county's transportation system. but deals are no longer married to their cars. they would give those up for their cherished cell phones. the phonewould get out of their hands, but neither one of them is ever in a car. it has been a challenge. i live in a suburban area. we made it work. that new workforce is gravitating to a different location and going to activity centers. -- theyy nest boomers are more likely to rent a bike or walk a few blocks then get a car or call a taxi. we have to make the best investments. they will go somewhere where they can get those multimodal choices. we support the amtrak mission and coordinate with them for local planning projects like a new train station, the newark regional transportation center,

being built in their work. when considering passenger services, we more often work with the delaware transit corporation or mark train service. use of the state capital operating funds are separated i state lines. a 20 mile gap in passenger service between the mark station in maryland and the trains in newark, delaware is a constant reminder that passenger rail is a regional concern. we have freight movements by rail that are coming in at a regional level. in our region, we see the need to plan for more track capacity as trains transport crude oil from the western u.s. refineries on the east coast, like in delaware city. in the process of completing the chesapeake connector benefit agencies,our partner we found there are some changes that need to be made. while the project is important to both maryland and delaware,

the capital funding cannot be used for fiscal improvements in maryland, which shows that the ability to plan regionally is great, but if you cannot fund regionally, it is much more difficult to finish the project. is moreland-use important at a time when transportation trust funds of the state and federal government are running empty and the landscape is dominated i suburban development. been an investment study and port improvement study, local studies in which trans partition agencies, local and county planners, and elected officials work to create a prioritizingmb for transportation with a coordinated land-use plan. projects are ranked not just by need, but by what can be crated. transportation build on the safety to continue its

strength and focus on collaboration and coordination, a hallmark of the process. we ask for consideration to extend the bill beyond two years, to stabilize the funding source, and to provide the guidance so we can get right to work. programject does this rewards strong local ordination and is a competitive format. we would also like to see more coordinations. it is difficult to do that with the funding as it is laid out now. have communityo concerned -- are both funding pools lost funding. it was condensed. another program we would like to see benefit from greater coordination and stronger guidance is cmac.

the next transportation bill can provide programs and leadership that will be necessary to adapt the transportation system. thank you for letting me be here today. >> i found this to be very helpful. interesting to hear from the mayors, from the parish, to hear from states, to hear from all these perspectives. i think each of you have put on puttable with issues we can together. it was interesting because as i needat each of you, we attention to our bridges. this is a danger. factof you stressed the that alternative transportation is working. you want to see that continue. others said resiliency, given the weather.

us the funds,ive but essentially, but out. -- butt out. that is easy for you to say, because if you mess up, we are the ones who get the blame. make sure these funds are used right, just as you want to make sure if you gave a grant. i wanted to press on some of these things. let me assume this. regardless of foyer priorities, can i assume that all of you sure that we must make that we make sure the trust fund is solvent, and that it is reauthorized in a multiyear basis, so you have certainty. does anyone disagree with that? i think that is important, because before we get into how much more flexibility or lack of same or what -- we have got to

figure this thing out. and that is why we are so fortunate to have senator karp now taking over as the chair with the ranking member. he does have the link to the finance committee. that is going to be essential. ballard, i think you said you felt the amendment was working well. would you expand on -- why is it working well? >> yes, madam chairman. that mandated that a lot of this money goes to the local folks. how money -- it can flow in different directions. we are 90% of the new jobs coming into cities.

good job, and we need to continue to invest in the city to attract the talent we are talking about. it is important for indianapolis. >> that dealt with alternative transportation, did it not? >> it did. >> i think that is so important. saytors from other states they do not like the fact that some of the states get the money, instead of it going to more local people. we have a planning agency that works well, so you do not give it to the state, the state takes 10% off the top. i think you are right. i hope we can do more of that. can you expand about the problems with general electric? you have a private sector company wanting to build something. the bureaucracy is not letting it happen. i could not follow it.

