building some state and confidence in our constituents so that one day our constituents can have respect for this institution, the greatest institution in this democracy. from theore highlights five years of house for coverage on our facebook page. c-span, created by america's cable companies 35 years ago, and brought to today as a public service by your local cable or satellite guest>> when you look at the ths we face, when you look at things like improvised nuclear devices, we know that no one jurisdiction would ever have the capability to respond to that. we will have to bring resources from across the nation. in looking at various threats, several which are terrorist-based and some are natural hazards, we start adding up the numbers. casualties, fatalities, injuries, search and rescue,

immediate recovery needs. in looking at that, we begin to identify critical capabilities and gaps in that. part of this was to address the it adds not only hoping up to national capability, but actually driving some of the bigger risks and threats as an overall national response and how you build the capability and direct that funding. part of this will remain to grant funding based on the division between states. the other has to be competitive so that we can see where sponsorship by one state or community to provide resources to an area races each jurisdiction. is concern about the jurisdiction of funds and my jurisdiction giving what we need. there's not a lot of trust out there. that concerns me because in these types of large-scale events come if we can't agree upon our response abilities to work together as a team, how is that going to work with a real

disaster that requires all of our capabilities? not just the local jurisdictions, but multiple states and will will jurisdictions responding to these events. fugate on his agencies 2015 budget request. arizona, therom tucson festival of books. alan weisman on saving the planet. followed by panels on the west-mexican border. saturday starting at noon on c-span2. the origins of the cell phone. with the motorola researcher who led the team that invented the first cell phone in 1973. sunday on c-span3. lots of news coming out of capitol hill this week. just today, michigan republican mike rogers announced that he will not seek reelection. the seven term congressman

be leaves. he said that he hopes to start a national radio program. a program that will be with cumulus broadcasting. this brings the total number of retiring house members 24to 42. seniority stampede. he is the eight committee chair to retire the cycle. issuesse considered to yesterday. bill providing a to ukraine and the sanctions against russia and another extending current medicare payments to doctors for another year. 24% cut is due to hit april 1. that bill was passed in unusual fashion yesterday. what happened yesterday? that seemed like a pretty routine house proceeding. caller: there you have some

of the transparency we see with this congress. i'm joking, of course. it was judged to be a passage of the medicare extension of payments to doctors who serve medicare patients. that was to expire on monday. leadership onits both sides of the aisle found themselves in a situation thursday morning in which the measure would appear to be headed for defeat unless they somehow got around the corner they painted themselves in. the vote without many of the members even on the floor understanding what was going on was held. the measure was deemed to pass. and goes to the senate for action on monday.

the program they are trying to address, the current funding expires on monday. unless the senate follows payment ratesare -- gotors will increase up 24%. they're trying to avoid the cut to doctors. article, there was some anger isa members -- by some members after this vote. there was anger on both sides of the out. .aul ryan walked off the floor he didn't even realize what had just happened. others, gerry connolly was outright upset at the process. it, likening it to a house of card situation.

welch said he simply did not know what happened. he was upset about it. at the same time, you did not see a lot of pressure from these new members expressing outrage afterwards. the thingd, they got out of the way. some of them were allowed to address the concerns they had that this thing would expire. they do not have to leave their finger prints on it. case of notis a wanting to leave fingerprints? caller: we will never know. it certainly appeared that come in the process, the house gop an expeditedet up process that would have required two thirds of the 432 current members to approve the measure. they do not have enough votes. earlier had said they

would not vote for. at least 50 of them likely would have been needed for passage. there was a conundrum which is some republicans who want a saying they would vote against it. house leaders found themselves in a bind. a deadline coming monday. addressed this problem or there would be a 24% cut to doctors payments. that is where it gets murky. pelosi andside says democratic leaders agreed to go along with this quietly. we won't know that until they admit it, i guess. host: here's the article in the national journal. house just did something sneaky to pass the doc fix.

