it is my strong belief that if this bill passes that we will not have an opportunity to bring up the larger permanent fix. we will not negotiate that. i doubt very much that that would be the case. i would now reserve the balance of my time. nd yield one minute to our democratic whip. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for yielding. perhaps we ought to have a criteria of everybody who has read this bill can vote on it. my bet is it would be very few members who would be able to vote on this bill. this is an eight-page summary of this bill. with probably 50 paragraphs in it about changes that have been affected in the medicare system. none of us know what the

substance of this bill is. we have a lot of rhetoric in 010 about reading the bills. i challenge any member to come up here and say i have read this bill. i am for a permanent fix in the sustainable growth rate for doctors. i have pledged that for the last four or five years. we have a bipartisan agreement to affect that exact end. but as so often is the case, we do not have the courage to rationally fund that agreement. that is why america is in trouble fiscally. this is a game. unworthy of this institution and the american people. mr. pallone: mr. speaker, i yield the balance of our time to the democratic whip.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey has 45 seconds remaining. that time will be yielded to the gentleman from maryland. mr. hoyer: i thank the speaker. it is unfortunate that we have been put in this position with less than 48 hours notice of what's in this bill. to do something all of us know needs to be done. the doctors of america, at least the organized doctors of america, have said vote no on this bill. because they know, we know, the "wall street journal" knows, we have to fix this permanently. not patch it every year. it's a fraud. and both sides have committed that fraud. and we ought to stop it. we ought to fix this. americans ought to expect us to fix it. the doctors expect us to fix it. seniors expect us to fix it.

what a lamentable fact we cannot sum mon -- summon the courage and wisdom to do just that. the speaker pro tempore: the time of the gentleman from maryland has expired. mr. hoyer: i yield back the balance of my time. that i do not have. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized. he has 10 1/2 minutes remaining. mr. pitts: mr. speaker, i want to read out the title of a blast that i just received from the heritage foundation, some of our members might be interested in this. quote, a temporary s.g.r. patch is better than permanent deficits. in support of the bill. my colleagues, this morning seniors are watching. this is not a game. we are thinking of seniors and certainty for them.

a vote no today is a vote against seniors. we are not voting for the a.m.a. today. we are voting for or against seniors today. we will continue to work with all of our might for a permanent repeal of s.g.r. we have worked on this for three years. we must get there as soon as possible. but we are at a deadline. and this is the last vote we will have. if you vote no on this bill, you're voting for more uncertainty. you're voting for a cut to doctor reimbursements. you are voting against seniors. let us vote for seniors this morning. vote for h.r. 4302. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from pennsylvania has yielded back. all time having now expired on this bill, the question is, will the house suspend the rules and

pass the bill h.r. 432 -- 4302. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed, and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. mr. hoyer: mr. speaker. mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized. mr. pitts: i object to the vote on the grounds that a quorum is not present and make a point of order a quorum is not present. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this motion will be postponed. .

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i move that the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 4278, as amended. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 4278, a bill to support the independence, sovereignty, and territorial integrity of ukraine, and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from california, mr. royce, and the gentleman from new york, mr. engel, each will control 20 minutes. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from california. mr. royce: mr. speaker, i'm going to ask that all members that we have -- that we have unanimous consent for all members having five legislative days to revise and extend their

remarks and include any extraneous material in the record. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. royce: thank you, i also ask unanimous consent to place into the record letters between myself and the chairman of other house committees with jurisdictional interests in this bill. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. royce: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. royce: mr. speaker, president vladimir putin's decision to forcibly annex crimea was based on his calculation that the price would be bearable. now, in fact, russia is susceptible to pressure. 70% of all the exports of russia are from oil and gas. 52% of the budget that goes to the power behind mr. putin's military and his government comes from that monopoly pricing on natural gas. that supplies the budget for

russia. that is what gives him the power to manipulate the situation, the monopoly over gas that he has in eastern europe with respect to ukraine. if we want to check aggression from russia, we must push back and we must work together quickly, not only to confront this monopoly circumstance that exists there but also to quickly impose tough sanctions on president putin and on those who have been his accomplices in carrying out this aggression. diplomatically, our european allies have helped to eject russia from the g-8 and have suspended all other engagement with russia until this crisis is peacefully resolved.

economically they have also imposed sanctions, including asset freezes and visa bans against many russian leaders. our targets must include government officials as well as those who hold no formal position but who nevertheless exercise great influence over president putin's policy and have supported aggression. that includes the so-called people who have amassed enormous wealth through corruption and through other illegitimate means. we must make clear that if they do not end this crisis that they have deliberately created, by the way, or if they choose to go even further, then we and our allies will ratchet up the sanctions pressure. we must also move quickly to strengthen ukraine by reinforcing its sovereignty, its independence and

territorial integrity and assisting the new government to meet the enormous challenges it faces. this bill provides assistance to strengthen civil society in ukraine, to combat corruption, to help recover assets stolen by former ukrainian officials, to reform the police and the justice sector, to promote the independent media, to strengthen ukraine's defense and help prepare for the runup for the presidential election which is scheduled now on may 25. and i will add that in several weeks i will be leading a delegation, bipartisan delegation from this house with mr. engel to the ukraine, and i will add that his forefathers, in fact, come from the ukraine, and we will be there to meet with the parliament, the leadership, the electorial commission in advance to that election. this bill also directs the assistance already approved by the house to help get the

ukrainian economy back on its feet, including by promoting fundamental economic reforms in the country. those tough reforms will be essential. mr. speaker, moscow is using propaganda to soak confusion and fear and unrest inside the ukraine right now which then exploits to justify its actions. to counter that effort, this legislation enhances funding for radio free europe, radio liberty and the voice of america to expand broadcasting in the russian language, in ukrainian, in totter, in order to provide the accurate news and information on the ground across ukraine. no amount of aid will help ukraine if russian propaganda rules the day. another priority must be to end russia's ability to use its energy reserves to blackmail ukraine and other countries

including many of our nato allies. russia supplies 100% of lithuania's natural gas. well, it might not be that surprising, then that lithuania pays the highest price per gas of any country in eastern europe. 2/3 of poland's gas. energy sales earn russia not only dollars but they earn russia influence because russia, in the dead of winter, has turned off the valves. russia's state-controlled gas company threatened to cut off supplies to ukraine earlier this month, as it did during the winters of 2006 and 2009. gas prom has stated that it is preparing to double the price that ukraine pays for its natural gas which could crumple the country's already weak economy. now, we have a powerful tool to counter this pressure, one that is just waiting to be used and

that's our own energy reserves. we must remove restrictions on the export of u.s. crude oil d natural gas into eastern europe. we have in fact a letter to the speaker of the house from the heads of state of poland, of the czech republic, of slovakia, of hung ari -- hungary, asking us. listen, at the end of the day, if we do this, we end the flaring of gas here in the united states because of the glut. we're able to help our balance of payments. we'll help reduce our deficits. it increases russia's deficit it's, frankly. it produces jobs here in the united states, but it comes at a time when vladimir putin has decisionmakers in eastern europe with respect to his power on monopoly over gas.

lifting frankly these self-imposed sanctions on ourselves in terms of not exporting our excess gas, would not only boost the u.s. economy and create american jobs, as i indicated, but would reduce the energy revenues that comprise 52% of the budget for the military and the government in russia. we must break putin's energy grip over ukraine and eastern europe. this is a strategic issue. i am pleased, by the way, to have worked closely with ranking member eliot engel of new york, and with all of the members of the committee to produce this strong, effective and much-needed bipartisan bill. and i look forward to its passage today and to working with our senate colleagues to have the president sign the bill into law as soon as possible. mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california

reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. engel: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. engel: i rise in strong support of h.r. 4278, the ukraine support act, and let me begin by thanking the chairman of our foreign affairs committee, mr. royce, for his strong leadership on ukraine. as always, he's working with us in a bipartisan and constructive manner. it's very important -- on this very important and timely bill and i'm pleased to be the lead democratic co-sponsor. i'd like to thank my other democratic and republican colleagues on the foreign affairs committee for their important contributions. the united states has long been a steadfast supporter of the democratic, prosperous and independent ukraine. and with the people of ukraine now in dire need of assistance and under imminent threat, there's never been a more critical moment to show our support. president putin's invasion of crimea is a flagrant violation of international law and russia's commitments to its

neighbor. the phony and illegal referendum that putin orchestrated at the barrel of a gun has resulted in the first outright annexation territory in europe send sins the end of world war ii, and now putin is amassing troops on the border, threatening to seize more ukrainian territory and inciting more violence and conflict. putin's destabilizing and dangerous moves threaten not only ukraine but other states in the region, including mull efensea and -- muldova and georgia. the entire international community must take a stand against putin's naked aggression. this legislation reaffirms our strong support for the people of ukraine at this critical time. it authorizes assistance for ukraine as it attempts to right its struggling economy, increase energy security, strengthen civil society and prepare for democratic elections this spring. it supports ukraine's efforts to recover missing assets, to

bolster the rule of law and to professionalize its law enforcement. it supports additional broadcasting to ukraine and chairman royce has been a champion of that, and other countries in the region to counter the dangerous and hateful propaganda coming from the media outlets and it endorses the deployments of significant numbers of international monitors throughout ukraine, to help reduce tensions and ensure security of all ukrainians. but legislation sends a clear message to put inl and his cronies that the land grab and reckless actions will have serious consequences. it supplements the president's efforts of violating ukraine's sovereignty and international integrity, looting the economy and violating human rights in ukraine. here i'd like to applaud president obama for imposing measures which have already impacted putin's inner circle. for taking the lead in suspending russia's participation in the g-8 and

coordinating actions with our european partners and others throughout the world. finally, the bill expresses support for continuing u.s. security assistance to ukraine and reaffirms our commitment to the security of nato, security of our nato partners in eastern and central europe. mr. speaker, the coming days, weeks and months will be very difficult for ukraine. its leaders must continue the process of reconciliation and reach out to all regions of the country. they must scrupulously reject minority -- respect human rights. it is important to respect minority and human rights, and they must make the hard decisions and take the difficult steps that will return their country to political and economic health. and they must do all of this in the face of opposition and likely provocations from putin and his cronies. but as they do so, they and the people of ukraine should know that they have our support. by passing this bill, we are making clear that the united states stands with ukraine,

that we are committed to helping its people build a more democratic, prosperous, secure and just state for themselves and their children. you know, if we continue to work with ukraine and continue to help ukraine and turn them westward rather than eastward, then putin will have lost. he may have a land grab in crimea, but he will lose the rest of ukraine, and we should be doing everything possible to make sure that our european allies are working closely with ukraine offering them the incentives they need so they will look westward and not eastward. i join my colleagues, i urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important legislation and reserve the balance of my time, but before i do, i want to say foreign policy should be bipartisan whenever possible. i think this is bipartisanship at its best. we send a clear message to the people of ukraine that the united states stands with them. it's not a republican or a

democratic stand. it's an american stand, and i'm proud to be part of it. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york reserves -- mr. engel: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. royce: yes, mr. speaker. i yield one minute to our respected majority leader, the gentleman from virginia, mr. cantor. the speaker pro tempore: the majority leader, mr. cantor, the gentleman from virginia, is recognized for one minute. . mr. can'ter: i thank the gentleman from california. mr. speaker, i rise in strong support of the ukraine support act. vladimir putin's recent annexation of crimea stand in direct violation of ukraine's sovereignty and international law. his aggression may only continue unless we in america along with our allies respond with strength.

newspaper reports indicate that putin may not be content with swallowing crimea whole, and that he is now amassing troops on the border with eastern ukraine and may soon have his eyes on moldova. the eyes of the world are on the united states and our e.u. and nato partners. adversaries and allies around the world are watching to see how we respond to this outrageous provocation. to see whether we mean it when we say putin's actions are unacceptable. it is vitally important that the united states in conjunction with our e.u. and nato allies send an unmistakable signal that this aggression will not be tolerated. together we must be prepared to exact a significant cost for russia's behavior, and that mr. putin's actions will be met with the firmest of resolve. this bill is a first step

towards supporting the ukranian's and our central and easternure peaian partners and imposing a truly significant cost on moscow. but it is only a first step. we must fundamentally reassess our assumptions about russia and acknowledge that putin himself scrapped the administration's policy a long time ago. we need a new strategic that under-- streanl that understands putin for who he is, not -- strategy that understands putin for who he is not who we wish him to be. we need a new grand strategy. we need a foreign policy that stands up for our allies and stands up to our adversaries. we need a prioritized defense in our budget so that we maintain a military that can respond promptly to contingencies around the world and that instills fear in our enemies while reassuring

our allies. mr. speaker, i hope this bill, modest though it may be, will prove to be the first step on a long march to restore america's defenses and alliances. now more than ever the threats to the very fabric of the international system require an america that leads. i want to thank very much the gentleman from california, chairman royce, and ranking member engel, and the rest of the committee on foreign affairs for their bipartisan work for all of their efforts on this issue. and i urge my colleagues in the house to support our friends in ukraine by passing this bill. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia has yielded back. the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. engel: thank you, mr. speaker. i now yield three minutes to a very distinguished member of our committee, the gentleman from virginia, mr. connolly.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia is recognized for three minutes. mr. connolly: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank my friend. i also congratulate the ranking member, mr. engel, and the chairman, mr. royce, for their bipartisan leadership on this critical, critical resolution. mr. speaker, apparently once a k.g.b. agent always a k.g.b. agent. mr. putin seems to have learned nothing from history other than that there is power at the end of the barrel of a gun. to cite the fact that there are russian speakers in crimea as a rationale for one of the most audacious power grabs of the 21st century in europe no less forgets history. let us not forget that crimea was settled by stalin when he excelled and executed the native tartars, this was also done at the end of the barrel of a gun. russian interests were never threatened in the crimea after the revolution in kiev. the new government in kiev never

abrogated the treaty that allowed russia privileges, naval privileges, through 2042. the ukranians didn't occupy military stations in crimea and around the region. it was the other way around. but the united states and its allies to allow this naked aggression to go unaddressed would be truly an abrogation of our moral responsibility and turn our backs on the very lessons we should have learned from 20th century tragic history. mr. speaker, we need to stop lking about the -- i'm stuck on crimea and i hope my colleagues are, too. it is wrong, it cannot be allowed to stand, and we must make him pay a price. and the difference between now and stalin's time is that his economy is integrated into the global economy. the ruble will fall, the stock market in russia will pay a

price, investment will suffer because we will help make it so unless he relents. until they pay a price that's so great, systematic and comprehensive, that he will understand that we no longer operate by the rule of the jungle in europe or indeed anywhere else in this planet. not with our blessing. not with our apology. so i strongly support the legislation before us and urge my colleagues to join with all of us in telling mr. putin, we will not stand idly by with history doomed to repeat itself. i yield back to the gentleman from new york. thank the speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia has yielded back. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. royce: mr. speaker, i yield three minutes to the gentleman from new jersey, mr. smith, chairman of the foreign affairs subcommittee on africa, global health, global human rights, and international organizations. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for three minutes. mr. smith: mr. speaker, i rise in strong support of the ukranian support act. i want to thank my friends and colleagues, chairman royce and

ranking member engel for introducing this comprehensive legislation to support ukraine and its urgent effort to meet its current crisis, including building up its democratic institutions. mr. speaker, russia's land grab in crimea violates the core principles of several bilateral and multilateral agreements and treaties between ukraine and russia. the buddha pest memorandum, the united nations charter, as well as the hell sinka -- helsinki final act. this includes strong sanctions against russians directly responsible for the aggression. h.r. 4278 also authorizes targeted sanctions against ukranians involved in undermining the democratic processes and provides assistance to the ukranian government for identifying and recovering stolen assets. it is after all these criminal officials, including and especiallyiana could he vitch --

yanokovich who have so harmed the ukranian people. another key provision of the bill provides support for ukraine's democracy and civil society and i want to recognize the importance of supporting as well the faith-based groups and organizations that played such a prominent role, particularly on the humanitarian side, in supporting the movement for democracy and the rule of law. the ukraineian democracy movement is in charge part a religious movement. orthodox and catholic clergy for example were prominent in the protest, and the drama of priests carrying icons, confronting soldiers became as much a symbol of the democratization movement as anything else. again when people were wounded, when people were being dragged away, it was the clergy that tried to step in to mitigate the violence against them. let me also point out that a catholic news service article that just hit the wire points out that members of the ukranian catholic church are fleaing cry

me -- fleeing crimea to escape threats of arrest and property seizures. the situation, quote, remains very serious and we don't know what will happen. the new government here is portraying us as nationalists and extremists. a parish representative-elector in crimea. he said that officials from the russian security service, or f.s.b., had called him in for questioning about his community and asked whether or not he recognized the new order. he pointed out that one priest in particular was actually beaten by russian forces, and again members will recall, i remember during the 1980's when i first came here how so many within the church, including orthodox church, were beaten, sent to the gulag because of their religious faith. this could be the harbinger of a new wave of repression against people of faith. ukranian catholic church by way of reminder was one of those churches that was outlawed

during soviet times, and now we see the same kind of reputation of that kind of repression. this legislation is a clear step in the right direction. no peace of legislation is -- will do it all. we have to appeal to the russians to stop this. but again cease the persecution of people in the crimea. the speaker pro tempore: the time of the gentleman from new jersey has expired. the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. engel: thank you, mr. speaker. it's now my pleasure to yield three minutes to the democratic whip, the gentleman from maryland, mr. hoyer. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. hoyer: i thank my friend, the ranking member, mr. engel from new york, and i thank mr. royce, the chairman of the committee, for bringing this bill to the floor. and working in a bipartisan fashion to affect an objective that i strongly support. i thank both of them for their work. the ongoing russian aggression against ukraine is unacceptable. in a gross violation of international law.