tell me what the problem is. >> we were going to reconstruct and offramp. the fhwa thatd by on access justification report would be required, although people at the department of transportation were necessary. enhancing traffic flows on one single wrap -- cut to the end of the story. a have been delayed in process that we do not feel is really necessary to begin with. crisis is off of a federal highway? >> yes. >> and you are using federal funds? >> yes. >> i would assume we would have an interest, since it is a federal highway, using federal funds. say, what were the problems

that anyone suggested? >> i believe the tightness of the curve is a little bit tighter. for safety precautions, they wanted to use the angle. >> i would just suggest -- i agree with you. this thing should not be held up. question,is a safety and it is federal highway money, and somebody careens off, it becomes a federal problem. we need to make sure you get the answers in a quicker way. i do not think we should step away, but this could be a difference in the way we view it. i feel responsible. it is a federal highway. it should be safe. we have situations in california duee the state did not do diligence on a new bridge, and we were scared about what could happen. safety -- is to

would love to help you. if there are legitimate problems, believe me, i would love to help you with that. what i found in most of these cases, including your point about, it took three weeks -- it may, end of the day, mean you have a better plan. been, let uslways have timetables that make sense. i took a lot of heat from my environmental friends, because i want timetables. i do not think you should walk away, if it is a safety question and an environmental issue. something we will work on in our reauthorization. it is always tense, between republicans and democrats. how do you keep the federal interest, but not make it as , thecult and unnecessary delays?

that is what we continue to work on as we reauthorized. >> you mentioned bridges. there are a lot of bridges in need of repair and replacement in st. landry parish in louisiana. would it be helpful to be able to bundle some of the smaller project,ogether as one to create more efficiency, reducing red tape, to use common tapgns, and to be able to the larger match that larger problems can enjoy? >> absolutely. i have read what they have done in pennsylvania. we look at our position with other past presidents, but this is a regional issue. it is not a parochial issue. we would bundle with other parishes and the state.

and yes, partnering and bundling -- absolutely. we get better bang for our buck. we get to clear more bridges than just one or two. i think it would advance the process and the project delivery with a great deal more efficiency and a great deal more appreciation from the public. they are very smart and aware that it is taking a very long go from the idea that a bridge is necessary to be replaced -- it is on a list. it takes three years to get there. that would be a great idea, yes. >> great. we will pursue that. your sales tax and a smooth ride home program. can you talk about that process, and the level of trust you developed to pass that, and what lessons that offers to us? >> first of all, for such a long

time, on the local level, at least for probably our state, and particularly our parish, we were always looking to the federal government and state government to solve our issues. basically, i worked in the state government 38 years. worked with many parishes. i looked at things statewide. talking to the leaderships in the parishes -- i saw other parishes start doing for themselves, rather than waiting on the state and federal government. government, i the felt i was a bureaucrat, but with an outsider point of view. i reached a practical point of view i think most of us should have. day, wait on this the federal and state governments to be the salt-all, -- the solve-all, end-all. byneed to do things

ourselves. people in the paris said, you are the highway guy. you can help us here. we had 800 miles in terrible shape. i took on the challenge. i went out with these canceled en and brought an sheet of paper and hundreds of copies. we had 35-40 public outreach meetings, where we sat with three people, 300 people, citizens. we advertised it. it is for the future of our parish. i bring you the paper of truth. here is the budget. there is no money in it on the local budget for roads. whether you are first or last on the list to be improved, it does not matter. it will not happen unless we pass our own tax, fund it ourselves. for the most part, our citizens were for sales tax rather than

property tax. we brought out the paper of truth and took it in the discussion. and maybe the key was complete dedication. just this area of activity, but these projects. bridges, ands and related drainage. we also brought the actual legislation that they would vote on to create a law, and not depend on a promise. many times, we heard in the past that issues had failed because let us say they brought it through legislation. the casinos were supposed to solve all, and they had never seen the legislation. we brought it to them. it has nothing in there about being dedicated to highways. we brought them the paper of truth and said, if you vote on 2000, wehe summer of will be paving roads, and we

plan on doing that. 60% of the voters passed it. first time in the history of the parish. could i say one thing about the alternate financing? when i was a district administrator, i felt that when local folks came -- we knew we needed hundreds of millions of dollars of highway improvements. local roads. even the most unreasonable person knows that takes a long time. when you have funding offered to repair sidewalks and bicycle paths, it should not take a long time. i am not saying you should have the legislation in place and then get out of the way. what i believe i am correct in this. you should not have to jump through all of the hoops for funding, compared to four 100 millions -- $100 million. maybe we could have a level or a