number ofioned a members being surprised at that forced a vote. one of those is the governor of texas who expressed concern on a speech later on the house floor. we have that for you on c-span.org. the other issue the house debated yesterday was a bill providing aid to ukraine and sanctions on russians involving annexation on crimea. similarsed but not identical bills. we will have that on c-span. here is what the house debate looked like from yesterday. 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 dent 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 >> the house passed ukraine measure by 390 9-19. the senate passed its version yesterday. the house is coming in for a brief pro forma session. it is likely they will take up the senate measure. writing about ukraine and the vote, the eugenic -- view when general assembly, al jazeera said the assembly approved the resolution, affirming ukraine's territorial integrity, and called the referendum that led to russia's annexation of crimea

illegal. by the way, the united nations security council meets today to discuss the ongoing crisis in ukraine all stop this is fox reports concerns announced report of new details about russia's you military buildup on the ukrainian border. president obama attributed russia's annexation of crimea and its buildup of troops at the border of ukraine to a deep-seated resentment by president food and about -- about -- by president vladimir portions of that was broadcast on cbs this morning. mr. obama in the interview called on mr. putin to pull back russia's troops and begin direct negotiations with the ukrainian government. the house is coming in momentarily. they may take up legislation

that the senate passed, coming in for a brief pro forma session. live to the house floor now on c-span. [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 .s. house of representatives.] the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the chair lays before the house a communication from the speaker. the clerk: the speaker's rooms, washington, d.c. a, march 28, 2014. i hereby appoint the honorable frank r. wosm to act as speaker

pro tempore -- wolf to act as speaker pro tempore on this day. signed, john a. boehner, speaker of the house of representatives. the speaker pro tempore: the chair -- the prayer will be offered by our chaplain, father conroy. chaplain conroy: let us pray. gracious god, we give you thanks for giving us another day. you have blessed us with all good gifts and with thankful hearts we express our gratitude. you have created us with opportunities to serve other people in their need, to share together in respect and affection, to be faithful in the responsibilities we have been given. in this moment of prayer, please grant the members of this people's house as they meet with their respective constituents the gifts of wisdom and discernment that in their words and actions they will do justice, love with mercy and walk humbly with you. in so many places in our world

there are people living with unrest and uncertainty. bring comfort to their soles -- souls and success to the work of those seeking to be of greatest assistance. may all that is done this day be for your greater honor and glory, amen. the speaker pro tempore: thank you, father. the chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings and announces to the house his approval thereof. pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1 the journal stands approved. the chair will lead the house in the pledge of allegiance. if everyone would join. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. without objection, the house stands adjourned until noon on tuesday, april 1,

>> the house in for a brief pro forma session. they did not take up senate action on ukraine, so that is possible next week as well. the house will be back tuesday at noon for general speeches and 2:00 p.m. for legislative work. you can follow the house on c-span. the senate when they return on monday on c-span2. live programming continues later today with u.s.-china relations, including a number of issues including sports and diplomacy, featuring former nba player yao ming and former nba commissioner david stern. speaker, i rise today out of concern for you, all of us in concern for these united states house of representatives. as one who has been involved in the reform movement for the years i have been here in congress, those of us who are

interested in reform are interested in just that, reform. we do't want to banish -- not want to bash this institution or our colleagues. but all of you have been home. you have talked to your constituents, i have talked to mind. they are outraged. congress today stands at the lowest esteem in the history of polling in this country, and why? because the american people look at us as ineffective and unaccountable. if we are sincerely going to about-- to do something reform in this congress, those of the two issues we have to address -- accountability and effectiveness. on effectiveness, we know the problems of committees and the proliferation of subcommittees, the rules under which we operate. at what has to look happened last year during the consideration of banking reform legislation. we never could get our arms around it. look at the problem with health care. we cannot get our arms around that issue.

we need real reform, and that is why many of us are supporting the hamilton gratis resolution to head up that selectivity. when it comes to accountability, we really fall down. converse is not willing to live under the same laws we expect all americans to live under. congress would be the first body to call for an investigation of the executive branch of government, the first body to want to hold everyone in the private sector accountable for every dollar we give them. but we say to the american people, don't hold onto the same standards. today we have october surprise. another mission that will diminish accountability and credibility with our constituents. -- >> the time for the gentleman has expired. >> i yield 30 additional sections -- seconds. >> today we have the opportunity to set up an independent body to

put this house on the right step , to once again start to -- to once again start to build the process with our constituents of that one day our constituents can have respect for this institution am of the greatest institution in this democracy. >> find more highlights from 35 years of house floor coverage on our facebook page. c-span, created by america's cable companies 35 years ago and brought to you today as a public service by your local cable or satellite provider. >> probably when you look at the threats we face, when you look at things like a revising nuclear devices, we know no one with any jurisdiction has the capability to respond to that, we have to bring in resources