i agree with president obama that russia's acting from a position of weakness, however. strong nations do not invade and annex territory from their smaller neighbors by force. and strong nations do not suppress the free expression of ideas and the voices of dissent within their own society. those are the hallmarks not of a great nation but insecure bully. great nations are those that stand together to reaffirm the principles of liberty and international order. great nations are those that commit to peaceful diplomacy while protecting free and open debate among our citizens. the american people continue to stand with the people of ukraine, mr. speaker, because we believe they have a right to join the nations of the world that are free and able to shape their own future. that is why through this bill we pledge our support as the new government in kiev works to stabilize its economy, provide security to its citizens, and

ensure that all ukranians are afforded the opportunities that come with vibrant, democratic institutions and basic freedoms. that is what this bill offers the people of ukraine. what it offers president putin and his associates is an opportunity to end their misguided, unjustified, and illegal incursion in ukraine's internal affairs. because it affords them a choice, mr. speaker, that here the international law and end their aggression or face increasingly punitive sanction that is will further isolate russia from the global community. the one item miss interesting this otherwise strong bill, unfortunately, is ratification of i.m.f. quota reform. i hope the house will take action on that piece soon. however, this is a good bill. we ought to support this bill. we ought to pass this bill and send mr. putin a clear message

that the united states congress and the nation we represent will not stand for russia's actions and that we are ready to help ukraine reach for the future it so richly deserves. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland yields back. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. royce: mr. speaker, i yield three minutes to the gentleman from california, mr. rohrabacher , chairman of the foreign affairs subcommittee on europe,ure asia, and meerging threats -- eurasia, and emerging threats. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california, mr. rohrabacher, is recognized for three minutes. mr. rohrabacher: mr. speaker, i rise in opposition to this legislation, and i realize that i am a lone voice, or almost a lone voice in this discussion today. i see this legislation as a bipartisan green light to reigniting the cold war. unfortunately, many of my

friends and colleagues, both colleagues today and my friends from the time when i spent in the reagan white house, seven years, many of these people feel that the cold war is not over. that it never did end. they are more comfortable with that -- with treating russia as if it was still under communist rule. well, putin is not a communist leader. putin is a nationalist who loves his country. and he's looking out for the national interest of his country. for us to try to demonize him and try to suggest that he is doing this like he did in the cold war, and k.g.b.,ets, is not doing the cause of peace any good in ukraine, a democratically elected president, this is what started this whole slide in the wrong direction toward the type of confrontation we are having today, that a democratically

elected president was removed from power. this precipitated, and that was a democratically elected president who is more inclined towards better relations with russia, he was removed from power and then the russian government under mr. putin decided to ensure the people of crimea the right to self-determination, because even secretary of state kerry has verified and testified before our committee that the people of crimea obviously want to be part of russia. this is not a power grab. this is defending their right for self-determination. . certainly the people of crimea have the right to make that determination, judgment as the people of kosovo had their right to leave serbia behind. our military action there to try to protect the right of self-determination of the kosovo people, it cost many,

many lives and this russian military move, which is called this power grab, has resulted in the loss of one life. that is in stark contrast to when we bombed bell grad, we bombed serbia. now, this should not be -- we should not permit ourselves to reignite a cold war, we should make sure shah we realize that the actions that we are taking here, suggesting the united states must rush in and be the arbiter in every one of these type of conflicts, is only stretching our budget, but in this particular bill, we are going to, what, put our name on a loan of $800 million to a country that we're going to have to borrow the money from china to get. the united states can no longer afford to write every -- right every wrong in the world and be the arbiter. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. rohrabacher: we'd be ash traiting in the wrong -- ash traiting in the wrong direction. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized. >> i yield myself such time as

i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. >> i thank the gentleman. mr. royce: part of our problem here is with president putin's definition of what is the russian nation in his speech. when he says the russian nation is divided by borders, he is sending a message that with respect not just to crimea, but other areas throughout europe, that russia may be staking a claim. and here's the difficulty. in crimea, yes, the population today is majority ethnic russian. but there was a time when -- before joe stalin moved a wide segment of the population into beria and before the force collection, there was a time when the majority population is very different than it is today. 56% of those ethnic -- of that ethnic group perished.

but this is a problem that we also have in eastern europe and in eastern and southern ukraine. because you had some eight million ukrainians also perish during stalin's rule and ethnic russians came into that area as a consequence. now, the thing we need to remember is that it is in fact the russian-speaking population in the east, as well as the ukrainian-speaking in the west, that voted for independence for ukraine. that voted strongly to have a separate state. and if the -- this issue is allowed to stand without the world responding, the question is, is that argument then made in latvia and estonia? is that argument made in all of the former russian states? i do not think in any way this is comparable to kosovo. in kosovo nato responded to a brutal campaign of ethnic

cleansing by former ugeslaskian forces. in crimea, russia attempted to justify its actions by fabricating the myth of widespread violence against the ethnic russian population. even going as far as to equate it to the bloodshed occurring in syria. clearly this is not true. we know it's not true. in terms of the election itself, opponents were sigh lenlsed, international -- silenced, international monitors were barred, crimean charters themselves boycotted the very election. voters were not given the option of preserving crimea's current status within ukraine. independence and de facto independence were the only options. and the bogus vote there was also unnecessary because the ukrainian government had made it clear that it was willing to discuss increased autonomy for crimea. now, here is the problem going forward. we know the view taken internationally on this

subject. the u.n. security council condemns russia's unprovoked aggression against ukraine and russia stood alone, stood slupetly alone in this case -- absolutely alone in this case. because even ukrainians themselves have gone to the sites of the russian media reported attacks against ethnic russian minorities to show that is not occurring. hat is in fact propaganda. we can't let this stand. one of the other things we're doing in this bill is improving our broadcasting into ukraine in the region to dispel these myths and spread the truth about the situation there. so, i'm going to reserve the balance of my time at this time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from new york is ecognized. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i now yield two minutes to the gentlewoman from texas, ms. jackson lee.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for two minutes. ms. jackson lee: let me thank the managers of this legislation, the chairman of the foreign affairs committee, and the ranking member of the foreign affairs committee for their leadership and for their commitment as i acknowledge the other body as well. this morning a bright announcement came from mr. putin, that he was drawing russians to a program of exercise in the name of labor and defense. someone said reminiscent of s drew tory, when other their nations together in massive public exercises to show the world that they were not going to be part of the world order.

i believe that we should be engaged, that diplomacy is right. i also don't believe in condemnation of a nation purely for its ideological disagreement. but in this instance it is important for the united states to make a public stand. as a member of the interparliamentarian exchange, meeting with europeans over the years, i know that they are proud of the democracy that they've maintained since the horrors of world war ii. today the united states, the pass and of this legislation and ultimately hopefully the signing by the president will tell the world that the united states stands firmly on democratic principles. the people of ukraine, those in kiev and places around, still have the knowledge that america

stands by it economically, with loan guarantees, but it also stands against a despot who has illegally moved into a sovereign nation with no provocation, undermining the military base of ukraine. and so i'd ask my colleagues to join against a despot and for a people and support the underlying legislation. i thank mr. engel for the time. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. royce: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from texas, mr. poe, chairman of the foreign affairs subcommittee on terrorism, nonproliferation and trade. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for two minutes. mr. poe: i thank the chairman for the time and i also thank the chairman and the ranking member for bringing this legislation to the floor and a very speedy and efficient manner -- in a very speedy and efficient manner. i will also say i have great respect for my friend from california, mr. rohrabacher.

he knows a lot about foreign affairs. but we disagree on what the evidence shows in this particular matter. mr. speaker, mark twain once said that history doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme. well, russia's quite the poet these days. in 2008 russia invaded georgia. confiscated 1/3 of that nation's territory. the world watched. complained a little bit. the world moved on. there were no consequences. and the russians, mr. speaker, are still there. again, second verse, same as the first. the napoleon of siberia has invaded ukraine and seized crimea. putin is bent on establishing a soviet-style empire and allegedly uniting russian-speaking people throughout the world. who knows who his next target will be? it could be our friends in

maldovea, the rest of ukraine, or estonia. russia has been able to maintain dominance over the region because of its vast energy sources, especially natural gas. six countries in europe rely 100% on russia for their natural gas. russia uses gas as a political and economic weapon to manipulate these countries. i was in ukraine in winter when russia turned off the gas for political reasons. it was cold. it was dark. this bill helps disarm that hostage tactic. it includes my amendment that commits the u.s. to helping ukraine use american natural gas. there must be consequences for the bully putin, for invading other nations like ukraine. justice requires there be consequences. and, mr. speaker, justice is what we do. and that's just the way it is. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. engel: thank you, mr. speaker. may i inquire of how much time each of us has?

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman has eight minutes remaining. and the gentleman from california has no minutes remaining. mr. engel: has -- none? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california's time has expired. mr. engel: i ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from california be allowed to control three minutes of my remaining time. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. engel: thank you very much, mr. speaker. what we're doing this morning is the congress at its best. what we're doing this morning is standing up to a bully and telling him that his actions will not stand. what we're doing is saying that in the 21st century, it is no longer acceptable for dictators to invade other countries. and what we're saying to the people of ukraine is that we stand behind you, we're with

you, we haven't forgotten you and we're going to do everything possible to make you whole again. we're going to do everything possible to let you know that the west wants to partner with you. we're going to do everything possible to stand up for freedom and democracy with you. i think that's a very noble cause. it's not pie in the sky. no one's advocating a war with boots on the ground against russia. but we are advocating that there has to be some standards in the world. if we let putin get away with this, then it sends a green light to putin that he can continue to do this and to every other despot and dictator around the world that they can do whatever they like and the world is just indifferent or too afraid to act. i think this is a opportunity

-- an opportunity and i think this is a time when one day we'll be able to say to our grandchildren that we acted together. i want to again commend chairman royce for working with me in a bipartisan fashion and we will be going to ukraine together in a few short weeks to show the ukrainian people that america stands with them. i urge my colleagues again to support the bill and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. royce: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield one minute to the gentleman from indiana, mr. messer, a member of the committee on foreign affairs. mr. messer: thank you. mr. speaker, i rise in support of this important bipartisan bill and commend chairman royce and ranking member engel for bringing this measure forward. today's legislation makes clear that as a nation we speak with one voice regarding russia's aggression. the situation in the ukraine is undoubtedly complex.

the history between crimea and russia dates back centuries, close to 60% of the population identifies as ethnic russians. but several facts are clear. russia has amassed troops and perpetrated a breach of international law with its unwarranted aggression. the elections in crimea took place under an illegal occupation, it did not resemble anything close to a real election. and consequently the results should not and cannot be recognized. lastly, there is little doubt that if the world does not act, russia's territorial aggression will expand and continue. whatever the complexities, this invasion of a sovereign country is not justified. period. today's bill makes clear america will not tolerate russia's territorial aggression in ukraine or elsewhere. i urge my colleagues to support

it. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. engel: may i inquire, mr. speaker, how much remaining time i have? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman has 3 1/2 minutes remaining. mr. engel: ok. then i yield two minutes to the gentleman from michigan, the ranking member of the ways and means committee, mr. levin. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan is recognized for two minutes. without objection. mr. levin: i rise in strong support of this bill. as ukraine is fighting for its independence and the people of ukraine are fighting to preserve and to deepen their democracy, we must stand squarely with them. it's been said here, including by the majority leader, that this is a first step. and i'd like to make very clear we really should be taking in

this bill another step. we should be in this bill as was proposed in the senate and by many of us some assistance to make sure that the i.m.f. can perform its fullest role. that was the preference of president obama. e made it clear we should act, the u.s. we should also be able to help the i.m.f. to act as fully and effectively as possible. so i think today instead of anybody here coming and criticizing the president, they should essentially be supporting him in his efforts to have the fullest array of assistance to the ukrainian democracy. so if this is only the first step, let's take some additional

steps and stand together on a bipartisan basis instead of at times i think taking partisan shots verbally at the president of the united states. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from california is recognized. the gentleman from new york is ecognized. mr. engel: thank you, mr. speaker. may i inquire how much time i have? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york has 1 1/2 minutes remaining. mr. engel: i yield one minute of that time to the gentlewoman from ohio, ms. kaptur. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from ohio is recognized for one minute. ms. kaptur: i want to thank the esteemed ranking member of new york, eliot engel, a dear friend, for yielding time in support of ukraine support act, h.r. 4278. and for his leadership from the

time we traveled to ukraine together and to congressman royce, the chairman of the committee, to reaffirm america's strong support for liberty and the people of ukraine at this really critical time in world history and the history of central and eastern europe. the assistance that is contemplated here is in the form of a loan guarantee, and will aid ukraine's efforts to recover its own missing assets to pay the money back. ukraine is fully capable of earning its way forward. it's already the third largest grain exporter in the world. this is nothing that can't be repaid. in addition, the bill authorizes $10 million for international broadcasting to ukraine. i can guarantee you i did an interview with voice of america about a week ago. i received emails from people in ukraine. they are waiting to hear the song --

the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. ms. kaptur: pass this legislation quickly on a bipartisan basis and stand for freedom. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. engel: thank you, mr. speaker. in closing let me again say what a pleasure it is to work with chairman royce in a bipartisan basis. and you can see, again, strong bipartisan support for this bill. ms. kaptur didn't mention that she was co-chair of the ukrainian caucus. we have members on both sides of the aisle all standing together to say, the united states stands with the people of ukraine. please vote yes. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. royce: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. royce: thank you, mr. speaker. this is not a new cold war. president reagan ended the cold war. the way he did that, frankly, was by leading, but also with a

strategy which drove down the price of oil and gas which was the stranglehold which not only russia had over eastern europe, but also funded the ability of the former soviet union, militarily, to carry out an expansion program. today you have the circumstance where president putin relies almost solely, 70% of the exports, 52% of the budget as i indicated, comes from a monopoly position on oil and gas. that is why i think it is very important that we understand what the polls and what the hungarians understood when they exported $2 billion cubic yards of gas last year to ukraine in order to try to keep the ability of russia from manipulating the situation into leading to the

very chaos that was brought about. we need to understand when the u.s.-e.u. annual summit just occurred, and the e.u. asked us to be part of a program to ship gas into that market in order to offset this monopoly control and pricing by russia, that we should be part of this. this is part of this bill. but also part of the bill is the important consequence of communicating to the people in that region and offsetting the propaganda that russia right now is sending into the country. we address that issue as well in this legislation. as well as good governance issues and the steps that are needed in order to reform the economy inside ukraine. in order to set up the rule of law, independent courts. the polls are on the groundworking on this issue right now. the united states needs to support that effort. and this sends one last message that if you're in the business

of helping to invade a country, there will be consequences. i urge an aye vote. thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the entleman's time has expired. the question is, will the house suspend the rules and pass bill h.r. 4278, as amended. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative -- mr. royce: on that i request the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. all those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing until counted. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this motion will be postponed.

the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to clause 12,'s a of rule

the jewish community, our community in america, representing south asia and all the various religions represented there. and of course the national catholic conference of bishops, the jewish community from the standpoint of faith. every faith-based organization supports this. in terms of badges, it's law enforcement leadership has come

here and urged passage a of comprehensive immigration. the third would be business. business knows that we need -- we need to pass comprehensive immigration reform. my state of california, we have high-tech, we have agriculture, we have tourism. to name three. but every state in the union has that. and every state that has that needs comprehensive immigration reform, to have a work force. and this week -- and this is as i say an economic issue -- this eek the c.b.o. issued a report that said that this would save -- this would be a $900 billion boost to the economy. h.r. 15, our bill, would reduce the deficit by almost $900 billion over the next two decades. this is the letter, i'm sure you have seen it.