limit. if you reach $100 million or less, you could have less bureaucracy for it. we could do that under the same rules and laws. you guys could audit it. if we do not do it right, take that from us. but maybe have a limit on the funding, where we could set a tier where under a certain level, we could do some of the work ourselves, in coordination with you guys. >> we will look at that. $100 million is a lot of millions. >> i am talking about the alternative. >> i got your point, and i think it is well taken. >> my understanding is, we have heard from all of you. i think we are in agreement that our infrastructure is crumbling. we need more federal assistance. we knew that long-term. -- we need that long-term. rural towns are different from

big cities. we need flexibility. this committee does not really deal with the financing. to make your life a little miserable, let me ask you a question. at a time when many of our at a time struggling, in vermont people travel long distances to work -- i am sure that is true in many rural states. we are struggling with, how do you fund the highway trust fund? , why don't you give us some ideas? as senators, we are going to have to deal with it. what do you think? >> what do we implement?

maybe a mild travel fee based on distance of travel? there are pros and cons of that. we are starting to work through some of the issues. oregon has done some pilot work. other states are becoming more interested. >> you see that as an option? >> it is not going to happen overnight. >> i would agree with my colleague. year, know, we did, last increase our gas tax and diesel taxes to make up for the difference. and the decline in the vehicle miles traveled. emissions,ing improving vehicle emissions standards, has meant that relying on that for transportation is simply not sustainable. if we want to have a user fee approach, that is why we are looking to vehicle miles traveled. electric vehicles, while they

save, are not going to be able to pay into that system. >> i would be remiss if i told you that i understand all of your funding mechanisms and all of the things that are available. >> it is pretty much gas tax. >> i understand. inwere pretty creative indianapolis when we did our rebuilding. --hink eventually, the dmt vmt is something we'll have to look at. that was probably something to be looked at. >> i think whatever taxation system is used, it needs to be tied to miles driven. recommend we spend more on r&d, so we can start reducing the cost of the project themselves. i am still waiting for some big technology advancement in

construction materials or design that can somehow reduce the cost of these, so we do not need to raise so much money. wants itnly, everybody and nobody wants to pay for it. i will tell you, i think we have to offer up the papers of truth and tell them what it will cost if we use vmt and what it will cost if it is a gas tax. bere is no doubt it needs to increased. funding needs to be increased. no doubt, above my pay grade to figure out the financial mechanisms. whatever mechanism you look at has to have the realization that new york city and wyoming have different needs and purposes. the more we spend on concrete and pavement and the less we spend on paper, that is where the taxpayer benefits. i go back to my flexibility question, whatever the funding is. chris there is not much left that everybody has not already said. we agreed vehicle miles traveled

is another way to look at it, with the hybrids and better fuel efficiency. individual states need to be able to raise gas tax and index them to increases. we have already seen that in maryland and pennsylvania. delaware is on the precipice of trying to do so. is, talkt question about investment in infrastructure, jobs, and the -- economy.top if we had a creative relationship, does anyone doubt that would be a significant job creator, rebuilding the infrastructure, and the long-term impacts of a strong infrastructure helping job growth? >> it is absolutely a direct tie. there is no question about that. that with the american reinvestment and recovery act. into dollars went right infrastructure, local communities, and paychecks.

i think a $100 million investment in rhode island equates to 1300 job years of employees. big projects, small projects -- what investment in infrastructure has done to the local economy. but to the boston area, a controversial project and want in has done for the economy of massachusetts. >> not only jobs created by the project, but the ability to bring in investment. improved infrastructure. nobody has any doubts. >> we need to get going. with the smaller projects, let us get some of that done. if we screw it up, take it away from us. >> anyone who would convince the public they have a paper of truth is someone i will listen to. senator fisher? >> thank you all for being here today. when i listen to the nebraska department of roads, there is a