across the nation. looking at the various threats, several of which are terrorists based and some are national hazards -- we started adding up the numbers -- casualties, injuries, search-and-rescue, immediate recovery needs. in looking at at, we began to identify critical capabilities and gaps in that. part of this was to address funding, not only hoping by jurisdiction by jurisdiction it adds up to national capability, but actually driving the bigger risks and threats as an overall national response. how do you build that capability and direct that funding? art of this would remain by 9-11 statute, aced on the division between the states. the other has to be competitive so that we can see some areas onee maybe sponsorship by state or one community can provide resources to the area versus each jurisdiction trying to build that capability. there is a lot of concern about the distribution of funds. there are concerns about my jurisdiction, our jurisdiction

getting what we need. there is not a lot of trust out there. that also concerns me because in these times of large-scale events, if we cannot agree on responsibilities as a team, how does that work when a real disaster that exceeds that jurisdiction's capability and requires all our capabilities, not just the local jurisdiction, the state of impact, or federal resources, but local -- local states and jurisdictions responding to these events. dr. this weekend, fema -- >> this weekend, fema director craig through gate -- craig fu gate. , alan wiseman. starting at noon on c-span2. on american history tv, the origins of the cell phone with the motorola researcher who led the team that invented the first cell phone. sunday at 6:30 p.m. eastern on

c-span3. the internal review team tasked by the chris christie administration to investigate the george washington bridge closure discussed their findings yesterday. lead attorney randy mastro says the governor had no marked -- no prior dollars and played no role in the lane closure decision and authorityr port official david wildstein and former chris christie aid richard kelly -- bridget kelly were high in the closures. >> i am here today with my , five former federal prosecutors, a team we put together to conduct this investigation on behalf of the governor's office of new jersey. we are here today to brief you on our report and our findings after that investigation. this is a team of professional

former federal prosecutors with more than 50 years of government many, manyand internal investigations. as part of our backgrounds. weeks ago we set about to do this investigation. we have since conducted over 70 interviews. we reviewed more than 250,000 documents. at the same time, we have facilitated cooperation with other ongoing investigations. you oure today to tell bottom line findings, and then to answer your questions. we probably will not be able to get to everything today. you will probably have many more questions as you read our 345-page report, which we consider to have been based on a thorough and exhaustive review. i will be happy to take questions as you go through that report later and to get you the

information that you request. but for today's purposes, we come to the bottom line findings. first, in connection with the allegations related to the george washington bridge realignment, we found that governor christie had no thisedge beforehand of george washington bridge realignment idea, and that he played no role whatsoever in that decision or the implementation of it. we further found no evidence that anyone in the governor's office decides bridget kelly new of this idea in advance or played any role in the decision or the implementation of it. was that afterd the decision to implement the lane realignment, while he was

going on and in its aftermath, the members of the governor's office -- some of them -- became aware of the lane realignment, inquired of port authority representatives, and were told this was a legitimate traffic it was an that operational issue for the port authority to deal with. that iser found controversy grew by early december, that there were rumors about the potential of others involvement, appropriate steps were taken to try to determine if anyone else in the governor's office -- anyone in the governor's office -- was involved in the lane realignment is vision. when those appropriate inquiries were made, richard kelly --

bridget kelly lied to her colleagues and even reached out to a subordinate and asked them to destroy a potentially incriminating documents. we further found that it was not until january 8, 2014, when documents that had been subpoenaed were first revealed. wildsteind that david and bridget kelly had , thisipated in this act decision, and the implementation of it, to realign the george washington bridge lanes. we further found, based on our investigation, that david wildstein is the person who originated this idea and orchestrated it. that david wildstein went to

rigid kelly for approval in the governor's office, and that they had an ulterior motive for implementing that decision, to in some way target the mayor in fort lee. answer everying to question today. we are not able to answer what that ulterior motive was, but we can say the evidence does not establish that that all teary motive was to target the mayor because he did not endorse governor risky for reelection. in fact, there is substantial contrary evidence. the evidence shows that both the governor's office and the christie campaign knew as early as march 2013 that mayor socket mayor sokolich would not be supporting the governor

for reelection. indeed he was on a list of mayors being considered for honorary appointments from the as mayr as recently 2013. we further find that when the governor became aware that richard kelly and his office had been involved in the decision to close these lanes, he took appropriate action. he fired rigid kelly, and then he commissioned this investigation and made a public , before ourarly on investigation had progressed beyond its initial stages, that ouras going to release findings to the public before he could have known what they would be and what our recommendations would be.