from the standpoint of growth of our economy, from the standpoint of reducing the deficit in terms of creating jobs, if there were no other reason to pass an immigration bim, there are economic reasons to do -- bill, there are economic reasons to do so. but there are so many others and they relate to who we are as a people, a nation of immigrants, our first people, with all respect and love to our native american community, are special to us, but our growth has been from immigrants coming to our shores and every one of them who comes hoping to make the future better for their families, every one of them who comes with hope, courage, determination and optimism makes america more american because that's who we are this great optimistic nation. so, i'm hoping it's time for the republicans to stop the obstruction, for this one man to stand in the way of 11 million people. i was so pleased and perhaps prime minister of

ireland with our president and with our speaker. and his remarks. he spoke out, spoke out strongly for what the comprehensive immigration reform would mean to the irish in america as well as their families back home. it's just hard. there's practically no opposition in terms of the overwhelming support in the public, the opposition seems to be among house republicans and i commend the senate republicans for being part of the leadership of the comprehensive immigration reform. in addition to not allowing a vote on immigration reform, we still see the obstruction when it comes to issues that relate to raising the minimum wage, extending unemployment benefits. what is this? so we're pleased that the senate will be moving forward and hope that once they have acted. sometimes in the house, when

the republican leadership doesn't think the senate's going to act, they'll say, well, you know, we want to wait and see if the senate will act. and then they do. and then the goal poster moves and another excuse comes up. but i hope that won't happen because now it's turned into millions of people who have lost their jobs through no fault of their own, who are looking for work and who need to stay in their homes, to help their families, to put food on the table. this is so obvious. i'm so proud of the president and his trip to europe. he has spoken with such eloquence about our values, our role in the world. and of course i was thrilled to , i him meeting the pope guess our time that may be the middle of the night. but that made the morning news, to see pope francis welcoming the president of the united states. that's always a thrill. so, with that i'll be pleased to take any questions you may have. any questions?

no? all right. yes, ma'am. >> are you all urging democrats to vote no on the s.g.r. patch? >> no. i just went to the floor and decried it as a missed opportunity. what we should be doing on the s.g.r. is having a permanent fix instead of a patch. we all complain when somebody says, that's just a band-aid, it doesn't really get to the bottom of the problem, that's what this is. patch, band-aid. however, weighing the equities involved here and the hardheadedness of the republicans to bring a true permanent fix s.g.r. to the floor and one that is paid for by -- paid for, that's what we would still like to see and will still continue to fight for that. this is the wrong way to go. however, you know as i that if , that s not pass

seniors may be turned away from their medicare physician and you know what the republicans will say, they'll say this is all because the affordable care act, they bonet e-- they won't even say it that way, but that's their point. i just don't want to give them another -- because the bill in itself -- i don't like it. but it serves a purpose. but the problem with it is it's an opportunity to cost to do what is really right. if you're interested in reducing the deficit, the longer the fix, the less the cost. all these short-term patches turn out to be the most expensive way to go. it's funny because they said, we said we have a way to pay for it, that's what senator reid -- leader reid is trying to do in the senate, but they say it's a gimmick. they voted for it in the ryan budget. it wasn't a gimmick then. but it seems to be a gimmick now. yes, ma'am.

>> republican leaders have decided to pull the bill because there weren't enough votes. >> i'll take this opportunity. so i went to the floor and pointed out all the deficiencies, the missed opportunity, but i said that i myself would be voting for it. i don't know where members will be on it. some strong members, mr. levin, mr. waxman and others, have said that they would be voting against it. but i don't know what will actually happen after we hear the debate and the rest. having no idea where most of our members are on it because again it's a recent development . we've basically been kept in the dark about it. but weighing the equities, i think it's really important that seniors not be turned away. it's really a bad a choice.

it's really irresponsible, bad choice. but it's the only choice that we have. so i said that i would be supporting it. no, we're not whipping the bill, we're just saying people should make their own judgment. a.m.a. is against the bill. some others are supporting it. so they'll just have to make their own judgment on it. yes, sir. >> i wanted to ask you about the national labor relations board decision yesterday with the university and college athletes. do you think that -- i know you're a sports fan. do you think that players at stanford and ucla should be paid for what they're doing? >> this is obviously so new. i only read about it in the paper this morning and i guess t's a regional nlrb board that made the decision or recommendation. i just have to say, i do think the players should be

espected and not exploited and the celebrity or the success of a player should be respected. but i wouldn't even think of making any -- i was surprised to see what he had did and i look forward to learning more about it. >> do you think they should be aid? >> i don't know how that figures into it, but i'm really -- conversant enough in the particulars. i'm curious as a sports fan, curious to learn more about it. but again, i would hope that the ncaa and the athletes and everybody else treat each other

with a level of respect for what each of them brings to the table. i saw on tv last night, well, on colbert, i think it was, that they had signed up a 2-year-old in europe because he had good foot coordination for soccer and it was a big contract. he's 2. so when would he start playing? i thought, this is really -- this is really -- what the nfl was looking to draft an eighth grader or something? are you familiar with that one? any other questions? >> on the s.g.r., just following up from before, you explained, even though you oppose the one-year fix, you're going to vote for this one. is your vote in favor of the patch if it does stay on the floor today, indicate that -- chairman widen on the other side has said, everybody hold on, i got this i can do this before monday. you seem to be -- is this a message that you don't think his efforts are worth while? >> i hope his efforts will --

first of all, i don't know what the outcome of the bill will be. i just don't know what the outcome of the bill will be. what the votes will be. i don't know what the republicans have for votes on this. i just don't know. and maybe that's why -- i don't know why they just didn't bring it up under a rule, have the discussion, take a vote. but to bring it up under suspension where you need 290 votes or the equivalent of 2/3 of those present voting is a mystery to me, unless they thought they couldn't get 218 on their side. >> do you think widen can get a deal on -- >> you'll have to talk to the senate about that. i've spoken any number of times, including as recently as this morning, to senator reid about it and we're hoping that they can do that. and their objection is -- for some is o.k.o., because the speaker is against using o.k.o. i think senator match may be too. i don't like to go into the senate turf because i'm not

hearing it firsthand. but i wished senator widen well of course because he's on the right course, doing the right string -- doing the right thing. and it makes all the sense in the world. it's the right way to go. costs less, does more, ends the discussion. and so it's hard to understand why the republicans will insist that this is our only option. isn't it something that every time something like this happens, they bring it on the floor the very last day before the clock shuts down. march 31 is the end for this and we don't come back until next tuesday. april 1. so, it would have been more useful to even have a measure. all i can conclude is that they have -- they didn't have 218er to what they want to do so they're hoping that whatever they have, plus whatever we put on the tally will get them to 2/3. i just don't know that.

because i haven't asked one member yes or no, where they are on it. because, again, it's all pretty new. now there will be some who will vote for it because they just see the mischief that the republicans will be up to if this fails. doc turns away a patient because they're not getting the s.g.r. fix and what will the republicans say? it's all because of the affordable care act. but the affordable care act never existed, we would still be having to fix the s.g.r. it has -- they have nothing to with each other in terms of this, therefore because of this. this is something that harry reid was part of the discussion, spoir his efforts in that regard -- i support his efforts in that regard but he and i and all of us wish senator widen, newly mr.

chairman of the finance committee, all the success that he can get. the docs think if this goes down that that strengthens the hand of getting the longer term fix. i don't know. i don't know. >> that's why it's a little confusing. which way you really want this to go. >> i just don't want people -- i'm just saying about people. thim thinking about our seniors -- i'm thinking about our seniors. . i don't want them to have to be at the mercy of the republican shenanigans here, whether or not they can see their medicare doctor and the docs will see them because they're getting compensated and they're not losing compensation. sometimes the more patients you see -- there's no volume advantage. the more you see, the more you lose. so, we have to be fair about it. but, again, as respect for senator reid and his desire to have chairman widen succeed, i'm supporting the bill. but mr. hoyer spoke out very

strongly against it, mr. levin did. many of my -- of the leadership on these issues in the house are against it. let me say, it is not something that i'm voting for because i think it's the worst bill i ever had to vote for. i'm voting conscious i'm happy with it because it's a missed opportunity that is there. and if we're serious legislators, we'd want to soven the problem for the american people -- solve the problem for the american people. so the continuing to kick the can down the road -- instead of continuing to kick the can down the road. so again i don't want the seniors to have to pay that price. but others will make another evaluation. i think the better tactic would have been to defeat this thing and see what the republicans do. maybe they're more hopeful than i am about how much the republicans care about this and how they would exploit defeat. i don't think they have the votes. i think that's why they went to the 2/3. if they don't have the votes

they want to blame it on us, that this didn't pass, you get the -- you see the circle. yes, sir. >> just a little bit more. in your conversations with senator widen, did he ever suggest to you that house democrats who vote against this would give him a chance to work on a longer term deal? >> i haven't had any conversations with senator widen on this but i'm in constant touch with senator reid and senator reid wants us to pass this. >> on the affordable care act, some of your democrat colleagues in the senate are renewing a push to make some changes, including -- [inaudible] -- reinstate those bare-boned plans that were scrapped away. >> i'm not familiar with what they're doing. but i'm very proud of the affordable care act. the numbers are growing. the numbers are quite remarkable. i'm sure you'll be very interested. the deadline is still march 31.

if you're in line when the polls close, you can still sign up. that is if you've initiated your interest in signing up. but -- where are those numbers? i must have left them upstairs. they're hundreds of thousands who have logged in and phoned in. over a million have logged in. over 300,000 have phoned in. 1.2 million. so i just didn't bring it down. but it's going to be pretty exciting. overwhelmingly, 75% or more of these people had no insurance efore. and for many of the remaining 25%, this is much better than what they had before. so are we proud that millions of people are now going to have access to quality, affordable health care?

yes. are we disappointed in how the rollout took place? you can't be -- disappointed is such a minor word for that. but the fact is it's working now and it's working from a policy standpoint which is a more important thing for the american people. so we're very proud of that. thank you all very much. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] >> that's democratic leader nancy pelosi from just a short while ago as the house was wrapping up its debate on a couple of bills. one dealing with the one-year fix to the medicare payment for doctors and also a bill expressing support for ukraine and providing additional sanctions against russia. we will have live coverage of the house when they gavel back in. the question is, when that will happen. our producer on capitol hill says that reporters are camped outside the house floor waiting word from house republican leadership on the fate of the floor schedule today.

we are keeping our eye on whether they will gavel back in, at least for the -- the concern is over the question of the vote on the medicare bill, the medicare payments bill. in fact, the headline at this hour says house republican bill will avoid steep medicare cuts is in limbo. they write that amid concerns that they don't have the votes, house republican leaders postpone consideration of their bill this morning, which would avert a steep automatic cut to medicare physician payments starting tuesday, april 1. they also say the bill would postpone the cuts ordered by the sustainable growth rate formula for one year at a cost of $21 billion, funded with costs -- cuts to other health care providers. republican leadership aides say the vote hasn't been canceled but the next steps are unclear. we will again keep you posted and have live coverage of the house when they gavel back in. we expect they will vote on that ukraine bill. this is the international monetary fund announcing today a preliminary deal to provide ukraine with $14 million to $18 million in emergency aid and

the hill reports that the white house today applauded the i.m.f. announcement with an announcement of $14 million to $18 million in economic aid a from the i.m.f. to ukraine. so awaiting for the thousand gavel back in, while we wait, and we'll have live coverage when they do, we'll bring you a conversation from this morning's washington journal d. looking at the -- "washington journal." looking at the russian action in crimea and aid to ukraine. j. host: congressman adam smith is the ranking member on the house armed services committee. thanks for being with us again. guest: thank for having a. host: let me ask you about the situation in ukraine and the concern by nato officials that russian forces might move further into that country. do you share that same fear? guest: i think we have to be concerned the way russia is a massing troops along the border. they have been a troops on the border with estonia which is of greater concern since estonia is

a nato member. this is a very troubling situation. russia has violated international law and violated treaties they have signed. i think it is incumbent upon the rest of the world to condemn that and bring economic sanctions down on russia to make it clear that this is not acceptable behavior and we will do our best to hold them accountable. host: this is a quotation from the nato general -- is, it's difficult because -- do we want to start world war three over crimea or ukraine? we hopey not but what is that russia will come to its senses and not want to push this.

even absent military action between russia and the west, the economic war will kick off and it could have devastating impacts on the global economy. i think russia is really playing a very dangerous game in terms of their own stability. host: let's get your reaction to a new gallup poll that shows nearly 70% of americans view russia as either unfriendly or as an enemy. guest: it's hard to argue with that. legitimate interests in crimea, no question about it. they have had a long-standing contract with ukraine over the port in sevastopol and have a large russian population. if they had concerns about either of those things, there were plenty of options to work with the international community to make sure those options were met. the weakness of vladimir putin domestically -- i agree with president obama on this -- he said this is a sign of russian weakness not russian strength -- his witness in his own country, looking for an external enemy to

distract people from his own governance and economic issues and forced him to take a step that was wholly unnecessary. russia without question right now is not a friendly nation to us or for that matter to the world and the international order and i hope vladimir putin takes a step back and realize is that doing that is not in the best interest of russia. host: the congressman has been looking internally in the u.s. and europe in terms of what we have provided and we can provide in the future. this is the headline from "the new york times" what is your reaction? thet: that misunderstands calculations of vladimir putin. it is true we have dramatically reduced air forces in europe but vladimir putin did not invade crimea because he thought the defense budget in the u.s. and europe was low enough he could get away with it. keep in mind, he invaded two provinces in georgia back in

2008 in our defense budget was $700 billion and we had just invaded and opposed to governments in iraq and afghanistan. it was not a calculation as to how weak or strong we were. it was a calculation as to what the rest of the world would do in response. in other words, his thinking was the rest of the world will not go to war over crimea and fundamentally he is right. he took a poll of people in the u.s., the overwhelming majority would say certainly not, we are not going to do that so he calculated that regardless of the size of the forces with not such we would respond. it's a miscalculation because that only looks at it in terms of whether militarily we could pop -- we could toss him out. what does this do to the russian economy and the credibility of the russian government? we are in a global economy. russia will have fewer partners and fewer people to work with them their economy will get worse and the credibility of the government will get worse. as i've mentioned, vladimir

putin has to mistake issues and people are not happy with the way he is running that government in russia. host: our guest will be with us until the top of the hour we have phone lines set aside for military personnel. guest is the ranking member of the house armed services committee. guest: we are less present militarily but i don't think that is the russian calculation. russia is not calculating whether or not they can successfully invade western europe. that was the cold war mentality. the reason we have 600,000 troops there was the fear that the soviet union would expand out of eastern europe and invade western europe and we wanted a sufficient deterrent to stop

them from doing that. there is no reason to believe that now. russia's interest in the ukraine and our interest in the ukraine and not be on that. our forethought reflected the threat and we could have had 600,000 troops in western europe. i don't think that would have changed his calculation. i don't believe he would have felt we would've sent the man. go back to the 1950's when vladimir putin went to czechoslovakia. we were arms to the teeth in western europe at that point. we did not respond to the soviet invasion of czechoslovakia because of the strategic calculation, not because of how many troops we had there. host: when the president called russia regional power, not a superpower, what was the reaction by vladimir putin? guest: his biggest trouble is he has to much pride. he is using it in the wrong direction. russia wants to be thought of as a global power and a global player and they're going about it all the wrong way. if you want to be a global

layer, grow yourself economically and have a more credible government. this is instructive about the ukraine. the reason that vladimir putin was concerned about ukraine is he saw the ukraine drifting towards the western orbit and he thought this weakens russia. said of ukraine dependent on russia, they will drift for the west. in fact, that is what russia needs to do. i need a better economic relationship with western europe and a better economic relationship with the u.s. if they're going to grow in power and influence, they need to engage in economically. look at countries like china and brazil and india now. morehave not gotten powerful by isolating themselves further from the west. they have gotten more powerful by engaging in the global economy and growing themselves. is going about it the exact opposite way so i'm sure he's offended via any things rush is a great power but you are not a great power if you isolate yourself from all the other great powers in the world. what will the u.s.

military look like and these are projections courtesy of the defense department. that. it's worse than those numbers you just cited -- the army is going from 590 down to 440 and the guard is going from 350 down to the 335 number. that is a stone the next round of sequestration, not happening. on the books right now, the law of the land is eight more years of sequestration starting in fiscal year 2016 which would trillion in over $1 further cuts from the military.