lot of frustration at the limited federal dollars we have being used on requirements, on a lot of april work. they really do not affect the social or environmental or historical aspects of these projects. many of you have mentioned that. and your frustration with that as well. chairman willis, in your testimony, you say that counties will send environmental review forms to state agencies, lengthening the time it takes to receive approval. do you have any estimate on the costs that will add to projects in your county? cannot give you specifics, because it varies so much. i can give you paper examples. road in --oving a

putting a culvert into a robe that -- road that has existed. the application was 82 pages, 960 squareto curb feet of dirt. it is a road that existed long before the regulations were created, but we are jumping through that hoop. only, toounty in my just add guard rails or to put center yellow line striping on the road, they had to submit paperwork. if you are going to paint yellow it should the road, be instantaneous. it should be quick. >> does this committee need to look at how we address the categorical exclusions on projects? i think that is what you are talking about on these, and the amount of paperwork, and the back-and-forth with the different agencies and the

bureaucracy involved. i see a lot of nodding. >> categorical exclusion is a step in the right direction. there is still a process. there is not money on concrete and bridges. i want -- i get stopped in the grocery to say, get this bridgestone. they want action on the ground. >> in your testimony, you talk about those stumbling blocks. and the burdens they place on the project delivery. think are some of the biggest obstacles you are faced with, the different federal rules and regulations? 35 one example is the i-2

project. we were trying to address traffic flow to the general electric facility that is getting ready to be built. assume -- we were informed by the federal highway association we would need the report. we are now 120 days beyond where we think the project should be. project.ery simple we are just trying to enhance the safety and the traffic flow. it seems like there is unnecessary paperwork and bureaucracy. >> director louis, with the state department of transportation and rhode island, how would you characterize -- i do not mean to put you on the spot, but i am going to. how would you characterize your department's relationship to hear federal partners? are there any areas that you can point to for improvement? have a very good

relationship with our federal partners in rhode island. the real key to success is when we are all working together with a common goal. the successes you will see across the country are rooted in that. county,, the state, the and the feds are all still working together. we are going to get a successful and quick turnaround. >> d.c. quick turnarounds? delays?ee may be some >> on the whole, we have a good relationship and are very responsive to the federal highway administration. >> it is frustrating to sit back and watch the delays as construction costs increase. they are increasing by double digits, percentagewise, in many cases.

thank you for everything you have done. same point -- we learned a lot of lessons during the disaster. of them is about everyone working together. i would say our relationship is strong. we are looking at innovations in how we permit projects. the sweet spot is not to reduce the standards, but to improve the process to get there. it is amazing what can happen in a crisis. when we had regulatory agencies with us on site, we were able to move expeditiously and meet the standards. >> that is a great suggestion. ,hen we see disasters happen this is a time when we come together, when we are able to get these projects done. the regulations are not as straight as they are in a normal process. we need to look at what is

required during a construction period. if they can be waived in an emergency, why not in a normal, everyday process of trying to build our infrastructure and reate jobs in this country? >> after work -- after earthquakes, we never waived quality. when you spoke about the yellow lines -- there are categorical exclusions. there are certain rules that -- you want to make sure the paint is the right quality. you want to make sure the people who work on it are treated fairly. there is an argument about this. i do not speak for everybody. thaty view has always been when we are responsible for the

money, you have to have some standards. i despise wasted time. it is wasted money. we definitely move forward on speeding things up. we actually went to a point that the federal workers and bureaucracy who were responsible for holding things up would really feel a pinch in their budget. we really did a lot. it is a question we all have to decide for ourselves. i know that if i were saying, move forward, go ahead, but do not meet the safety requirements, i would not feel good about it. when we did really move together -- ie governor at the time was in federal office. she is right.