, on the day we were retained, which was the first time i ever met governor christie, to find out what the facts are, whatever they may be, to report them back to the governor's office, and to make recommendations as we saw fit to address the problems so that something like this never happens again. that is what we have done in our 345-page report. as to the second issue that we sandy gate,o invesinvolving h's we find that mayor zimmer's allegations that members of the christie administration delivered a message from the governor to her threatening -- unless she

supported a private development projects are not only unsubstantiated, they are demonstrably false in material respects. mayor zimmer's subjective perceptions do not match the objective reality reflected in the hard evidence that we uncovered earing our investigation. in fact, they are contradicted byonontemporaneous documents, witness accounts, and her own prior statements. so no remedial actions are required in regard to those allegations. finally, i wanted to briefly summarize some of the recommendations that we have made to the governor. because while the actions of the violation, awas a breach of the public trust, that we take very seriously, and we

take our mandate very seriously to make recommendations to the governor, that something like this never happen again. recommendations that we made to the government's iga -- the intergovernmental affairs office bridget kellyby in 2013. that that office the disbanded and that the governor's office ,e reorganized in its functions be combined with those of the governor's office and constituent relations into an office of legislative and constituent services. to get back to the original mission of that office, which was to provide constituent services, to provide services to local elected officials in a

nonpartisan way -- open to all -- the way that office functioned during the first three-plus years of governor christie's administration, until behaviorational inected by bridget kelly 2013. the mission of that office should be made crystal clear -- to be a service function for all in a nonpartisan manner. second, we have recommended to the governor's office that the governor appoint an ombudsman and a chief ethics officer for the governor's office. the ombudsman would be a senior statesman of unquestioned toegrity and independence report directly to the governor

and to issue periodic reports to the public. as both a resource, a sounding board, and a place to go for complaints within the governor's office. and we have recommended separately the import -- the appointment of a chief ethics officer for the office of the governor to be responsible for ethics enforcement, conflicts issue resolution, and training. and that person should have a direct reporting relationship both with the chief counsel to andgovernor, the ombudsman, an ability to report to the governor as well. finally, in regard to the port authority, which is where the lane realignment was effectuated, we recommend that the appointment of a bistate ways inon to examine

which to fundamentally restructure and reform port authority to ensure its independence and professionalism. this incident exemplifies there are times within the port authority that the rivalries between new york and new jersey have led to communication failures and other problematic issues. a bistate commission appointed by both governors can look at ways to help improve the operations of the port authority to make it truly independent and professional to serve the needs of both states. in the first instance, a commission will hopefully look at these types of issues first. whether it is appropriate to there aree so that

new york and new jersey divisions, functions, projects principally in one state or another that will be run by each of those states so that those states will be truly accountable for the projects applicable to each state. toond, to look at ways restructure the appointments process at the port authority. to encourage independence and professionalism. terms of years thomas staggered terms that will exceed the length of terms of governors and joint appointments by both governors to increase responsibilityd within the port authority. that is a brief summary am a ladies and gentlemen, of our findings and recommendations, and now i would be pleased to take questions. yes, david? governor christie's lawyer, the fact that you found governor christie did nothing wrong here,

you did what you are supposed to do, working for them. >> the premise of the question is wrong, david, because the premise of the question is that our law firm works for an individual. our law firm was retained by the office of the governor. we were retained by a public office, and we have an obligation to that public office, and whatever the facts were that we found, our obligation, and it was publicly stated, was to report those findings back to that office, and that office announced publicly long before we reached findings of rendering for knowing what our findings would be, at those findings would be put out to the public. and, david, had we found evidence to the contrary, we would have been reporting that. and of course facilitating our cooperation with investigations, we would have been providing

that evidence to investigators. what we found, david -- what we found -- was that governor christie had no involvement in the decision to close these lanes and no prior knowledge of it. not a shred of evidence of it. and we are obligated to report that back. that is our public responsibility, both as lawyers and to public office. yes, andrea? interview chairman stenson and what did the chairman noted back of >know? >> our interviews were not under oath, just as typical of other investigations that we are doing are not under oath yucca chairman samson -- are not under .ath we did not have the opportunity to interview the chairman.