i don't think people fully understand the implications of that. to navy rightnow builds virginia class submarines per year and to combat ships and maintain 11 aircraft carriers and we will to destroy as per year. in sequestration, you will not be able to do any of that. the army will have to shrink down to 420000 and you will have to make even further cuts beyond which will jeopardize our national security, i believe. i'm not one to say that the defense budget cannot cut. we doubled the size of the defense was it over the course of 10 years and certainly we can ramp that back at a reasonable level. we can also spend the money better. we are familiar with the acquisitions that have wound up costing far more than we had expected. we can improve on that. it reaches a point where you are jeopardizing the fundamental mission. the second thing is, the things you mentioned that they will do

like adding rid of the a-10 and a variety of other decisions -- the army has a big decision to reduce its aviation fleet to save money -- if we do those things, you have a manageable military but there is political opposition to every one of those steps. if we do not do those things, what the military at up having to cut his readiness. training and equipment so that the troops we have are not trained properly and her crib and is not maintained and they are not actually ready to fight the fights we are supposed to prepare for. that is the hollow army you keep hearing about and that is the worst possible outcome. the budget is the budget. congress is not prepared to expand its you better be prepared to listen to the military about what they need to cut to make sure whatever size force they have it is ready and trained and equipped and equipment is maintained so they can fight whatever fight we send them out to do. host: cnbc as this graphic

comparing what the u.s. is spending on the military to the 10 other leading countries in . these are 2012 numbers. this is what defense secretary chuck hagel said about a month ago -- [video clip] goals forieve our overhead reductions without cutting unnecessary and costly infrastructure. for that reason, dod will ask congress for another round of a surreal and enclosures in 2017. congress hasthat not agreed to back requests in the last two years. if congress continues to block these requests, even as they slice the overall budget, we will have to consider every tool at our disposal to further

reduce infrastructure. host: guest: first of all, the secretary is right -- we need a brack. if we are going to shrink the size of the force particularly in the army and marine corps, we are estimated to have 25% too much infrastructure. that is a waste of money and hollow also leading to a force. if you spend money on base infrastructure, you don't need -- you are not spending it on readiness so i agree that we need a new brqack round. as far as the 10 countries you named, i'm not sure how saudi arabia made the list, they picked whatever 10 they picked -- we have different national security obligations in any of those countries great if we want to ram down our defense budget, we need to rethink what our national security responsibilities are. since world war ii, we have been the guarantors of security for

south korea and japan. north korea is poised to cross the border. they are incredibly unpredictable in terms of what they will do. stoppedary thing that them from invading south korea is the fact that they know we are there as a backup and we can stop them. we were very concerned after world war ii about a militarized japan which was part of the get japan not to rearm itself. we would be there as the guarantors of their security. and we are. that is expensive. it also comes the benefits. there has been a great deal of stability in asia in the last 30 or 40 years in part because we are there to deter bad actors like north korea from blowing things up and causing rawer wars. we will stop doing that. if we do that, what are the implications?

whole series of potential conflicts in that region largely over territory as they are looking to find natural resources in theseas around there. odds with each other over who controls a particular piece of territory. as the guarantors of that security, i believe we have enough of it. -- we have benefited. what would happen if we were not? would there be a war in the middle east that would blow up and destroy the global economy? threat frome the terrorists and therefore we have residence in the middle east and presence in africa and south asia which is designed to contain that terrorist threat. as a country, we are threatened in a way that none of those other countries on that list are. that's why we have the budget. that does not mean that our budget can be reduced substantially.

it will be less than 600 billion dollars next year so it is coming down. it does not mean our budget cannot be smaller and we cannot still meet those needs but they are smaller and there is a 10% per year cut for eight years and what does that do to our readiness? also the industrial base point -- our ability to build aircraft carriers and build destroyers and build jet fighters and tanks is an enormous lay important piece of our national security strategy. them forp building five years, do we lose the capability? it has happened in great britain. these are things that we in the united states have to consider that saudi arabia and brazil and all these other countries don't. if we want to totally restructure that, i guess we can have that conversation the let's not kid ourselves about the implications. host: now in his ninth term in the u.s. house of representatives, our guest is

adam smith, a graduate of university of washington. he is formally a member of the house intelligence committee. he is now the ranking democrat on armed services. ron is joining us from woodbridge, virginia on our line for military personnel. caller: good morning. whileed in congress for a and i'm a conservative and i don't agree with a couple of your social policies. that you are the smartest most well spoken member of the armed services committee. i appreciate your service. i have two questions -- when it comes to sequestration, when you look at that cut, is it really that bad? what they callt for, what can we ever cut when you talk about budgets and general? my second question is academic. we talk a lot about being a guarantor of security in different regions. in europe, would you agree or

disagree that perhaps we may be somewhat responsible for the debt crisis and different economic issues what we have guaranteed their security for the last 50 or 60 years. they have not had to make hard choices between security and the exorbitant social programs that a lot of us admire that we think we want to transplant to the united states. how do you think our security spending relative to the decision-making process of european partners and nato play into their decision-making? of thathe second part question is -- you are touching a whole lot of issues -- europe has a different loss of the about social spending. i'm not sure that philosophy would have been different had they had to spend money on defense. that has to do with their values and how they want to set up their health care system and the child care system and everything else they do. i'm not sure that if we were not there that that would have significantly changed that particular outcome. it might have, maybe if they had

to spend more money on defense that might have gone in a different direction. i think it's an interesting question. as for the first part of the question, yes, sequestration is that that. we can without question cut from the defense department. i hope that because we are forced to cut that we will actually start to make better decisions. there's a famous quotation from winston churchill who said we are out of money, now we have to think. i totally agree with that. the amount of money we have laser -- wasted last 10 years in the pentagon, we can find that savings but i have looked at the numbers are a closely and if you do the eight years of sequestration that are contemplated, you are going to ,ignificantly shrink our navy the readiness of our military forces. it is to my mind going too far. i say that as a person who is not opposed to reducing what we were thinking we were going to

spend on the defense budget. i think we can do that and i believe sequestration goes too far. host: this is from one of our viewers -- i'm not the mire with who might be interested in having the a-10's and i doubt we would want to give them away, we would probably sell them. it's a worthy idea to consider. host: we will go to tennessee, republican line. caller: good morning. we have a large military for defending americans on the outside but it is also important

to defend them on the inside. congress is supposed to defend americans. on 9/11, there is obvious evidence it was brought down by obvious demolition. host: we have had a number of callers on this. guest: i disagree with the assessment and i have seen the evidence and that is completely and totally wrong about what happened on 9/11. host: from st. paul, minnesota, good morning. caller: good morning, congressman smith. i want to point out how the >> we'll take you live to the house floor for likely votes. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] 430. the clerk: h.r. 4302, a bill to amend the social security act, to extend medicare payments to physicians and other provisions of the medicare and medicaid programs and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the question is, will the house suspend the rules and pass the

bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed and, without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, the unfinished business is the vote on the motion of the gentleman from california, mr. royce, to suspend the rules and a pass h.r. 4278 as amended on which the yeas and nays are ordered. the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 4278, a bill to support the independent sovereignty and territorial integrity of the ukraine and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the question is will the house suspend the rules and pals the bill as amended. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 398, the nays are 19. 2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative, -

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 399, the nays are 19. 2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed, a and, without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table.

mr. hoyer: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from maryland wish to be ecognized? he house will be in order. for what purpose does the gentleman from maryland wish to be recognized? mr. hoyer: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to speak out of order for one minute for the

purposes of inquiring of the majority leader for the schedule for the week to come. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. mr. hoyer: i am pleased to yield to mr. cantor. mr. cantor: mr. speaker, on monday the house is not in session. on tuesday the house will meet at noon for morning hour and 2:00 p.m. for legislative business. votes will be postponed until 6:30 p.m. on wednesday and thursday the house will meet at 10:00 a.m. for morning hour and noon for legislative business. on friday the house will meet at 9:00 a.m. for legislative business. last votes of the week are expected no later than 3:00 p.m. mr. speaker, the house will consider a few suspensions next week, a complete list of which will be announced by the close of business tomorrow. in abigs, the house will consider -- in addition, the house will consider an important bill to address the middle class squeeze by making sure that are government policies do not provide incentives for employers to cut their hours for their employees. h.r. 2575, the save american workers act, sponsored by representative todd young of

indiana, will protect hardworking americans from losing up to 25% of their wages as a direct result of obamacare's 30-hour rule. finally, mr. speaker, i expect the house to consider the first of three budget process reform bills next week to help reduce out-of-control spending and improve accountability to the taxpayers. representative tom price, pro-growth budgetsing act, h.r. 1874, will require c.b.o. to provide detailed information on the economic impact of major legislation as a supplement to c.b.o. cost estimates. with that i thank the gentleman and i yield my time. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for that information. the gentleman released an agenda memo about a week ago, i think, and talked about a budget coming to the floor of the house of representatives. my understanding is that the budget will be marked up in committee next week.

then, my presumption is when we come back, the budget will be on the floor. is that correct? and if the gentleman can give me some sort of maybe week that it will be on the floor, if not a day, and i yield to my friend. mr. cantor: mr. speaker, i thank the gentleman. he's correct. the budget chairman, mr. ryan, intends to hold a markup next ek in his committee, and the expectation is once that markup occurs next week that we will have the budget on the floor the following week. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for those comments. further, it's my understanding, mr. leader, that the budget number that the committee will mark to is the budget number that was included in the ryan-murray agreement that was adopted by the congress and signed by the president at one -- $1.014 billion in discretionary spending. is that accurate? i'd yield to my friend.

mr. cantor: mr. speaker, that is accurate. mr. hoyer: furthermore, i ask the majority leader -- i appreciate that's being honored. can the gentleman tell me whether or not the firewall that's also included in the ryan-murray agreement will be honored as well? and i yield to my my friend. the firewall, as the majority leader knows, between discretionary, defense spending and discretionary, nondefense spending and i yield to my friend. mr. cantor: mr. speaker, i'd say to the gentleman, i have not had the discussion with the chairman on that particular issue. i'm aware of the gentleman's concern. and i think the gentleman represents his caucus in the desire. unfortunately, to limit the defense spending, i think the question is aimed that we have differences in that. given what's going on in the world right now, feel very strongly for the need for american military power and our

ability to project that. not always necessarily, mr. speaker, to use it but necessary in our diplomatic role as well. so i don't have the answer to the gentleman on that and would refer him to the budget chair or i'm glad to engage in any conversation with him going forward. i yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman. just to make it clear, as i know he would want me to do, i'm opposed to the sequester because i think the sequester damages our national security and domestic investments. and frankly, although the $1.014 number is not the sequester number, as the gentleman knows, the following year will be the sequester number because the agreement only lasts for two years. 124 wn view is that the $1.0 number that is in 2015 is not substantive enough, not sufficient funds to fund the kind of national security that we need in this country. so i am in agreement with the gentleman, but it is a direct

consequence, in my view, of the fiscal policies that we've been pursuing. so i want to say my friend, the majority leader, mr. speaker, that we on this side, certainly me, for 33 years, has been a very strong supporter of a robust national security because i believe that is essential if we're going to maintain freedom around the world as well as safety here at home. so i know the gentleman and i share that view. so i appreciate his view on that. unless he wants to respond, i'll go to another issue. as you know, we filed a discharge petition on the h.r. 15, which is the compe hencive immigration bill that we introduced that reflects, we think, a fix of a broken system which the majority leader has made clear he shares the view that the system is broken. we would hope that that bill

could be brought to the floor. we would hope at least 218 members would sign that. we have approximately 230 to 235 members that said publicly to the press and to the public that they are for comprehensive immigration reform. we would hope that that would lead them to sign the discharge petition so that we in fact could bring that bill to the floor. does the gentleman have any idea when or if some immigration reform legislation will be brought to this floor so we can deal with a system that is obviously causing a great deal of difficulty in our country and is in fact a broken system? and i yield to my friend. mr. cantor: mr. speaker, i'd say to the gentleman he knows and he and i spoken most our conference feels that the existing system is broken. we've got to do something about maintaining the enforcement implementation of the law.

we have to do something about the antiquated system of legal immigration to address the needs of our country. the problem has been, mr. speaker, that there is a serious detoreiation in the trust factor with what's -- deterioration in the trust factor with what's going on with the white house and the implementation of the excuse of laws. mr. speaker, i remember a prior conversation that my friend, the democratic whip, and i have had on this floor about the trust factor, and i in one instance even indicated to the gentleman that the comprehensive health care law that was passed, now the venack hr known as obamacare -- vin ack lahr known as obamacare, that we have seen the white house by whim chosen to either waive provisions, extend deadlines without consultation

with congress, seemingly without awareness of what the law says. and that's not a good way to operate. it is not something that increases the confidence and trust of the american people. and so i would say to the gentleman, there's no interest in picking up a comprehensive bill like that if we can't trust that once the law is set that the white house is going implement the law as it stands. perhaps the gentleman can do some good by talking to the white house and telling the white house the law is the law d for their unilateral actions taking place and failing to implement the law is a very troubling thing for a lot of us and a lot of the constituents that we represent. i yield back.

mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman. mr. speaker, when i asked this question we usually do change the subject to get on the affordable care act. there's hardly any subject that motivates my friends on the other side of the aisle more to say something than the affordable care act. if the gentleman believes that trust is the issue and that we can't trust the president to do any of the laws that we pass, then we ought to just stop doing things. as a matter of fact, that's just about what we've done, mr. speaker. maybe that's the strategy, to pass message bills with no expectation that they will pass either the senate or be signed by the president and maybe all we're doing is threading water. my own view, mr. speaker, would be that the american public expects more than that. and if it's broken, as the gentleman says it is and he says just now a significant number -- i don't know majority or not -- of his caucus

believes it's broken, then they have passed bills out of their committees. this is not a question of trust. it's a question of whether this house can pass it. we can't control what the united states senate does. as the majority leader knows, mr. speaker, in times past what i said is we can pass policy that we think is good policy or what a majority of us thinks is good policy to fix a system. we believe strongly that a comprehensive immigration bill is good for this country. not only do we believe it's morally right to do, but we also believe that economically it's right to do. in fact, c.b.o. scores the passage of a comprehensive immigration bill as a substantial, substantial help to the budget deficit. that we take people, put them on the tax rolls, make sure they're paying the taxes that are due and make sure that our

country is getting the revenues that it should be getting from those who are working in our country. in fact, of course, in addition to that, if you talked to many people in industry, which is why the u.s. chamber of commerce has urged us to pass a comprehensive immigration reform bill. it's why the afl-cio has urged us to pass a comprehensive immigration reform bill. it is why the agricultural committee, the growers of america have urged us to pass a comprehensive immigration bill. and it is why farm workers' representatives have urged us to pass a comprehensive immigration reform bill. and why most faith-based organizations in america have urged us to pass a comprehensive immigration reform bill. i know there are some members that would vote against it, but i'd urge my friend, the majority leader, bring it to the floor. i've said this before but the speaker made it very clear, he was going to lead this house in

a way that would allow the house to work its will. if the majority of this house doesn't trust the president and they don't want to vote for h.r. 15, so be it. they will do that. they will vote no. but i believe there are votes on the floor to pass comprehensive immigration reform, and the only reason it's not passing is because it's not brought to the floor. for that reason, mr. majority leader, i would ask you as respectfully as i can to put the bill on the floor. you may well be right. your party, which if it all votes together, we could defeat a comprehensive immigration bill. if your party believes that that is good policy and because of a lack of trust of the president, that should be the road that you go down, then fine. let the american people see that. f, however, there are at least -- at least very close to half

of this house who have already going to be signing that discharge petition believe that it is good policy, and if in fact speaker boehner meant what he said, that he was going to allow the house to work its will, i would urge the majority leader to let the house work its will and bring that bill to the floor. open it up for amendments. if the gentleman's party wants to offer amendments or my side wants to offer the amendments, let that be the case. but at least have the house have the opportunity to work its will on this very, very important bill that we think is one of the most critical issues that we ought to be addressing. and i'll yield to my friend if he'd like to respond. mr. cantor: mr. speaker, all i need to say -- would like to say to the gentleman is he and i disagree that there be a majority vote for h.r. 15. it's a reflection of the comprehensive senate bill.