we were all together in saying, we have got to rebuild. , waivedever, ever said the safety standard. is, if we can do this in an emergency, she is right. be able to do it every single day, unless there is some unexpected issue. that goes for all of your projects. we should be able to get you timely responses and move forward with a plan that works. >> madam chair, thank you very much. i appreciate the exchange you had, and the comments that were expressed. mayor, i thought you made a very good point in your testimony about the fact that the interstate program recognize the that americans want to

travel out to suburbia. our transportation infrastructure should accommodate the needs of our nation. the reverse is true. people are coming back into our urban centers. and that is wonderful. smart growth was a major initiative in maryland under governor glendenning. people recognize we have to do a better job of accommodating what people want today, and that is to live in our urban centers. therefore, our transportation programs need to be sensitive to that. that is what senator cochran and i have tried to do, with senator boxer's help. we marvel at the way you have given us concrete examples of how that has worked in practice. we have talked about livable communities. it is also a matter of using these funds for safety issues, to deal with realities of a dangerous situation in your

community, saving lives and helping people. i really wanted to underscore that point about how we need to system,e the highway the transportation system, surface transportation, accommodates local input. i served 20 years in the state legislature, and i know the relationship in my state between the counties and municipalities is a good relationship. tested when it is it comes to the use of transportation funds. the main decision-maker, which is the state -- that is how the system is set up. the state has the largest single say in how the transportation funds are allocated, including the federal transportation partnerships. get views, ifo you care to share them with us, as to how it is working, and the relationship you have between andstate and the locals,

whether the transportation programs need further adjustment with how it isd working between the state and localities. >> senator, thanks for those comments. i am one of three mayors on the national freight advisory committee, devising the national freight strategic plan. very honored to do that for the secretary of transportation. mayor, and i a have to advocate for cities not only in my state, but across the nation. thatthink it is important -- indiana is a little bit of a different state. very rural. a large region. several medium-size cities. a lot of money that goes to the state necessarily goes to highways.

basis, wentage probably do not get our fair share of the highway funding that comes in. not even close. i would like to see that adjusted a little bit, but not to the detriment of the state. i think cities do a good job of investing. the rebuilding fund of half $1 billion out there has been instrumental in putting people to work. but the money you are talking about, transportation alternative money, has spurred investment that is unbelievable in indianapolis. just yesterday, cummins engines announced they are moving downtown to be next to the cultural trail. a fortune 500 company, 400 jobs. we are building around this and other trails, because this money has come to us directly, either or to the cities. >> the transportation alternative or graham -- there are those who say you do not need it, because states could do this anyway. they could allocate the funds.

we do not find that happens. it is such a challenge to be able to fund all the priorities they have at the state level that there is virtually nothing left over for these types of project, if we did not have this specific program. >> and we take pride in being the capital city and throwing off money to the rest of the state. we do not get everything back from the state tax revenue that we contribute to. we have to donate some of that. as a state, we are proud to do that. that is fine. but if you do not invest directly in the city, we cannot continue that growth in our tax base. that is what we are worried about. we are always worried about increase in the property tax base in the city. the money you are talking about has been absolutely critical to the growth of our city. consequence, to the growth of our state.

talkknow there was a ted about how a town lost a million pounds. there is another additional benefit to some of these local initiatives. >> we always want people to be more pedestrian friendly and health-conscious. that is right. >> we always have a battle over the alternative transportation section. republican mayors were so eloquent on the point, and it means a lot to us. bill -- we need to make sure it is a fair bill. we are happy you came back. the floor is yours. >> going over your testimony again, i have pulled out the specific line, beyond the federal need for financial resources.

the success or failure of federal highway programs in wyoming can be reasonably predicted based on one question. does the program provide enough flexibility at the local level to meet the unique needs of wyoming's climate, terrain, and rural nature? there are very similar concerns. governmentny federal program, there are always strings attached, in terms of federal money, when state and local governments decide to accept federal funding. not, then than programs offer a one-size-fits-all approach. you gave an example. it will end up costing a million dollars because the county has engineering, bidding, and construction requirements that push the price tagged 10 times higher. can you share other examples perhaps of local projects, where local and state flexibility outweighed the benefits of the

federal funding? are there others? >> the challenge is, what hoops do have to jump through? do you have the time, the money? what is the end result? we want to spend those dollars wisely. we can participate in the program and build the bridge. but why waste hundreds of thousands of dollars for a bridge that is not necessary? acently, we had to replace river bridge. because of the standards, a traffic.had we did not need a two-lane bridge. but standards would have required a more robust bridge than what is necessary. or has been more flexibility going the right direction. but we decided to fund entirely local funds that probably would have been a $2 million bridge if we have participated in the program.