residents of new jersey -- what does $1 million buy? >> first of all, i have no idea what the cost of this has been, but i will say that to do an investigation like this and to have to facilitate cooperation with other investigations that have issued sweeping overbroad subpoenas is a costly proposition. it is a costly proposition for the governor's office, for the legislative committees, for the legislative individuals involved. but let me say this -- it is a search for the truth, and we believe we have gotten to the truth or we would not be reporting it. ,t serves no one's interest certainly not my or my law firm's interest, certainly not interests,r's office or the constituency it serves, the people of new jersey, for us

to do anything other than to try to get to the truth and address it. because, ladies and gentlemen, there are other investigations that will make findings after we are done. we will be judged at the end of the day my whether we got this right. we intended to get it right. we believe we have gotten it right. we have admitted where we do not have answers yet, and other investigations we will continue to work with to see that we get those answers. and as to the most important questions, we believe we got it right and we will ultimately be had toby that, and we work even harder to get it right now so the people of new jersey could be assured as a matter of public trust whether the officials in their governor's office have conducted themselves appropriately or not. our findings today are a vindication of governor christie and what he has said all along -- that he had no knowledge of

the lane realignment of and no involvement in that decision. too.t is a sad day, it is a sad day for all of us to know that there are people in public office -- in the governor's office and the port authority -- who breached the public trust in this way. that is why we have made the recommendations that we have. >> a couple of things. e-mail sayingn an mistake.e was a big we know that david wildstein talked about retaliation. prevent a governor himself -- the governor, from finding people who basically turn out to be political hacks, who turned the port authority into their crazy idea of a playpen, into a piggy bank.

other than reforming terms on the commission, i don't see how we get to the point where he is in that position, that they were essentially either morally corrupt or -- >> there are many parts to your question. let me start with -- and i think i answered the question before -- we did not have the opportunity to question david samson. >> why not? decided to decline to have parties there interviewed. please let me answer his question first. we are not going to interrupt each other. as to your other question, we think the reforms we are talking including someone like the chief ethics officer, would be involved in screening and ethics issues relating to appointment and conduct -- we think that that in part addresses what you are saying.

i want to be crystal clear, though. i want to be crystal clear. we found that this was the action of a few. this is not reflective of the whole. the many honorable people who move -- who serve on the -- in the governor's office, many of whom have long distinguished careers in public service. so it is said that bridget kelly did what she did and that david wildstein did what he did. our report reflects our findings in regard to those individuals, but it is not reflective of the actions of the hole at either the governor's office or the port authority. yes? we have so many people here. one quick one, please. >> would you recommend that the governor asked for mr. samson's

resigning? >> he did not have a knowledge prior to the lane closures, and he was not involved in the hoboken issue at all. the allegation made by mayor zimmer that the funding of a rockefeller group study by the port authority -- the study of hoboken's north end, that the port authority paid for, that found the bottle filler a group's project should be designated for development -- that the rockefeller group's project should be designated for development -- the port authority decided to fund that study before david samson ever became the sitting chair of the port authority. issuesr perspective, the you are raising were not the issues of our investigation. yes, please? >> since the lane closures have

come to light, it has been reported and well documented that david wildstein has done other things in the past prior to being in the port authority that would be seen -- his leadership style has been characterized as being very abrasive. with that in mind, i am wondering how it comes to the point where the governor or his administration felt comfortable to him in such a position of authority that gave him the opportunity pretty much to do whatever he wanted to. >> that is a good question. the report reflects that we found, david wildstein's apartment came about because bill baroni had been reported to be the executive director the port authority. that is a representative of the new jersey side.

he recommended david wildstein be his number two at the port authority. it was not a recommendation made in the first instance by the governor's office. the fact that it happened and this person was in that position and we have made the findings we have -- which is that this is a , aid wildstein-driven idea david wildstein-orchestrated lane closure, that he himself had a history for some reason of caring about these lanes as some sort of favored treatment of fort lee. there are documents that david wildstein raised this idea, this concern about the fort lee lanes camerly as late 2010 and back to it periodically and pushed it in 2013. we were not able to determine why, why he had a personal or

political animus toward fort lee or at some subsequent point, mayor socket which -- mayor olich,which -- mayor sok based on the evidence that we saw, that there was some personal evidence that wildstein must've had and kelly joined him by approving this. a brief follow-up. he introduced him to people at the highest levels of the agency as a personal friend of the governor, and he told people at the top of that agency that he had to have a top level position on the executive board that came straight from the governor's office. to be the case? >> we did not find that to be the case, and if bill baroni was trying to enhance his own or