and i don't believe we have a majority in this house for that bill. and i'd furthermore ask the gentleman whether he thinks -- or i would just say perhaps it would be more constructive that we sit down and begin to talk about where we -- where we can go in a direction that we have in common, that we feel we can agree on things rather than differences, rather than filing discharge petitions, perhaps it would be a little bit more constructive to sit down instead of demanding our way or the highway. again, too much of that is the way this town has worked over the last several years and it's unfortunate. i yield back. . mr. hoyer: i thank the speaker for his remarks. he and i have a difference of opinion. he thinks it would not pass. the i think it would pass. the good news for america is, there is a very easy way to determine who is right and who is wrong.

put the bill on the floor. give the house a vote. give america a vote. and if i'm wrong, i will stand up on the floor of the house and say, i was wrong. and i'm sure that my friend, the majority leader, will do the same if, in fact, he is wrong. but we have an easy way in america to resolve such differences. because we all have differences of opinion. and in a democracy you vote. in a democracy you resolve differences by coming together, and i look forward to sitting down with the gentleman on this issue and would reiterate i look forward to dealing with him on other issues as we have been able to do in many instances. i thank him for that opportunity. we can resolve this difference by simply bringing the bill to the floor, giving america a vote, and letting the house work its will. unless the gentleman wants to say something further, i yield back the balance of my time. i yield back the balance of my time.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? mr. cantor: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that when the house adjourns today it adjourn to meet at 11:00 a.m. tomorrow. and when the house adjourns on that day, it adjourn to meet on tuesday, april 1, 2014, when it shall convene at noon for morning hour debate and 2:00 p.m. for legislative business. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the chair will now entertain requests for one-minute speeches. for what purpose does the gentlelady from minnesota wish o be recognized? without objection. the gentlelady from minnesota is recognized. mrs. bachmann: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today to exnies an extremely important person. today marks 25 years that kim ruben has worked here on capitol

hill. in the 1980's, kim ruben accepted an internship with former congressman jack kemp, from her home state of new york. she's come a long way since then, and she has been with me, i'm proud to say, since day one that i served in the united states congress. i have never met anyone more loyal, more dependable, or more organized. not only does kim coordinate our office's schedule and those of our entire staff, she works diligently as our office manager. and somehow she still has the time and energy to be a dedicated wife to her loving husband, howie, and also to her two beautiful daughters, lectiony and libby. she's also -- lexy and libby. she's also a volleyball coach. her neighboring name is coach k. as kim says her life is centered on faith, family, and pursuing what makes you happy. i don't know how kim does it all, but it's been an honor to work with kim ruben for these past eight years.

while we will part ways after we both retire this year, i know i have a lifelong friend in kim ruben. congratulations and thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? >> request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. mr. speaker, the endangered species act was signed into law in 1973. in order to preserve, protect, and recover key domestic species. the e.s.a. has also contained a citizen lawsuit provision which allows private citizens and in many cases special interest organizations to sue federal agencies and private landowners for allegedly failing to comply with e.s.a. taxpayers are on the hook even when the federal government prevails. the forest service, which i have the privilege of holding

jurisdiction over as chairman of the agriculture subcommittee on conservation and energy and forestry, must supply with e.s.a. before engaging in any type of forest management activity. which is the agency's most basic and fundamental role. protecting species is our goal, but unfortunately this provision has been used as a tool by those who would like to halt land management activities. the financial impact of these activities in the forest service is significant, posing a threat to the forest health, economic well-being of local communities, and also the species we are aiming to protect. we must replace a flawed policy with one that protects taxpayers and species restoration. but also the health of our forests and our local economy. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the entleman's time has expired. the chair lays before the house the following personal request. the clerk: leave of absence requested for mr. wenstrup of

ohio for today. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the request is granted. the chair will recognize members for special order speeches without reg disto the possible resumption of legislative business. -- without prejudice to the possible resumption of legislative business. under the speaker's announced policy of january 3, 2013, the gentleman from texas, mr. gohmert, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader. mr. goalert: thank -- mr. gohmert: thank you, mr. speaker. a surprising twist today. who says there's nothing surprising in washington. we were told there was a potential for a bill to come to

the floor today over -- to deal s.g.r., issue of the sustainable growth rate, or the doc fix as it's sometimes called. and there had been some disagreement in our party what would be the best way to handle it. we had a bill, one-year extension, one-year that included some other things that some of the people that are providing the care that haven't been properly treated in reimbursement areas were not happy about. so it appeared we didn't have -- our leaders may not have had the votes. by the surprise that it was voice voted and no one asked for a recorded vote because normally, see, we trust our leaders that if there's an mportant bill that our

leadership understands someone here, on a bill, will request a recorded vote and we'll get a recorded vote and we'll all be able to either vote for, vote against. otherwise we have to keep people here all the time. and it did bring back to mind the time that was not so fond sometimes -2008, 2009 and 2010 when on the first day back in washington, whether it was a monday or tuesday, the first day, there's suspension bills. those are bills that are expected to pass and have 2/3 of the body vote for them, naming courthouses, naming federal buildings, recognizing some important person or deed, those type of things. and they are generally agreed to. despite all the negativity in washington, those are things

that we agree to constantly. both sides of the aisle work together on getting accomplished. but we saw very quickly after republicans lost the majority in november of 2006, sometimes republican leadership would agree to allow some suspensions to go when it was extremely important, it should never have been brought to the floor on suspension, which means it doesn't go through subcommittee, doesn't go through committee, just comes to the floor without having gone through rules committee, and that's why it takes 2/3 of a vote because it's bypassed the normal procedure. so there were a handful of us that decided back in 2007, since republican leadership at that time were agreeing to things that we knew our other friends in the republican side, some friends on the democratic side, would never vote for, if it was

a recorded vote, where everyone had the chance to vote, i started flying back early, i know tom price did at times, lynn westmoreland did at times, but i got to where i was flying back even if i thought somebody else was covering the floor. but the reason was to make sure that since we couldn't trust that our leadership would not agree to some bill that we thought was hurtful to the country, was hurtful to the constitution, or to our constituents, we had to be here to ask for a recorded vote. went unnoticed except by leadership, staff on both sides, and it got to where when i came to the floor and would sit here for three or four hours, i would have staff come up, usually democratic staff since they were in the majority, and say, well, obviously you're concerned about some issue. sometimes i would just -- i was just here to object to make sure

nothing was brought to the floor without any notice. sometimes there was a particular suspension that i felt should have a recorded vote. so i would show up and i would, after the voice vote, request a recorded vote. and that's why staff started coming up and saying, look, which one are you going to demand a recorded vote on? are you going to object to? sometimes i would get up and speak against the bill. but it got to where if i had an objection, they knew, because i had done it, between the time of the call for a recorded vote, would go back to my office, i would type up a notice on why a bill was not a good bill, and i would be standing at the door getting a few other people to stand at other doors to hand out little flyers to members of congress as they came to the floor explaining why it wasn't a good bill.

sometimes i won. sometimes i lost. but all you had to get was one more than 1/3 of the votes to bring down a suspension. so we were able to deal with that issue and make sure that people knew you're going to try to pull that stuff, we are going to have people sit here so that you can't just pass something on a voice vote. without it being called for a recorded vote. so i was very surprised today that with us in the majority, our own leadership in charge, something as important as the doctor fix would be brought to the floor on a voice vote. i would have come over earlier except there was a recess, back in session, recess, back in session. i didn't know how long the recesses were going to be. now i know that i need to get with some other members and meak sure we have people on the floor -- make sure we have people on

the floor since we won't be sure what our own leadership is going to do. that's very unfortunate. it's unfortunate. need to be able to trust your own leadership. mr. speaker, i think it's on another matter very important hat we note that this year's margaret sanger award will go to former speaker nancy pelosi, i have an article here from american thinker, dated yesterday. jeanie deangelos wrote the article. i won't read it all, but it points out any woman willing to call late term abortion, sacred ground" and make false accusations that the opposing political party voting for the protect life act would leave pregnant women dying on the floor, dying on the floor in quotes, deserves an award named

ue genesis, as margaret sanger. nancy pelosi will be given the margaret sanger award, which planned parenthood considers its, quote, highest honor, unquote. further down it says a committed socialist, margaret sanger once said, quote, my own personal feelings drew me toward the individualist anarchist philosophy, but it seemed necessary to approach the idea by way of socialism, sanger said. she also said this, this is the great day of social planning. we have come to believe in planning the production and distribution of goods. we plan methods of governing

cities, states in the nation, we plan jobs and leisure time activities and vacations, we plan almost everything, big and little. except families. sanger goes on to say, it can scarcely do any harm, and it may do a vast amount of good, to engage in thoughtful planning of our population, a population with a still larger percentage f happy families. an activist for the social party, sanger believed, quote, the more radical the ideas the more conservative you must be n your dress, unquote. aul said, quote, dresses his crusade in vestments of morality, unquote. from margaret sanger, the

article says, ugenics was an avenue to improve the human race. by discouraging people with genetic defects or undesirable traits, black, immigrants and poor people whom she called, quote, human weeds, reckless breeders spawning human beings who never should have been born. further down, it points out is italian nancy losi, had grandparents who emigrated to the united states from italy. without them she wouldn't be here receiving an award. in the birth control review, sanger published an article

entitled, "birth control and acial betterment." in 1934, sanger wrote an article entitled, "america plea a code for babies: for equal distribution of births." ms. sanger's baby code said people with bad genes or disgenetic groups should be given a choice between sterilization and segregation. those who willingly chose sterilization should be awarded by going to a superior race. sanger issued -- suggested parenthood permits with no more han one birth. margaret sanger's legacy is one

of murder, racism, revulsion for the handicapped, intrinsic disgust for the male gender and a form of twisted radicalism at viewed god-ordained marriage in the life of contempt. her life's legacy was curing what she viewed as the, quote, urgent problem, unquote, of how to limit and discourage the overfertility of mentally and physically defective, unquote. well, it should be noted that in the past our former secretary of state, secretary clinton, received the same margaret sanger award who eugenics, to limit the birth of races who were

perhaps too poor, that she thought were disgenetic. this article from actually arch 31, 2009, catholic online points out that a day before receiving the planned parenthood federation of america's highest award, the margaret sanger aware, u.s. secretary of state hillary clinton played a visit to the basilica of guadalupe in mexico city leaving a bouquet of white flowers on behalf of the american people. leaving the basilica later, secretary clinton told some of the mexicans gathered outside to greet her, quote, you have a marvelous virgin, unquote. the following day, friday, march 27, clinton was in houston to receive the margaret sanger award named for the rganization's founder, a noted

eugenicist. secretary clinton, according to a state department transcript of secretary clinton's remarks said this, quote, i admire margaret sanger enormously. her courage, her tenacity, her vision. when i think about what she did all those years ago in brooklyn, taking on archtypes, taking on attitudes and accusations flowing from all directions, i am really in awe of her. another article points out from "the weekly standard," april 15, 2009, that secretary linton stands by her praise of eugenicist margaret sanger. she points out, now, i have to tell you it was a great privilege when i was told i would receive this award. i admire margaret sanger enormously. her courage, her tenacity, her vision.

well, it is probably worth margaret actly what sanger stood for when she is so admired by our secretary of state hillary clinton who could end up being president and our former speaker of the house, nancy pelosi. let's look at exactly what margaret sanger said. here are some quotes. from margaret sanger. she says the most merciful thing that the large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it. that's margaret sanger. that's margaret sanger whose was adorns an award that so revered by secretary clinton and now by former speaker pelosi. that's unbelievable. that anybody would be held in high esteem, who would make

that statement, the most merciful thing that the large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it. for heaven's sake. that's not all. he had plenty more to say. she said we should apply stern and rigid policy of sterilization and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is tainted or whose inherentans is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring. in her -- and that was from plan for peace from birth control review, april, 1932. e first quote i read was woman and the new race from chapter 6, the wickedness of creating large families. but then from america needs a code for babies in march of 1934, article 1, the purpose of

the american baby code shall be to provide for a better distribution of babies. and it protects society against the propagation and increase of the unfit. it's important to note here that what this kind of code does is say that we need a governing body that will decide who they think is fit and who they think is unfit. gee. how about that? in obamacare we have a panel that will decide, you get a pacemaker, you don't get a pacemaker. we know your hip is giving you a lot of pain, but you're just not worth a new hip. you need a new knee, we looked at your life, we looked at your age, you don't get a new knee. you just suffer and die. i mean, it's unbelievable that

a bill would pass that sets up a board that will decide who can get a pacemaker that will allow them to live and who will not. who will get the life-saving medication and who will not. i don't want an insurance company making that decision. i don't want the government making that decision. i had a bill that would avoid that kind of thing, but of course it didn't come to the floor when democrats were in the majority. they brought instead obamacare. setting up that board. well, let's go back to quotes from margaret sanger. article 4 from her "america needs a code for babies" says, no woman shall have a legal right to bear a child. no man shall have a right to become a father without a permit. hey, there's good news. l you have to do is be

politically ingreatiated enough in the government under margaret sanger's code and they'll give you a permit to have a baby because they'll consider you fit. chances are if you are an imposing political view, then those who are handing out the permits, you don't get a permit because you may have a child that disagrees with the people handing out the permits. of course, article 6, no permit for parenthood shall be valid for more than one birth, margaret sanger. she also said in 1932, april, rth control review, give disgenic groups, that's people with bad genes, in our population segregation or compullsory sterilization. -- compulsory sterilization.

in 1922 she said, birth control must lead ultimately to a cleaner race. gee. the nazis were pretty good at pushing a cleaner race, but thank god they were completely wrong about the white superhuman race. always loved that about jesse owen. he went to the heart of the nazis and showed them about their superhuman race and here we have a woman, margaret sanger, being held in such great high esteem who thinks we need a cleaner race. according to her whims. mr. speaker, i see we have visitors here. i will yield. the speaker pro tempore: the chair will receive a message. the messenger: mr. speaker, a message from the senate. the secretary: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: madam

secretary. the secretary: i have been directed by the senate to inform the house that the senate has passed with an amendment, h.r. 4152, an act to provide for the -- for loan guarantees of ukraine in which the concurrence of the house is requested. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas may proceed. mr. gohmert: thank you, mr. speaker. here's another quote from the esteemed margaret sanger. this is from the need for birth control in america, as quoted by angela franks. such parents swell the pathetic ranks of the unemployed. feeble-mindedness perpetuates itself from the ranks who are blandly indifferent to their racial responsibilities. and it is largely this type of humanity that we are now drawing upon to populate our world for the generations to come. in this orgy of multiplying and replenishing the earth, this ype is multiplying and

perpetuating those direct evils in which we must if vilization is to survive extricate by the very roots. another quote. this is from family limitation, margaret sanger's eighth edition in 1918. women of the working class, especially wage workers, should not have more than two children at most. the average working man can support no more and the average working woman can take care of no more in decent fashion. so that's margaret sanger. she's there to tell the world repeatedly that we need a government that will restrict the feeble-minded or maybe these disgusting, according to her, these women that work for

wages, we can't let them have many children. and yet some had the nerve to say that republicans have a war on women. heroine of k at the e left and she was for eugenics, she was a racist, she was a classist, a divider who wanted and thought the best thing a large family could do consider baby, we er a hero? almighty god. u know, i know my friends on the other side of the aisle don't have a single person in this side of the aisle who want children to go hungry and they

don't want children to have a worse life than we have. i know that. but it's all about the way of getting there. so when those of us who think the best thing a person could have for their own self-respect and their own freedom and their own ability to remove them self from the ties and chains, the strings that come with money from the government is to get them a job. grow the economy so they can have a job and the self-respect and the freedom that comes from that. . i know the best of intentions on the other side of the aisle, but i don't think that you help individuals by paying them not to work. let's get the economy going so they can work and be free from

all the strings and entanglements that come from handouts from the government. but i would never call somebody on the other side of the aisle a racist or a hater of the poor. so it gets a little disgusting when i hear that about me on my side of the aisle. we don't want anybody to suffer. ut we have seen the likes of margaret sanger who think they know better and get the government in charge and then we'll order people either be sterilized, and we'll give you money if you'll be sterilized. that's what government does. strings come with the money. always does. we need the government to give out less money because people need less money because they are able to earn it for themselves with all the freedom that means.