the county would have spent less money. we would have spent less. but it was not a wise investment of tax dollars. >> you look at converse county and increased energy production. the county is essentially experiencing a boom in oil and gas. uranium production as well. there is an increase in manpower and equipment, putting stress on the highway system at the local and county level. share herke you to converse county is dealing with increased energy production on the roads and bridges. >> that is significant. these are heavy vehicles. we have traditionally rural roads that are having energy production. we are getting heavy vehicles out there. we have done several public-private partnerships. we have worked with energy companies. not the traditional ones. we will let you work on our roads. they have done that. we have also had to deal with planning.

revenues always trail the impact. plan, we long-term cannot get ahead of the curve. we have worked hard to do patching, where necessary, and then have a long-term plan behind that. sometimes, you are spending double dollars. we have tried to look as far forward as we can, without the assurance of the long-term federal bill. we do not know where we fit in the picture? >> we have a short construction period in wyoming. unlike many warm season states, we do not have the opportunity for year-round construction. what can this committee do to improve the highway bill to optimize federal highway spending? originals back to my statement about flexibility. let the government at the lowest level make those decisions. if you cannot get to the place

until april 1 to do your engineering study, and you have six weeks of review through any part of the environmental process, by the time you have awarded the bid and starting construction, you could be september 1, because you could not start the process. it is key to note that all of these federal programs, we have skin in the game. they are generally matched programs. when you talk about stewardship's of dollars, i think it is important that we have skin in the game and are held accountable at that level, just as you are at this level. i want to make sure all tax dollars are spent wisely, whether they are locally generated or funneled through the federal and state system. >> thank you for your testimony. >> i really am fascinated with the one lane bridge. seriously. think i have been on a one lane bridge. i guess i need to ask you a question.

what if more population comes to the area? don't you think it would make some sense to build a two-lane bridge? maybe the federal government feels that way, before they invest money in it? it could be obsolete. it is such a gorgeous state. these bridges last forever. do you think it is that unreasonable? talk to me. tell me the truth. give me a truth paper. >> visit these wonderful 19 bridges. >> i could hurt you politically. lord knows what it would do to me. but i will consider it, notwithstanding. >> would you do a low-key tour, under the radar. -- to somee you some coal mines. it would be terrific. >> i cannot wait. i could pick up my asthma.

i am teasing. asked the same question, because it is legitimate. we know, locally, what the potential is. with is 25 vehicles a day, the highest traffic the bridge has ever seen. and it is local traffic. >> do they all go in one direction at the same time? >> in rural wyoming, you stop all the time for vehicles coming toward you. that is the culture. a spend the money for two-lane bridge would have been viewed, at our level, as a waste of money. it was an old wooden bridge. it earned down. we replaced it. it has the weight capacity. it is 300 feet. i can tell if there is a truck on the other side. we knew there was no -- in the next 20-30 years, with alternate routes, there was no need to spend those extra dollars.

>> fascinating hearing this. we thank you all for the perspectives you bring to us. thank you for joining us. map 21, wesed included a number of reforms to transportation to focus on things like safety, state of good repair, air quality. unfortunately, we did not make much progress on the issue of freight and good movement, as we might have hoped. we have a lot of freight that comes in and out of corridors. even by ship. at ourake another look federal freight policy, what advice would you give us to develop projects? >> since we have approached

planning from a regional in our area wed have to, we look at rail -- we have the northeast corridor. we have a number of spur lines. most of them come from one location. we have freight coming in primarily from cecil county, maryland, coming down into delaware, spreading back and forth between states. our rail networks are intertwined with our sister states. a regional approach is one way to look at this. we talk about the northeast corridor. the flexibility of funding is not tied to state lines. there are projects that are good for a number of states that it is hard for everyone to contribute to in one state. one of the things we have seen is, if we could potentially spread the local funding around, some of the projects that are waiting on funding along the northeast corridor --