wildstein's stature with a very authority onort the new york and new jersey side, we found no evidence to support such a thing. in fact, we found contrary evidence. yes? >> given that you are very close to rudy giuliani, you were not able to interview wildstein, kelly, why would we not think this is a whitewash? >> ok, again, i will have to take each of these parts in turn. first, the word you just used -- again, this is a vindication of governor christie, in that we found what he had been saying all along was true, that he had no prior knowledge of this lane realignment idea and no role whatsoever in the decision or the implementation of it. we did sad day because

find that someone in the governor's office, bridget kelly, and someone at the port authority, david wildstein, were involved in an abuse of the public trust. that is something we all take seriously. as to the other two part of your question -- yes, i was very proud. i am also a proud democrat. i am also fiercely independent, for the many times -- i brought one case after another against the republican bloomberg administration, and i represented bill de blasio personally, and bill thompson, who was almost mayor, and the public advocate, and i represent deborah glick now in the litigation with nyu. the point is this. lawyers, former federal prosecutors, professionals doing an independent investigation. it serves no one's interests -- ,ot hours, not the governor's

not the governor's office, and not the constituency that the governor's office service, the people of new jersey, for us to try to do anything other than uncover the truth and report the truth because we are going to be judged on whether we got it right and other investigations are still ongoing and we believe we got it right. we said what we thought we could say as a matter of fact was true, and what we felt inconclusive or we could not determine, we said that we would continue to cooperate with investigations. now i come to the third part of your question. i did not get to interview wildstein or kelly. they had both taken the fifth amendment. it was pointed out by many of you in the press that we did not get to interview david wildstein or bridget kelly, and that is true. neither is the legislative committee going to interview

bridget kelly and david wildstein because they have taken the fifth amendment against answering questions. and the litigation going on now is not about whether they can be , ited to answer questions is whether documents can be produced. documentsin produced and they have been put out publicly. bridget kelly and david -- they are the focus of that investigation, and in our experience, as former federal prosecutors, it is unusual for people who are the focus of an investigation to be going in and telling their story . they are often taken the fifth amendment, which effect they are in circumstances. eventually they do come forward, you have to evaluate the credibility of what they say under the circumstances

at the time of when they say it. and the jeopardy they face. and based on the hard evidence that exists out there, because we have an old maxim in investigations, we lawyers -- witnesses lie, documents don't. and we have a hard evidence. we have seen and had unfettered access to files -- not only government files from the governor's office, but the personal e-mails and text messages of the governor, the lieutenant governor. senior staff and the governor's office, former senior staff of the governor's office. so we know what communications withhave had, if any, david wildstein and bridget kelly. and we have for my thanks to the , david wildstein's personal e-mails and texts.

he was given a subpoena to produce everything he had on the george washington bridge. he produced documents. i take it that he produced everything he had responsive to that subpoena, and went back and unredacted more information that we are going to see. " he did not take the fifth amendment. he produced documents -- and bill baroni, he did not take the fifth amendment. he produced documents. we have wildstein to kelly, wildstein to baroni, wildstein to others. official and personal, we saw it. we have baroni to wildstein, baroni to kelly, official and personal. we saw it. the only thing we have not seen -- and we have seen a lot more than anybody else in this room

has seen because we have seen the person texts and e-mails of those in the governor's office, senior levels, and even some former members. the only thing we have not seen is kelly to -- during the relevant period. guess what. what we found was that whatever personal relationship they had, it ended by the first week of august, 20 13. they largely stopped speaking. so i don't expect we know it from our witness interviews and it was concerned -- confirmed by multiple interviews. let me just finish. we should not be yelling out. let me just finish. necessarily tot see anything more come from that, but we have seen so much. we have seen so much hard evidence. with all this time,

the hard evidence and the private communications, that we have had access to and we have seen, some of which you have seen -- some more of which you get to see now is the governor's office decided decided we should publish this report, we have based on the hard evidence, we can make the findings we have and there is not a shred of hard that the governor did anything other than what he has publicly said, that he had no knowledge of the lane closures beforehand, and he had no role in the decision to implement it or in the implementation of it. report, will the there be a waving of , thatey-client privilege we disclose what underlying the report? >> you are getting with the report today hundreds of exhibits, hundreds of internal

documents that have never been revealed before. there are 1400-plus footnotes referring to those materials. they have all been posted online for you to review yourselves. virtually every proposition in this document is footnoted and cited. and the question you ask -- of course the governor's office is aware there may be implications for privilege from disclosing this report and disclosing the documents that have been disclosed. i think that says something about the governor's office, that it has decided to release their report, decided weeks ago to release this report, knowing that there might be implications for privilege. finish one second. i know everyone has a lot of questions, and i will be happy to take questions individually later as you have had a chance to review the entire report.