that's what we want for america. that's what the founders wanted. and that makes for a much more ree america. and in that regard when it comes to freedom i know people that voted for obamacare thought it was going to be a great idea even though most of them had never read it, like i did. because i could see it was a threat to all kinds of freedoms. and i could see before the vote there were provisions in there that allowed for clinics getting federal money to provide abortion, to have insurance policies that would end up providing abortion. d so i was shocked this week to be over at the supreme court, i wasn't in the courtroom, i was listening in a side room for

members of the supreme court bar, but to hear somebody on the supreme court actually take the position, just pay the tax and then you can have your religious views. the power to tax is the power to destroy. our founders knew that. taxation helped cause a revolution. and in fairness to the people of the district of columbia, they are the only group who, under the constitution, is not allowed to have a full voting member of congress, who is required nonetheless to pay federal income tax. puerto rico, samoa, mariana islands, all those that are territories which under the constitution are not entitled to

a full voting representative, do not pay federal income tax. franklin made clear during the revolution that if we do not get to elect one member of the parliament, then that parliament has no right to put taxes on us. i agree. so i got a bill, democrats were in charge, they wouldn't bring my bill to the floor, republicans are in the majority, they haven't so far. our leaders haven't. but i think it's only fair that we get to vote for a full voting member of the house. so in fairness the way to fix that legislatively is just to do for the district of columbia what we do for puerto rico, guam, samoa, mariana islands, you don't pay federal income tax. hat would be fair. there's all kinds of things that aren't fair, but when it comes to intrusions by the government

on to religious beliefs, the that it ot be drawn so excludes religious beliefs. and the ability to practice them. for anyone, especially a supreme court justice, even someone who worked for president obama as solicitor general, who said, gee, and i'm paraphrasing because she didn't say these words, i never did my job when it came to obamacare. i didn't talk to the administration about it. i didn't know anything -- i didn't talk to them about what would help them when it came before the supreme court. so i didn't do my job as solicitor general and that's why i'm qualified to be on the supreme court. unfortunately, the senate bought implied that's the position. they bought that.

she's on the supreme court. she likes in to the hobby lobby attorney immediately. but to come around and say, just pay the tax. and you can have your religious beliefs. practice your religious beliefs. not that expensive. what's next? what's next? as a judge who has signed death penalty orders, i have struggled with that issue. i believe in some cases it's appropriate. thought it was totally appropriate in jasper, texas, after three people were convicted of dragging a african-american behind their truck. i wouldn't have had a problem with once they had a fair trial, fair appeal, properly convicted, i wouldn't have had a problem with a law that said, the victims' family gets to choose the truck and terrain over which they drag the defendants to

their deaths. but when we give the power to decide who gets to practice religious firm -- firmly held religious beliefs to a supreme majority o a 218-vote in the house, this republic and the freedoms it's provided more than any nation in history can't be much longer for the world. not those freedoms. not when congress will stand by and allow those to be taken. and i think everybody that was here for that vote on obamacare knows good and well if the intention of this government had been made clear that they were going to force people to go against firmly held catholic

beliefs, christian beliefs, that ill would have never passed. and now they seek to enforce what would never have passed if their intentions had been made clear is before the supreme court and who knows what they will do. mr. speaker, my hopes and prayers are still for the ongoing of religious freedom promised under the first amendment that they will not be taken away on our watch. but that kind of depends on the american people and the people they put in office and the people they allow to serve on the supreme court. ith that i yield back.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. under the speaker's announced policy of january 3, 2013, the gentleman from oregon, mr. blumenauer, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader. mr. braur: thank you, mr. speaker -- mr. blumenauer: thank you, mr. speaker. the history of our country, our economic development, is predicated on our infrastructure development. early in our history canals, ports, postal roads, 152 years ago the transcontinental railroad was audacious at the time. but proved to be a critical element of tying our nations together, fueling economic growth and communication. later we had the interstate freeway system which had its genesis going back over a century. nurtured in the basement of franklin roosevelt's white

house, signed into law and advocated by president eisenhower. one wonders, could this congress in washington, d.c. today have produced the transcontinental railroad? the interstate highway system? provided the resources to resolve the research to send humans to the moon? you have to pay for it. you have to take a risk. you have to have a plan and design. is y it appears that that lacking at this point. i spent years on the transportation and infrastructure committee which i finally left to go to ways and means and to serve on the budget committees to try and deal with the financing issue. highway trust fund is exhausted. it's not just that the

re-authorization extension expires on september 30, but we ave drawn the trust fund balances down to zero. it is already starting to be felt around the country. because you cannot manage the multibillion dollars' worth of commitments that the federal government has made in partnership with state and local communities and the private sector without having some range of a financial cushion, probably on the order of $4 billion. so that means that the federal government is going to start delaying the release of funding and having to choose which obligations it honors well before september 30. that means cutting back funding this summer is going to make a

difference for local communities later this spring. already states are dealing with this uncertainty and making decisions, putting at risk in .ome cases construction i think we have reached the point that there are no more tin cans to kick over, seat cushions to reach behind. that doesn't make sense to use sleight of hand to use another general fund fix. we have transferred outright over $50 billion to the general fund since 2008. back filled ised by using the recovery act, so-called stimulus funding, we made an adjustment in the tax code dealing with provisions for

-- in retirement benefits that were adjusted that somehow gave us a little head room, that enabled us to have a 27-month extension. but we are running out of these fixes, and we are not giving the certainty that the private sector, that local governments, that state governments, that our communes need to be able to deal with the more -- communities need to deal with the more complicated longer term projects, especially those that may involve more than one state, those that may be multimodal in nature. these expensive and complicated projects requires steady, stable sources of funding. mr. speaker, it has been 21 years since the federal government last adjusted the gas tax.

1993. that's back when gasoline was $1.08 a gallon. it's back when there were fewer demands in terms of the highway trust fund. when cars were less fuel efficient. in the course of that time we've watched inflation eat away at the value of that 18.4 cents a gallon that people pay for their federal gas tax, and because people are using more fuel efficient cars, and because the vehicle miles traveled have been reduced for nine consecutive years, the amount that the individual pays per mile to support our federal transportation infrastructure has been cut by more than 50%.

and congress has been dancing around this issue. i have proposed that we adopt the recommendation of the simpson-bowles commission that was so wildly heralded three years ago. i would note that it is supported by the u.s. chamber of commerce, by the afl-cio, by local governments, by transit agencies, environmentalists, by professional groups and organizations, local officials. it's interesting that the a.a.a., representing auto users, and the trucking industry have both said, federal government, you should raise the fuel tax. not that we're wild about the

fuel tax but because the costs of not doing it are going to cost our motorists, going to cost our trucking industry and the american economy far more than the few cents per gallon that would be paid. i've also introduced legislation that would extend the vehicle mile traveled experiment that oregon's been doing over the course of the last 10 years that would allow states to experiment with a different approach, that wouldn't be based on gallons of fuel consumed but based on actual road use so that people can experiment for themselves to see if this is a promising solution. mr. speaker, for the last 15 years i've watched blue ribbon commissions come forward impaneled by republicans and democrats. i've listened to the testimony from the business community, from organized labor, from

local government, from experts all across the scale who have recommended that we step up and adequately fund the highway trust account so we can provide the certainty, the capacity to be able to rebuild and renew america. i, for one, am open to all sorts of suggestions, but it's interesting to note when my friend paul ryan introduced his tax reform proposal that would have allowed some space for the highway trust fund, which was announced on the same day that president obama, who i think sincerely is interested in infrastructure, a proposal for $300 billion -- over $300 billion, that both proposals were pronounced dead on arrival , that they had no political

backing, they had very little likelihood of being passed. and when they made their announcements, they were not joined by labor, by business, by local government, by the professions, by people in both parties who are concerned with getting on with business. i will have more to say but i have been joined by a couple of my colleagues who are concerned about this, who have been working in this arena, who have some proposals and i would turn first to my colleague from maryland, mr. delaney, who has been working in this space, adding to the conversation in a way to help us move forward and i would be happy to yield to him for some comments. mr. delaney: thank you, mr. speaker, and thank you, my good friend from oregon, for really your singular leadership on this issue and your unwaiving commitment to make sure these

problems get solved. mr. speaker, every two years the american society of civil engineers does an analysis of the u.s. infrastructure needs, an assessment of our infrastructure as it relates to our competitors around the world. and in this last analysis they did, they produced a report card where they graded each component of u.s. infrastructure. and they also gave us a composite grade and that grade was a d-plus, a d-plus, mr. speaker, was the grade that the u.s. infrastructure received from the american society of civil engineers. and they estimated further that the amount of investment we would need to make as a country to bring our infrastructure up to a high standard is $3 trillion to $4 trillion. $3 trillion to $4 trillion, mr. speaker, is the gap, the investment gap in the infrastructure in the united states of america. this creates a very significant challenge for us as a nation as we look to compete in a global and technology-enabled world

and to successfully compete in a global and technology-enabled world, you need world-class transportation, energy, communications, infrastructure to be able to compete successfully. but it also creates a great opportunity for us as a nation, because investing in our infrastructure is proven to be one of the great jobs programs in this country. it creates middle-skill jobs, infrastructure disproportionately creates middle-skill jobs which is what we need in this country. we are creating high-skill jobs at a decent rate. we're creating low-skill jobs at a decent rate, but we're not creating middle-skill jobs for middle-class americans, the people that saved this country and save the world. and that's a travesty. it happens to pencil out, mr. speaker, across time the data suggests that for every $1 we spend on infrastructure, we get

$1.92 economic benefit as a nation. so it will create jobs in the short term. it will make us more competitive in the long term, and it's a fundamentally good investment for us to make as a country. and as we think about filling this infrastructure hole, we should analyze how we invest in infrastructure in this country. and there's really four ways we do it. first, government. federal government, state governments, local governments actually grant money to build infrastructure, particularly infrastructure that is used for the public or common good. and that's an important role of government, and government is unique in its ability to do that. the second way we build infrastructure is through financing it with user fees. things like the highway trust fund that my colleague referred to has largely been financed through a gas tax. other examples, airports, etc., where we charge user fees and that money is collected and we build infrastructure with it. the third way we build infrastructure is through public-private partnerships, where we go for the private sector and we get the private sector to build the infrastructure. and then finally the fourth way

we build infrastructure is we finance it. in other words, state governments and local governments borrow money to build infrastructure. these are the four ways we build infrastructure in this country, and if we actually want to close this infrastructure investment gap that we have, if we actually want to close this $3 trillion to $4 trillion gap, if we want to bring our infrastructure from a d-plus grade to something we'd be more proud of like an a grade, we need to be bolstering all four of these methods. but the good news, mr. speaker, is that there are bipartisan ways of doing all of these things, and that's what we need to focus on. one example of bipartisan -- of a bipartisan solution to this problem is a piece of legislation that i introduced with several colleagues almost a year ago. it's called the partnership to build america act. and the partnership to build america act, as of today, has 29 house republicans on it and 29 house democrats on it. it was also introduced in the senate about a month ago with a

dozen senators also bipartisan. so right now, mr. speaker, the partnership to build america act is the most significant piece of bipartisan economic legislation in the whole of the congress. and what it does is creates a large-scale infrastructure financing vehicle called the american infrastructure fund which will be capitalized for 50 years and be used by states and local governments to build and finance infrastructure. but the money in the american infrastructure fund, mr. speaker, is not put in by the federal government but is put in by corporations who invest bonds over low cost 50 years. as an incentive to put this money in, we allow them to bring back some of their overseas earnings, cash back to the united states tax-free. almost half of corporate cash is sitting overseas because of flaws in our international tax system. this allows for over $200 billion of that money to come

back, a quarter of which would have to be invested in the american infrastructure fund and create a 50-year revolving financing vehicle to help close this gap. so mr. speaker, the partnership to build america act is a real example of bipartisan progress to solve an important problem facing this nation to get americans to work, make us more competitive in the long term and use our precious resources in a wise and prudent manner that pencils out. it will be the category killer for the financing challenge we have around infrastructure. so mr. speaker, i'll close by reminding everyone of the importance of this issue. investing in our infrastructure should be our top domestic economic priority. it should be our top jobs program. we should be bolstering all the ways we have in this nation to build infrastructure, and we can do it, mr. speaker, in a bipartisan way. thank you. i yield back to my friend from oregon. mr. blumenauer: thank you. i appreciate the gentleman joining us and couldn't agree more about the critical nature

of investing in our economy and putting people to work. millions of jobs are at stake. jobs that won't be outsourced overseas. and i appreciate your joining in that conversation. mr. speaker, i would like next to turn to the dean of the oregon delegation, someone with whom i've been privileged to work for over three decades. congressman peter defazio is a senior member of the transportation and infrastructure committee, ranking member of natural resources, somebody who i have found to be tireless in his promotion of infrastructure nvestment, creative in terms of ways to approach it. mr. speaker, i think a number of us would be open to any mechanism that provides steady,

predictable resources that would be able to meet the needs because before you can have public-private partnerships, you can deal with financing you have to have the underlying funding. and there's nobody who's spent more time and creativity and taken more risks to advance that than my friend and colleague peter defazio. and i'm very pleased that you've joined us to be a part of this conversation and can't say enough for your tireless efforts to try and make sure that we realize the promise of infrastructure investment and that we fuelly -- actually do it. mr. defazio: i thank the gentleman. i thank congressman blumenauer for his leadership, a former member of the transportation and infrastructure committee. we have sent him over to the ways and means committee because we can -- we can put forward the need, we can document what we need to build and rebuild, but in the end

someone's got to be responsible for raising the money and ultimately it's going to be ways and means and earl has certainly taken a point position there. you know, we are at an unprecedented point. we have not been here before since the creation of the national highway program under president dwight david eisenhower. on october 1, the -- or before then, even, the trust fund, established by eisenhower, financed by user fees, gas tax, diesel tax and some other fees etc., xcise tax, principally, the fuel tax will be depleted to the point where if we don't act before october 1, according to the congressional budget office, the obligation authority -- that is the amount of money the federal government could invest beginning next october 1 in any and all transportation projects

across the united states, roads, bridges, highway, transit, will drop to zero. zero. now, this is not one of these other phony cliffs sarned here that have been create -- around here that have been created by an intransigent authority and grandstanders. this is real. this is real. think about what that means to the states. to my state it means a loss of about $450 million of federal aid to fund our federal highway system in the state of oregon. it means all across america, you're talking about millions of jobs and incredibly lost opportunities in terms of creating new jobs and dealing with a crumbling infrastructure which has already been discussed a little bit before me. so it -- congress has to get serious about this. you can't whistle by the graveyard on this one. you can't pretend it's not a fake crisis.

it's a real crisis. congressman blumenauer explained how it's happened over the years. we haven't raised the gas tax since 1993. now, a lot of people look at $4 a gallon at the pump come memorial day and say, that damn government taking all that money. no. 18.4 cents went to the federal government in 1993 when gas was 2014 $1 a gallon and in when exxonmobil jacks it up over $4 for the memorial day holiday, 18.4 cents will go to the federal government. i'd feel a heck of a lot more, you know -- i'd be a lot happier at those higher prices if i knew some of it would go to some of the crumbling bridges, some dealing with the potholes, some of it was going to the deficit in our transit infrastructure which is about $70 billion. and the nice things if we make those investments, as already been mentioned, it creates

about 28,000 jobs for every $1 billion we spend, not just construction jobs. you got engineering jobs, you have technical support jobs, you have small business suppliers. in transit you have manufacturing jobs, you have even high-tech jobs, computer-driven transit vehicles, etc. all across the economy we'd create jobs. 20,000 jobs per $1 billion. . we have the strongest buy america requirement of any part of the federal government. way stronger than the pentagon. so when we invest those dollars, americans go to work or back to work. but guess what? the other side works. if we stop spending that money on october 1, hundreds of thousands, millions of people will lose their jobs across many sectors in this country and we'll become the laughingstock of the world. the greatest nation on earth can't afford to invest in its future?