technically, they are amtrak projects. ther states could get projects moving, and they would not sit waiting for a large federal grant that may never come. compass, that a you draw circles with, and put the point of it on bloomington -- a 50 mile circle around that point, and you cover parts of maryland, parts of pennsylvania, parts of new jersey. you have a hugely busy northeast corridor. you have a passenger rail, freight rail. there is a lot going on. i was pleased to hear what you said about maybe providing some flexibility for surface transportation flow. i would not demand that state and local governments use that. but give them more flexibility

if they decide to do that. we used to have a great former mayor of indianapolis, who served as here in the u.s. senate for a number of years. i think another mayor came on to become governor. >> he was not. >> i think you wanted to be. being mayor is a great job, i think. especially when the economy is getting better. i have heard good things about your work. work to turn indianapolis into a truly multimodal city, with good mass transit, sidewalks, and good passenger rail. i have always thought the regional transportation network would offer people lots of travel options, some of which

can involve physical activity -- a chance to ride a bike, or you name it. can you tell us why you supported such a range of transportation? i want you to come back and do it again. project could better support those efforts. >> i appreciate the kudos to senator lugar, who i respect quite a bit. we are trying to create the kind of city that people want to live in. the young professionals, the young families, are looking for a certain type of city. the multiple transportation options are critical. when i became the mayor of indianapolis -- >> how long have you been mayor? >> i am in my seventh year. >> mayor for life? >> my joke was, what does one line of i claims connect to? we have additional trails because of the transportation

alternative. writingple can start and walking around the city in a way that -- they want to go outside the door. sports facilities, the entertainment options -- they want to be able to get to them in multiple ways. we believe that attracts talent to the city. are starting to get nationally and internationally -- that is pretty obvious. every walking national company is in the search for talent. the cultural tale has gotten a lot of attention. they are putting their new office space right on it. multiuse 28 story building, primarily residential. it is going to be multiuse, right on it.

that is very important to us. the transportation alternative money gives us an opportunity to did these young people options on ways to move. senior citizens use them quite a bit also. we have a lot more bicycles, a lot more people working on trails. it is a lot healthier than it used to be. it has been very important for us to have the money flow down in a particular way to us, so we can build the kind of city that attracts that type of talent. >> i wanted to build on the urban situation. >> you are from a big state, vermont. >> a big rural state. these programs are essential for our communities. without the transportation alternative or grams, small communities of 1000 or less cannot afford this. we have a very competitive program. we have a statewide policy of focusing on development

downtown. people are clamoring for bike paths, for sidewalks. all of the economic benefit that comes from when you have a vital community -- it is our rural states as well. it is dependent on these important funds. think you. >> when you live in a country where over half of the people are obese or on the way to being obese, the idea of having different options -- if you think about how much more we spend for health care costs than countries -- this is not a double-edged sword. >> let me say this. >> one thing, besides the it brings credibility in the government process.

it also brings voters who will vote to help us raise revenues. the cities are filled with people who like cycling and sidewalks. they are soft projects. let us bring them quickly, so we can build that confidence on behalf of the bigger scene. >> i hear you. cited the card and cochran languages. the money goes directly to where you want to get it. if it is nota is, a huge, significant project, give more flexibility, which we will look at. i know it is delicate to ask this question. i want you to know this transportation alternative program was one of the hardest things i have ever done in my life. a huge problem here in getting it done. because we have made these

reforms, because we now deliver the money where it should go, is there anyone on this panel that feels strongly that we should get rid of that program? panel?e anyone on the that is important for me to know. mayor ballard, you are such an eloquent voice for this alternative transportation program. if there is a way for you to get a few mayors on a letter, as many as possible, to me and to senator vitter, and i know you have just a few here who i think will sign it, it would mean a lot. frankly, i do not want to see this thing go into another meltdown. that, could help us with it would be hugely important. i know there are some people in the audience who are going to be advising on it.