with the u.s.ting attorney's office investigation. i am not going to comment on what those discussions entail other to say -- other than to say we have briefed that office, kept them apprised on what we have been finding, reporting to them, in some cases identifying witnesses they may not have been aware of. we are going to continue that ross s, and we are going to continue -- that process, and we will continue to provide full cooperation. we are not today releasing the direct accounts of our interviews. we are going to continue to work with the u.s. attorney's office to facilitate their investigation. they have a different process. i will not comment on their process other than to say we will respect it and we will continue to cooperate with their process. yes, please? you are saying that bridget

kelly was operating in a vacuum in the governor's office. >> i would not put it that way. the fact of the matter is when you conceive of something like this and you decide to hide it from your colleagues and you decide to use personal e-mail and text so there is nothing reflected on your government communications, and when your colleagues like your immediate boss comes to you on direction from the governor to question liein particular, and you and then you go back and check your files and you call one of your colleagues, a subordinate, and you tell her, "i am getting grilled about this," and you try to take her temperature to see whether she remembers what happened that week the way you do -- and then when you recognize she does remember things that week and remembers getting a personal e-mail from you that might be incriminating later, and you ask her to

destroy it -- how is the governor -- how is the senior staff supposed to uncover that? that hindsightu is always 20/20. there are a lot of people who now reflect back and wish she had not been given the benefit of the doubt am a that she consciously tried to cover up her actions. that is showing consciousness of guilt, and it shows something else. she was covering up for a reason. she was covering up from her colleagues like the chief of staff and the governor who did what she did. that is what it tells you. you say this exonerates the governor, but you provide the recommendations going forward with compliance -- wouldn't the public know a lot more about the behavior if the governor

expected an exit interview and did not delegated to toordinates who failed properly supervise? >> i am glad you asked that question, because the premise is wrong. there was no exit interview with richard kelly -- with bridget kelly. when thesen was made revelations, which came as a shock to the governor and other senior staff about rigid kelly's role, that she should be fired y's role bridget kelly w and that she should be fired. one can understand exactly why that decision was made so no one could suggest there was any interviewing bridget kelly to do anything in effect with a future investigation with her. spent -- you have

>> i appreciate the question. we have to let other people have questions. let me finish with the follow-up. would i have liked to confront bridget kelly? what a like -- what a lot of people in the governor's office been able to -- would a lot of people in the governor's office like to have confronted her? the governor fired her. he made a decision because he believed she had to be fired because she had lied to him and his chief of staff and others in the governor's office, and i respect that decision. >> the small group of people that you describe, whose motives you don't know, what does this say about the governor's style? also, do you think there were any crimes committed here? comment on going to

the latter category. that will be to other investigators to determine. midday. not part of the these are breaches of public trust, a wholly separate question as to whether -- as to what else they might constitute. as to the first part of your somethingit goes to that has been raised by others. members of the legislative committee during the investigation who have seen the evidence we have seen. as of today, we have substantially completed any production of documents to that committee pursuant to its subpoena. they can see the evidence that we see or the lack of evidence about the governor's role. so they have started to change the nature of the debate at about whether there was a office in the governor's

about partisan retaliation. i have to say this. we found that to be unsubstantiated. in fact, we found substantial evidence to the contrary, and that is in our report. on pages 135 to 137. let me also say this. the personal or political motives of david wildstein, as one of your colleagues from cnn .oted earlier -- seeing -- he seems to have all sorts of bizarre personal and political animus towards a variety of people. this may have had nothing to do with anyone thinking they were serving the governor. i am not going to speculate. -- it was clear to us that he was seeking to

target fort lee and mayor sokolich. he was the driving force behind it. we also found that this small group of people, including bridget kelly, were longtime friends. so when he went to the governor's office, he went to his longtime friend to get signoff. so we don't know why she signed off for personal or other reasons. we don't know yet why he targeted fort lee and mayor sokolich. but we can tell from the nature of the communications that there behinde ulterior motive what they did. we can also look at the evidence and see that it is not established that that ulterior motive was because mayor sokolich did not endorse the governor. in fact, mayor sokolich, it was