in its competitiveness? in rebuilding the eisenhower era infrastructure and building a infrastructure suitable for the 21st century to make us more competitive? it's not too hard. simple way to do it, one simple way, is take the existing gas tax and index it. what does that mean? part of the reason we are in the pickle is because the gas tax has remained 18.4 cents a gallon since 1993. that means with inflation it's been eroded, and as cars and fleets become more efficient, people are driving more miles with fewer gallons of gas, which is a good thing. if you indexed it and said we'll index the gas tax for construction cost inflation, you would see a big increase in gas. 1.4 to 1.7 cents a gallon next year. wow. guess what? i was home recently, i drove to work and i came home, gas was up a nickel a gallon because a

crisis in the ukraine. where did that go? that went into the pockets of exxonmobil. i would certainly yield. r. blumenauer: i was for a weekend i was at a conference, and so i missed being home for 10 days. and the space of the 10 days gasoline went up 19 cents a gallon. in my corner gas station. and the next weekend it had gone up 30 cents a gallon in three weeks. didn't fill one pothole. didn't put one person to work. 30 cents in three weeks. mr. defazio: i think it's an excellent point. if we fully implemented dodd-frank and reined in some of the commodity speculators, it wouldn't be as volatile. but the point is if we took a

tiny fraction of the way they jack it up when you're driving to work every week and invested it, your friends or neighbors would go to work, your commutes would be better, less damage to the car, we would lose fewer jobs overseas. if we indexed it and paid it back over 15 years, we could put somewhere between $120 billion to $150 billion into the trust fund that would be paid for and paid back over a 15-year period. another alternate -- alternative would be to put $1 on a barrel of crude oil. every dollar you tax a barrel of crude oil, today texas is 101.70, that would be less than 1%, that raises $4 billion a year to invest in the future of america's infrastructure and putting people back to work in this country. it would also help to rein in some of the speculation on the price of crude oil. and it would also help because opec and other suppliers would have to be paying a part of

rebuilding our infrastructure and the proposal i put forward exemption all manufacturing, it exempts all heating oil, agriculture uses. it exempts school buses and other things that are currently exempt. it would only be the fraction of the barrel that goes to current taxable transportation uses. $1 a barrel, $4 billion a year. again we could use that future cash flow to bond and fill in the giant pothole in the trust fund. with that at this point i yield back. mr. blumenauer: thank you. i deeply appreciate your partnership and your leadership. and the -- what you just demonstrated, a series of ways that we could have adjustments to transportation finance that would be predictable, sustainable, and as you have pointed out, at a time of record low interest rates, having a steady revenue stream would permit us to be able to take advantage of that favorable borrowing environment to get

multiple benefits, essentially if we had done that earlier, as suggested, nd i had essentially we would have had free money because the interest rates were so low. i appreciate your tenacity and creativity. we have been joined by another of our colleagues. congressman titus, i must say, i deeply appreciated your hospitality when we visited nevada. looked at transportation needs, met with people in your community who rely on being able to have this infrastructure work. you have been in a roller coaster in nevada in terms of boom and bust. but i deeply appreciated your being able to help me understand those dynamics. and your leadership in this arena is welcomed. i would yield to you to join in

the conversation. ms. titus: thank you very much. thank you, congressman blumenauer, you're always welcomed to come to my district in las vegas. we were very glad to have you there. you brought your leadership and i appreciate your wearing the bicycle. that's one of the things i want to talk about as far as infrastructure. is safe streets and the ability for our pedestrians and bicyclists to be safe as well as other means of transportation. i certainly respect congressman defazio's leadership on this and appreciate hearing some of the creative ideas you have for moving infrastructure forward, because it is so important that we fund it. and having this hour to talk about the critical role of government and maintaining and enhancing our infrastructure, i think, is not only timely but critical. as you heard earlier, the most recent report card from the american society of civil engineers clearly illustrates the dismal condition of our nation's infrastructure. now, the good news is we moved

up a grade, but the bad news is we went from d to d-plus. that's not too much to drag about. that were one of my students i wouldn't be proud of that level of accomplishment. if you look more detail at the findings of that report, you find that more than half of the nation's roads are in poor or mediocre condition. one out of every four bridges is in need of significant repair or can't handle the traffic that relies on it. and we have seen the price of this crumbling infrastructure, not just in loss of jobs, but also in loss of lives. one out of every three fatal traffic fatalities, the conditions of the road were the factor. so we've got to do better than that. we recently received an update on the fiscal situation of the highway trust fund mr. defazio was referencing this, and if the projections hold, that trust fund will be insolvent by the end of july.

that's at the height of the construction season when we should be moving forward with these infrastructure projects. all of them will come to a stand still across the country and that immediately threatens 660,000 jobs, direct jobs, not industries extra that rely on that construction as well. our construction sector was hit very hard already by the great recession, and it continues to see unemployment levels twice the national average, so we simply cannot afford to let this trust fund lapse. we need to take immediate action to shore it up and remove the insolvency because it not only halts progress, but it injects uncertainty into our state capitals, our city halls, and all the transit agencies across the country who don't know whether to move forward with projects or not because the money just may not be there. if you look at the cities like

las vegas, you can see how this is especially hard hitting because infrastructure is at the heart of our local economy. we have world class hotels and casinos and restaurants and retail, but we rely on infrastructure to bring to us people and goods from around the world, whether it's rail or air or highways. we import everything from tourists to lobsters. we don't make it there. we got to bring it in. if you don't have good infrastructure, that system is not going to work. as we turn our attention to the next surface transportation authorization, i want us to invest in a number of things, and one of them is existing and future freight corridors. on that list i hope to see the development of i-11. that interstate has been designated, but we need to move forward with it. it would go from las vegas to phoenix. now, this is -- eventually it would connect to all points north and south, but right now

phoenix and las vegas are the only two major metropolitan areas in the country that are not connected by an interstate highway. so this would create new freight corridors. it would relieve congestion on the narrow road that exists there now. would save lives. and it would increase the connection between roughly eight million people who live in that area and it would foster tourism, which would be a good thing for our economy. so i hope that we can move forward on that because it would be very important for moving freight. in addition to this, i'm concerned about the safety of the traveling public in the urban areas. this is where you and i have had many discussions about pedestrians and cyclists. we have seen marginal improvements in highway safety. that's been going in the right direction, but pedestrian safety has been going in the wrong direction. that's been getting much worse. if you look at the statistics,

and more and more people are using that kind of transportation for recreation, to get to work, go shopping, for exercise. so that population is going to increase. and yet the fatalities have increased as well. in fact, nearly 16% of traffic deaths in 2012 were people who were walking or bicycling. yet less than 1% of safety funding goes to infrastructure to protect those travelers. and that trend is really true in southern nevada. my district has the most dangerous crossings of any because it's metropolitan las vegas. in 2011, there were 23 pedestrian fatalities. but that jumped to 42 in 2012, and last year, 51 men, women, and children lost their lives in pedestrian accidents. i hope that as we move forward with infrastructure funding, that we provide resources and services to address that issue.

and part of that can be an encouraging local government to do planning policies like the complete streets program. i know you're well aware of that, very familiar with it and involved in it. it takes into account the needs of all users when it comes to transportation. there are lots of possible improvements like bus rapid transit, dedicated transit and bike lanes, safer cross walks, all of those will help users reach their destinations more quickly and more safely. so as we look at infrastructure, let's remember that its bridges, it's roads, railroads, airports. also we need to do what we can for those using bicycles and just walking on their own two feet. i'm committed to working on this. it's very important for our country and for our local economy. count me in. thank you for your leadership. mr. blumenauer: thank you so much, representative titus. what's fascinating when we

visited with your constituents how passionate they were identifying the problems, and i commend you for working with them to try and squeeze what you could out of inadequate federal and state and local funding, but to try and help with the design, help with the advocacy. they were truly fired up and had lots of ideas about things to do. and you are right, it would be a ravesty if, when we are urging people to be able to do more walking and cycling, to reduce energy, to improve air quality, and improve their health, if it turn we are putting more families at risk -- if in turn we are putting more families at risk and being able to have safe routes to school. being able to deal with pedestrian safety, and making it part of the mix. i can't say enough about how much i admire your commitment to balanced transportation. to be able to tie those pieces together and how you worked with your local constituents.

it's truly a model, and i look forward to continuing with you on that in the future. i do want to say that it is very -- i also appreciate the reference to the economic impact in terms of the men and women who work in this arena. we have millions of trades people. men and women in the construction industry, who have the necessary skills to rebuild and renew america. who want to work. and in too many of our communities have suffered disproportionate unemployment as a result of the near meltdown of the economy and the two slow recovery -- too slow recovery. being able to tap that energy, that excitement and that commitment i think is very, very important. i have been so impressed as we go around the country looking at the people there who are willing

to put those skills to work and it is an opportunity for a wide range of employment opportunities. there are opportunities for people who are primarily just working with their hands, where there's a lot of manual labor involved. there are a number of skilled opportunities in terms of what's happened in the trades in terms addsuipment operation that increasing sophistication. . there are jobs that are pencil-ready. where there are design and planning and management. so there's a wide range. my colleague mentioned the 20,000 jobs per $1 billion. and that 20,000 jobs includes ts of bedrock, middle class,

american, family-wage opportunities but for a wide range of skill set and for people to get their feet on the ground, to be able to build skills and move further in the advancement of their careers. and i really appreciate your advocacy there and would yield to you for further comment. mr. defazio: let me give you one example. i have a company in my district called johnson rock crushers and they produce a wide range of rocks crushers. they are a major exporter from the u.s. they're competitive in the world market. but they are employeing -- employing skilled labor and also engineers to design these materials. they're sourcing virtually all of their components in the united states for these very large pieces of equipment. so there's an incredible multiplier effect. they're employing people who are in manufacturing somewhere, making one big gear or making

parts of the conveyer or the giant tires that go on these things. they're employing engineers that make the future designs. they just have finished a major contract for the -- with affordable equipment. so they cover an extraordinary range of things. and they showed me a chart and the chart is, what happens to their business when the future funding for the highway trust fund comes into question? they can show me what happened back when we did the safetealu bill, how much business fell off. they can show me recently a falloff in domestic business. they're doing pretty well internationally because other countries, somehow other countries can figure out how to invest in their infrastructure and they're concerned about becoming more competitive in the world economy and they're making massive investments in china and brazil and in many of our competitor nations. in fact, i recall once when my colleague, mr. blumenauer,

heard me giving a speech and i was saying how i kind of thought the u.s. was becoming a third world nation because of the deterioration of our infrastructure, which we've already talked about tonight, he came up to me afterwards and says, hey, that was kind of insulting. i was lining, what did you mean, you know how bad it is. and he said, no, no, it was insulting to third world countries because they are investing a higher percentage of their gross domestic product and their -- in their infrastructure than the united states of america. we can afford these investments. in fact, we cannot afford to forego these investments because we'll lose more ground internationally, we'll waste more fuel, people will spend more time in congestion, we'll kill more people on obsolete mass transit units like they did here in washington, d.c. these are investments we must make. we have in the past led the world. we've been number one, number two after world war ii, up through -- near the 1990's sometime. then we started falling.

we're now number 26 in the world in terms of the state of our frals. we're duking -- infrastructure. we're duking it out with romania these days, i think. this is embarrassing. it's embarrassing. and for us not to be pushing forward with solutions now and not creating another cliff and ecoing it out until the end and -- eking it out until the end and as was pointed out, some states are already cutting back their construction program for this construction year. kansas is one of i know of -- one i know. they've said, look, the way we run our state, we have to be sure that the federal reimbursement is going to be there when the project is done. we can't wait. our constitution doesn't allow us to borrow money for these things. we can't go into deficit. unlike the federal government. and therefore just the prospect that the money might not be there is causing many states to say, well, wait a minute, we're going to pull back here on these projects. this coming year. and then if it actually happens on october 1, there will be a

massive cutback next year and i don't know what happens to transit. i mean, transit goes, you know, there's no transit system in the world except maybe hong kong that makes money. so to say we're going to withdraw all federal support from transit would mean one heck of a loss of options for people in the united states. i certainly yield back. mr. blumenauer: absolutely. appreciate your detailing the difficulties with the company in your district and the multiplier effect for the employment, for the various aspects of that product. 's been exciting for me to look at the range of people who are adding their voice to the cry for the federal government to step up, for congress not to be awol on this and not have the collapse of the trust fund. the range of people who have a

keen interest in our being responsible and who are adding their voices is fascinating. there are big equipment manufacturers like the caterpillars of this world, and smaller -- there are people who lease heavy equipment. there are people who are involved with design and construction. people who are there with the materials, as fault and concrete -- asphalt and concrete, sand and gravel. people who are there with the iron and steel that's necessary. the concrete. i mean, you go through the range of people who are vitally interested in our meeting our responsibilities and who have the capacity of making huge economic contributions and who are ready, willing and able to do so and the vast majority of

these jobs are right here in the united states. they are not going to be outsourced. lots of equipment and manufacturing and materials are right here, it's cost prohibitive for us not to. so it provides that local economic spark. and then there's the multiplier effect, the coffee shop across the street from the project, the people who are providing materials and supplies, people who benefit from this in dramatic ways. and i do appreciate your reminding us of how we lost track of where we are in terms of global leadership. we were leaders in the development of our canals and the steam engine. we were leaders with our transcontinental railroad. nobody did anything on that order of magnitude.

we have financed passenger -- we have the finest passenger rail system in the world up until about 70 years ago. we had the finest highway system. i mean, you go through the list of areas that we were justifiably proud of being a global leader, and it's not just prestige. it was health, it was safety d economic that made a difference and we appear to have lost our way. it's interesting, mr. speaker, six years ago there was no high-speed rail in china. and in six years they have grown high-speed rail system that next year will carry more passengers than the entire american aviation system. other countries are building

ports, highways, upgrading and we are wer, stuck, we're losing ground, and it is congress that has failed to step up for over two decades. i would yield to the gentleman. mr. defazio: the problem here is a lot of people don't, particularly the congress, doesn't discriminate between investments, capital investments, and expenditures. if you buy fuel for the federal fleet or a battleship or something, ok, that's an expenditure, it's consumed. but if you build a bridge that lasts 100 years, we count that buying something that will be consumed in one day. that doesn't make any sense. but that's the way congress works. so they treat needed investments in the future mobility of the american people in saving fuel, being competitive, moving goods and

people safely, they treat that exactly the same as a one-day expenditure, you know, for fuel for the federal fleet or something else. that makes no sense. we need capital budgets. that's probably a longer term project around here. but they need to at least recognize the need for these investments. what i hear from a lot of the naysayers, hey, you already did that, you did the stimulus. that didn't work, did it? well, you know, actually if you look at the so-called stimulus, under the most generous interpretation of infrastructure, it was about 4% that went into traditional surface transportation infrastructure, 4%, and it created a heck of a lot more than 4% of the jobs that that bill created. really generous infrastructure interpretation, you're up to 7%. so i say, no, that was not a test. that money was well invested and spent but it was totally

insufficient for the job to repair and rebuild our infrastructure and bring it up to the 21st century, let alone to begin to build out an efficient 21st century infrastructure. that is no test. that money was well spent and well invested. there's some prominent commentators who would say, i don't know where that money went. i had a debate with one of them on television, actually. we can show exactly where that money went. exactly how many jobs were created. and it was certainly a net large return compared to many of the other things that were in that legislation. no, that wasn't a test. the test would be if we made a commitment now to build a 21st century infrastructure and to rise from 26th back to number one in the world within 10 years, just like j.f.k. said he'd put us on the moon in 10 years. in 10 years we could go back to having the number one infrastructure in the world and in the meantime whoo create a few -- would create a few million more jobs and create sustainable jobs of untold numbers over the years.