know, this is a must-have for a lot of us. we want to make sure it happens. sure thatted to make you know -- i think you do. we took many steps to streamline the last though. i have them all listed. i will not go into all of them. states the to all previously enacted pilot program allowing states to assume the responsibilities of the secretary of transportation under the environmental review process. in my state, there is no federal environmental process. is that right? it, and thens shows it to the feds and says, it is a -- an equivalent process. you could do it, and as long as

it is done well, it should be ok. let me say to all of you, this has been so important. we have already heard from the very large states. the large states are very happy with the program. you did not talk about the program, i assume because it is more important to the larger cities and larger states. but would you be supportive if we looked at a program that was expanded to make it easier for rural and small communities to get the grants? if you do not know what it is, it is transportation infrastructure financing program. , for example, you pass a local measure, and it is money coming in over 20 years, we can come up front, or give you that check right now, and you pay us back over that 20 years.

raise your hand if you would be interested in working with us toward making that program -- adding a component that helps towns,ller cities and and rural -- i see everybody said yes. i also want to towns, and say how important -- exactly what you said. people want to be able to walk and ride. they want to be able to keep the cities, the young families. that is what they are looking for. in the old days, in california, bill said, -- people said, i want to live on a mountain top. raising the kids in the hills -- it is a beautiful area. the trouble they found is that the kids wanted to be a little lower down, so they could walk to the store, walk to school, and did not have to count on mom and dad for everything. i think both of our mayors have

, and are vermont -- everybody made the point that this is a lifestyle that is now developing out into the future. we need to bring all of this together. i just want to say how thrilled i am with this panel. i spoke for a lot of cities and towns -- >> i approve this message. >> very cute. >> it is important to have a wing man who trusts you so much. we stand adjourned. in april, we are marking up the bill, and i hope you will be happy with that. and adjourned. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] [captioning performed by national captioning institute]

>> in a few moments, president obama's meeting with pope francis at the vatican. in 15 minutes, house debate on a bill that would provide aid to ukraine and sanction russia for an anextation of crimea. after that a bill is considered in cutting medicaid payments to doctors, the so-called doc fix. >> one thing that didn't become known until the late 1980's hen a leading f.b.i. scholar founded through a file that he applied for through the freedom of information act. that was something that had taken place from 1940 to 1966

when the f. bfpblg i. for that period of time had a formal relationship with the american 1gion in which members, 00,080 members acted as informants in their community and regularly filed reports with the f.b.i. americans had no idea that that kind of informing was taking place and they were untrained informers. >> on march 8, 1971, a group broke into an f.b.i. office in media, pennsylvania, and stole every document in the building. the story sunday night at 8:00 on espn's q & a. q & a.an's >> this is 15 minutes.

>> welcome, mr. president. > thank you so much. >> very nice to see you, thank you. >> thank you. how are you, sir. how are you? thank you so much. >> a wonderful visit with my daughters, thank you.

>> very nice to see you. wonderful to be back, thank you. >> good to see you. >> very nice to see you. thank you. >> how are you? thank you. >> mr. president.

>> wonderful to meet you. thank you so much. thank you. > thank you very much. > thank you so much.

[inaudible]

>> this is made with timber that built the first cathedral n the united states. > thank you.

[inaudible]

[inaudible]

>> mr. speaker, it's time to take the mask off this institution. it's time to expose the check writing scandal i like to call rubber gate. it is time to bring some honor back to this institution. nine months ago i stood on this floor with other freshman and took the oath of office for the

very first time in our career. it was probably one of the most important days of my entire life. i have never been so proud, but to go home to my district over this weekend and to have people laughing at congress, laughing at congressmen, laughing at this institution brings dishonor on all of us. i'll give you a couple of examples. i was out at a pizza hut this weekend with my son mark, my daughter sarah, my wife leslie and a gentleman from the booth behind me asked me are you going to pay this with a check, congressman? that's notted kind of jokes we need. we need to expose this, mr. speaker, announce the list of names. >> the chair would like to warn the gentleman from iowa he is not supposed to use exhibits like he did. the chair asks the gentleman to respect the rules of the house. >> c-span, created by america's

cable companies 35 years ago and brought to you today as a public service by your local satellite or cable provider. >> congress passed similar bills thursday that the guardian describes as a major ukraine aid package adding "partisan bickering had held up $1 billion in loan guarantees but senate and house passed bills to shore up the ukraine economy. there are, however, differences in the bills that will need to be reconciled before it's sent to the president. over the next 50 minutes, house debate on the bill. 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 hi