known within the campaign and the governor's office, he was not intending to endorse, as early as march of 2013, yet he continued to have a good relationship with the governor's office by his own account. he founded in copper hence a ball after the lane closures that it could be true that it it some -- he found incomprehensible after the lane closures that it could be true that it was -- he continued to have a good relationship and was even on a list of mayors being considered for honorary appointments months after he had already let the campaign and the governor's office know he was not likely to be in a position to endorse. >> what did you find with respect to, that he spoke to the governor on september 11 about -- >> this is what we know about

that. we know that david wildstein alleged that he spoke to the aboutor at a public event the traffic issue during the week of the lane closures. , since thefrom there only public event at which david wildstein attended at the same time as the governor, was the 9/11 memorial event attended by many, many people. that the governor was in attendance there with his officials,authority not just wildstein. many port authority officials. overhat on a regular basis that period, dozens and dozens of spectators and families came

up to the governor for handshakes and photos. the governor recalls seeing wildstein at the 9/11 memorial service, always in that public setting. he recalls having brief ,nteraction with others including wildstein. report, -- asas i the report reflects, does not recall the specifics of that conversation or mention any traffic issue in fort lee. out thatovernor points a mention of a traffic issue in fort lee would not have been memorable or meaningful to the governor. it is a common occurrence to have traffic issues, problems, in the bridges and tunnels.

so it would not have registered with the governor. , andthe governor recalls the first time a registered with him this issue of the lane realignment, was around the time of an article appearing in "the the street journal" publication of an e-mail by the executive director of the head of the port authority -- the executive director of the port authority. questioningirector the legitimacy of the traffic study. the governor says a registered with him at that point. he has a recollection of that. asked his staff for feedback, and the feedback came, just as it always consistently did, from , that this was a

legitimate traffic study, an operational issue for the port authority to handle, and more once again a reflection of the tensions between the new york and new jersey sides. that was accepted. it made sense to people in the governor's office at that time will stop as i explained -- at that time. as i explained in early december, the controversy grew as more rumors and india were no -- and innuendo were coming back to his office. then the governor's office was misled by bridget kelly. this gentleman here. bridget kelly and wildstein -- did the meeting ever happen? [inaudible] going to get back to you

on the specifics because i do not think it is addressed in our report. if you leave a year -- if you leave your name and number, i will get back to you. it is actually not, but i will get back to you. please, go ahead. [all talking at once] excuse me, please. we will call on you. everyone wants to ask questions. i will take questions from people afterwards who want to call me. i want to answer all your questions. you have to let people have their chance. [inaudible] well, i know you will be able to spend more time with our report after this, and that is not what our report said. our report said that the evidence was inconclusive as to

whether bill baroni all too true motive. baroni knew about an ulterior motive. we did not see conclusive evidence like the kind of conclusive evidence we saw about wildstein and kelly that no ulteriorew of any motive here. that would be the issue. doing amind, merely traffic study that went awry, none of us would be here. this is about whether there was an ulterior motive to it, and in bill baroni's case, we did not find conclusive evidence of an ulterior motive. we found evidence that we said was concerning and warranted further investigation. but we did not see any conclusive evidence that bill baroni knew of any ulterior motive. was that the same study echo

>> that was the same conclusion we reached there. awareness of an idea, but not knowledge of an ulterior motive. we found no evidence establishing that. yes? >> there is a mention in the reports of a dinner between wildstein and michael drew and he asked -- and michael druniak. what did that tell you about their relationship? and all the bizarre machinations? >> ok. to expedite this, we are friends. yes, theyare friends, had dinner, and the dinner is described in some detail here. what was discussed with the governor's office, so please read the report.

[inaudible] does anyone else collaborate that? >> we did not speak to any witness who recalls anything other than they were in the same place, and we have photographs that show a group of people together. we also have the governor's firsthand account. yes, ma'am, go ahead. you have not interviewed david wildstein. how do you know that david wildstein told him about the traffic study? >> hopefully it is crystal clear. whether or not david wildstein mentioned that there was a traffic issue or a traffic study or traffic problem in fort lee, that is not a memorable event to

a governor as to whether the port authority is involved in some traffic issue in fort lee at a bridge or tunnel. it is sadly not an issue that would register with the governor as of significance. if there had been a circumstance where there was a discussion of alter your notice, that -- motives that would have richard with the governor but how could that have been surrounded by people, many people from the port authority, his spouse, and dozens of people coming up to him constantly? that did not happen and no one has suggested it did. suggestedein lawyer in the context of him seeking immunity to prosecution but also indemnification from the port authority --" evidence