mr. blumenauer: absolutely. have really appreciated your laser focus, i mean, at the time you and i both wanted more nvestment in infrastructure. something like 40% were tax cuts people didn't think they got that didn't have the multiplier effect, that we would have been well served to double or triple the amount of investment in infrastructure. but i have been struck, i know you have, that even though it was inadequate, that we could have done more and should have done more, i am struck by the number of businesses that have told me that that investment was a difference of whether or not their business was going to go under. we had people making bids at that time basically just to cover payroll. we got some of the most

favorable bids that were offered up because people were desperate for that work and so it stretched even further. and if we'd had the foresight to invest more and then take advantage of the fact that the world was basically giving us their money for free, we could have had tremendous impact. but the truth is people were desperate for it, it made a difference and it's a hint of what we could do if we did this right. i'm going to turn to my colleague for a moment for the last word. but i wanted to just say one thing in terms of my concluding observation. i have been struck in the three months since we've advanced these proposals by the breadth of editorial support, by the unions, local governments, elected officials in both parties who are stepping up at the state level to do this. wyoming i think was the latest

state that went ahead and raised the gas tax. that we're hearing from engineers, we're hearing from advocacy groups like truckers and a.a.a. that are doing the right thing, making a difficult recommendation because they know it's the right thing and they think it's time to have an adult conversation with the american public. i think it is time for us to listen to the people out there who don't just want, they're insisting that we meet our obligation as a full partner in infrastructure investment in this country. as we have done for years. with state and local government, with the private sector, with local communities. i'm convinced that it will -- it's one of those areas that once we get there and take the step, it will bring the country together. mr. speaker, historically infrastructure has been an area

that has rallied public support. people came together for these projects. and i'm convinced that if we step up and do our job, listening to people and giving that support, that it can be that same sort of rallying point. i don't want to be involved in a conversation about whether, well, it's the republicans' fault or the democrats' fault. or it's the house versus the senate. or the legislative versus the executive. there's been enough foot dragging over the last 20 years to go around. . my hope is we can use this going forward to make a difference. i cannot thank you enough, congressman defazio, for your insistence, your leadership, your persistence, your creativity, and courage on this. it really makes a difference for those of us that are pushing in this for the path that you have

blazed and your continued ngoing zeal to make this work. million defazio: i'll boil it down to something pretty simple. let's think at about the future. let's think about today and the future. those who would disinvest or de -- devolve our obligations to create a national transportation system that's world class, devolve that duty to the 50 states assembled, or just ignore all together that obligation, they really are showing -- they don't take a long-term view for america. they don't have much faith in our future. i got a heck of a lot of faith in our future, and it's going to take some leadership to get to that future. doing simple things like maintaining the existing purchasing power of the gas tax through indexation and using the

future income to bond and make a heck of a lot of investment now will return more in the long term than it will cost and it won't add a penny to the deficit, just like the federal highway trust fund has not been a net contributor to the deficit over time. it's been funded through user fees. we need to continue that principle in the future. we can probably devolve to something more high tyke, vehicle miles traveled or things like that. we are not ready today yet. and we sure as heck couldn't get there by october 1. so we got to work off the basics. we already have, we had since dwight david eisenhower, republican president, and it was ronald reagan who added in mass transit into the highway trust fund. this has been a truly bipartisan issue over the years. we lost our way for a bit here. it should become bipartisan again. we should all join together and we should show that we really believe in america's future and make the investments that are necessary to get us there on a

better national transportation system. mr. blumenauer: well said. i have nothing to add to that eloquence. mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. under the speaker's announced licy of january 3, 2013, the chair recognizes the gentleman from new jersey, mr. lance, for 30 minutes. mr. lance: thank you very much, mr. speaker. rise today to celebrate the tricentennial of hunterton county, new jersey, the county i have proudly called home my entire life, where my family has lived since 1739. the celebration this year is led by former state senator marcia carrow and the hardworking committee of exemplary county residents. the 300-year history of hunterton don't youy is an

excellent example of the journey in the advancement of the english colonies in north america, to the present day status of the united states of america, throughout the world. to this day hunterton county maintains its natural beauty and rural charm. as has been the case throughout its history. the county is proud to be named for robert hunter, the distinguished royal governor of new york and new jersey. we sailed to america with 3,000 german refugees in 1710. they and thousands of others like them yearn for religious freedom and a better life for themselves and their desendants. hunterton county was formed when it separated from burlington county, 300 years ago this month, in march of 1714.

from the first reading of the declaration of independence on the steps of what was then the hunterton county courthouse in trenton, to general washington's historic delaware river crossing, and decisive victory at the battle of trenton, hunterton's link to the 1776 birth of the united states is significant. i was personally inspired as a child of the tar heels of captain daniel gray and the it collected tia, the boats on the western border used on washington's crossing on christmas night in that fateful year of our nation's birth. the county boasts several sites associated with the revolution. including, for example, the 1759 white house in clinton township,

a loyalist homestead that still exists with its architecturally distinguished serpentine ceiling. the county is also proud of its agricultural heritage. the county seal originally included a hey -- hay wagon. it now features a she of wheat. it was the story of most county residents of native americans, to the earliest colonial settlers, to those who lived at the beginning of the 20th century. this heritage is celebrated annually at the hunterton county 4-h and agricultural fair. a sentry and a half ago general stores and hotels, including veral owned by my ancestors,

were common in the town that were spread across the 400 acres of the county. from clinton in the north. lambertville in the south, to french town in the west, to flemington, the county seat in the middle, they were the centers of life where hunterton families came to market, to socialize, and to worship. the nature of hunterton has changed as the population increased from the mid 20th century forward. the large agricultural townships have become more heavily populated as farmland has been transformed to houses for new residents who demanded improvements, including establishment of a system of regional schools and construction of the hunterton county medical certainty. after world war ii, hunterton was the only county in the state still without a hospital. county leaders, including the

board of agriculture, are responsible for the buildings, medical center that opened in 1953. since then this health care facility has become one of the premiere medical institutions in new jersey. men and women created five distinguished regional high schools, have become leaders in the state in academics, athletics, and extracurricular activities. the 300-year history of the hunterton county has been captured in writings, photographs, and memories telling the compelling story of its shear -- sheer natural beauty, it's people, and the larger community of churches, nonprofit groups, and civic organizations with neighbor helping neighbor.

our ancestors have striven for 300 years to make hunterton what it is today. the 21st century exemplar of the united states as a whole. free, self-governed, prosperous, and dedicated to the advancement of the nation. we, the 130,000 current residents, have a responsibility to those who will come after us. to preserve and improve the county we love. truly hunterton county has always been and will always be in my heart. mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. does the gentleman have a otion?

mr. lance: thank you, mr. speaker. i move that the house do now adjourn. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion to adjourn. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is adopted. accordingly, the house stands adjourned unti

>> the house increases noticeably to the call of the chair. earlier today they debated a ukraine bill. here is what it looked like. mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. royce: mr. speaker, president vladimir putin's decision to forcibly annex crimea was based on his calculation that the price would be bearable. now, in fact, russia is susceptible to pressure. 70% of all the exports of russia are from oil and gas. 52% of the budget that goes to the power behind mr. putin's military and his government comes from that monopoly pricing on natural gas. that supplies the budget for russia. that is what gives him the

power to manipulate the situation, the monopoly over gas that he has in eastern europe with respect to ukraine. if we want to check aggression from russia, we must push back and we must work together quickly, not only to confront this monopoly circumstance that exists there but also to quickly impose tough sanctions on president putin and on those who have been his accomplices in carrying out this aggression. diplomatically, our european allies have helped to eject russia from the g-8 and have suspended all other engagement with russia until this crisis is peacefully resolved. economically they have also imposed sanctions, including

asset freezes and visa bans against many russian leaders. our targets must include government officials as well as those who hold no formal position but who nevertheless exercise great influence over president putin's policy and have supported aggression. that includes the so-called people who have amassed enormous wealth through corruption and through other illegitimate means. we must make clear that if they do not end this crisis that they have deliberately created, by the way, or if they choose to go even further, then we and our allies will ratchet up the sanctions pressure. we must also move quickly to strengthen ukraine by reinforcing its sovereignty, its independence and territorial integrity and

assisting the new government to meet the enormous challenges it faces. this bill provides assistance to strengthen civil society in ukraine, to combat corruption, to help recover assets stolen by former ukrainian officials, to reform the police and the justice sector, to promote the independent media, to strengthen ukraine's defense and help prepare for the runup for the presidential election which is scheduled now on may 25. and i will add that in several weeks i will be leading a delegation, bipartisan delegation from this house with mr. engel to the ukraine, and i will add that his forefathers, in fact, come from the ukraine, and we will be there to meet with the parliament, the leadership, the electorial commission in advance to that election. this bill also directs the assistance already approved by the house to help get the ukrainian economy back on its

feet, including by promoting fundamental economic reforms in the country. those tough reforms will be essential. mr. speaker, moscow is using propaganda to soak confusion and fear and unrest inside the ukraine right now which then exploits to justify its actions. to counter that effort, this legislation enhances funding for radio free europe, radio liberty and the voice of america to expand broadcasting in the russian language, in ukrainian, in totter, in order to provide the accurate news and information on the ground across ukraine. no amount of aid will help ukraine if russian propaganda rules the day. another priority must be to end russia's ability to use its energy reserves to blackmail ukraine and other countries including many of our nato

allies. russia supplies 100% of lithuania's natural gas. well, it might not be that surprising, then that lithuania pays the highest price per gas of any country in eastern europe. 2/3 of poland's gas. energy sales earn russia not only dollars but they earn russia influence because russia, in the dead of winter, has turned off the valves. russia's state-controlled gas company threatened to cut off supplies to ukraine earlier this month, as it did during the winters of 2006 and 2009. gas prom has stated that it is preparing to double the price that ukraine pays for its natural gas which could crumple the country's already weak economy. now, we have a powerful tool to counter this pressure, one that is just waiting to be used and that's our own energy reserves. we must remove restrictions on

the export of u.s. crude oil d natural gas into eastern europe. we have in fact a letter to the speaker of the house from the heads of state of poland, of the czech republic, of slovakia, of hung ari -- hungary, asking us. listen, at the end of the day, if we do this, we end the flaring of gas here in the united states because of the glut. we're able to help our balance of payments. we'll help reduce our deficits. it increases russia's deficit it's, frankly. it produces jobs here in the united states, but it comes at a time when vladimir putin has decisionmakers in eastern europe with respect to his power on monopoly over gas. lifting frankly these

self-imposed sanctions on ourselves in terms of not exporting our excess gas, would not only boost the u.s. economy and create american jobs, as i indicated, but would reduce the energy revenues that comprise 52% of the budget for the military and the government in russia. we must break putin's energy grip over ukraine and eastern europe. this is a strategic issue. i am pleased, by the way, to have worked closely with ranking member eliot engel of new york, and with all of the members of the committee to produce this strong, effective and much-needed bipartisan bill. and i look forward to its passage today and to working with our senate colleagues to have the president sign the bill into law as soon as possible. mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from new york is recognized.

mr. engel: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. engel: i rise in strong support of h.r. 4278, the ukraine support act, and let me begin by thanking the chairman of our foreign affairs committee, mr. royce, for his strong leadership on ukraine. as always, he's working with us in a bipartisan and constructive manner. it's very important -- on this very important and timely bill and i'm pleased to be the lead democratic co-sponsor. i'd like to thank my other democratic and republican colleagues on the foreign affairs committee for their important contributions. the united states has long been a steadfast supporter of the democratic, prosperous and independent ukraine. and with the people of ukraine now in dire need of assistance and under imminent threat, there's never been a more critical moment to show our support. president putin's invasion of crimea is a flagrant violation of international law and russia's commitments to its neighbor. the phony and illegal

referendum that putin orchestrated at the barrel of a gun has resulted in the first outright annexation territory in europe send sins the end of world war ii, and now putin is amassing troops on the border, threatening to seize more ukrainian territory and inciting more violence and conflict. putin's destabilizing and dangerous moves threaten not only ukraine but other states in the region, including mull efensea and -- muldova and georgia. the entire international community must take a stand against putin's naked aggression. this legislation reaffirms our strong support for the people of ukraine at this critical time. it authorizes assistance for ukraine as it attempts to right its struggling economy, increase energy security, strengthen civil society and prepare for democratic elections this spring. it supports ukraine's efforts to recover missing assets, to bolster the rule of law and to

professionalize its law enforcement. it supports additional broadcasting to ukraine and chairman royce has been a champion of that, and other countries in the region to counter the dangerous and hateful propaganda coming from the media outlets and it endorses the deployments of significant numbers of international monitors throughout ukraine, to help reduce tensions and ensure security of all ukrainians. but legislation sends a clear message to put inl and his cronies that the land grab and reckless actions will have serious consequences. it supplements the president's efforts of violating ukraine's sovereignty and international integrity, looting the economy and violating human rights in ukraine. here i'd like to applaud president obama for imposing measures which have already impacted putin's inner circle. for taking the lead in suspending russia's participation in the g-8 and coordinating actions with our european partners and others

throughout the world. finally, the bill expresses support for continuing u.s. security assistance to ukraine and reaffirms our commitment to the security of nato, security of our nato partners in eastern and central europe. mr. speaker, the coming days, weeks and months will be very difficult for ukraine. its leaders must continue the process of reconciliation and reach out to all regions of the country. they must scrupulously reject minority -- respect human rights. it is important to respect minority and human rights, and they must make the hard decisions and take the difficult steps that will return their country to political and economic health. and they must do all of this in the face of opposition and likely provocations from putin and his cronies. but as they do so, they and the people of ukraine should know that they have our support. by passing this bill, we are making clear that the united states stands with ukraine, that we are committed to

helping its people build a more democratic, prosperous, secure and just state for themselves and their children. you know, if we continue to work with ukraine and continue to help ukraine and turn them westward rather than eastward, then putin will have lost. he may have a land grab in crimea, but he will lose the rest of ukraine, and we should be doing everything possible to make sure that our european allies are working closely with ukraine offering them the incentives they need so they will look westward and not eastward. i join my colleagues, i urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important legislation and reserve the balance of my time, but before i do, i want to say foreign policy should be bipartisan whenever possible. i think this is bipartisanship at its best. we send a clear message to the people of ukraine that the united states stands with them. it's not a republican or a democratic stand. it's an american stand, and i'm

proud to be part of it. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york reserves -- mr. engel: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. royce: yes, mr. speaker. i yield one minute to our respected majority leader, the gentleman from virginia, mr. cantor. the speaker pro tempore: the majority leader, mr. cantor, the gentleman from virginia, is recognized for one minute. . mr. can'ter: i thank the gentleman from california. mr. speaker, i rise in strong support of the ukraine support act. vladimir putin's recent annexation of crimea stand in direct violation of ukraine's sovereignty and international law. his aggression may only continue unless we in america along with our allies respond with strength. newspaper reports indicate that putin may not be content with

swallowing crimea whole, and that he is now amassing troops on the border with eastern ukraine and may soon have his eyes on moldova. the eyes of the world are on the united states and our e.u. and nato partners. adversaries and allies around the world are watching to see how we respond to this outrageous provocation. to see whether we mean it when we say putin's actions are unacceptable. it is vitally important that the united states in conjunction with our e.u. and nato allies send an unmistakable signal that this aggression will not be tolerated. together we must be prepared to exact a significant cost for russia's behavior, and that mr. putin's actions will be met with the firmest of resolve. this bill is a first step towards supporting the

ukranian's and our central and easternure peaian partners and imposing a truly significant cost on moscow. but it is only a first step. we must fundamentally reassess our assumptions about russia and acknowledge that putin himself scrapped the administration's policy a long time ago. we need a new strategic that under-- streanl that understands putin for who he is, not -- strategy that understands putin for who he is not who we wish him to be. we need a new grand strategy. we need a foreign policy that stands up for our allies and stands up to our adversaries. we need a prioritized defense in our budget so that we maintain a military that can respond promptly to contingencies around the world and that instills fear in our enemies while reassuring our allies.

mr. speaker, i hope this bill, modest though it may be, will prove to be the first step on a long march to restore america's defenses and alliances. now more than ever the threats to the very fabric of the international system require an america that leads. i want to thank very much the gentleman from california, chairman royce, and ranking member engel, and the rest of the committee on foreign affairs for their bipartisan work for all of their efforts on this issue. and i urge my colleagues in the house to support our friends in ukraine by passing this bill. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia has yielded back. the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. engel: thank you, mr. speaker. i now yield three minutes to a very distinguished member of our committee, the gentleman from virginia, mr. connolly. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia is

recognized for three minutes. mr. connolly: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank my friend. i also congratulate the ranking member, mr. engel, and the chairman, mr. royce, for their bipartisan leadership on this critical, critical resolution. mr. speaker, apparently once a k.g.b. agent always a k.g.b. agent. mr. putin seems to have learned nothing from history other than that there is power at the end of the barrel of a gun. to cite the fact that there are russian speakers in crimea as a rationale for one of the most audacious power grabs of the 21st century in europe no less forgets history. let us not forget that crimea was settled by stalin when he excelled and executed the native tartars, this was also done at the end of the barrel of a gun. russian interests were never threatened in the crimea after the revolution in kiev. the new government in kiev never abrogated the treaty that

allowed russia privileges, naval privileges, through 2042. the ukranians didn't occupy military stations in crimea and around the region. it was the other way around. but the united states and its allies to allow this naked aggression to go unaddressed would be truly an abrogation of our moral responsibility and turn our backs on the very lessons we should have learned from 20th century tragic history. mr. speaker, we need to stop lking about the -- i'm stuck on crimea and i hope my colleagues are, too. it is wrong, it cannot be allowed to stand, and we must make him pay a price. and the difference between now and stalin's time is that his economy is integrated into the global economy. the ruble will fall, the stock market in russia will pay a price, investment will suffer because we will help make it so

unless he relents. until they pay a price that's so great, systematic and comprehensive, that he will understand that we no longer operate by the rule of the jungle in europe or indeed anywhere else in this planet. not with our blessing. not with our apology. so i strongly support the legislation before us and urge my colleagues to join with all of us in telling mr. putin, we will not stand idly by with history doomed to repeat itself. i yield back to the gentleman from new york. thank the speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia has yielded back. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. royce: mr. speaker, i yield three minutes to the gentleman from new jersey, mr. smith, chairman of the foreign affairs subcommittee on africa, global health, global human rights, and international organizations. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for three minutes. mr. smith: mr. speaker, i rise in strong support of the ukranian support act. i want to thank my friends and colleagues, chairman royce and ranking member engel for

od