U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

86–961PDF 2014

CONDEMNING THE VIOLATION OF UKRAINIAN

SOVEREIGNTY, INDEPENDENCE, AND

TERRITORIAL INTEGRITY BY MILITARY

FORCES OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION

MARKUP

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

ON

H. Res. 499

MARCH 6, 2014

Serial No. 113–126

Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov/ or

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/

(II)

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

EDWARD R. ROYCE, California, Chairman 

CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey 

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

JOE WILSON, South Carolina 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

TED POE, Texas 

MATT SALMON, Arizona 

TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania 

JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina 

ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois 

MO BROOKS, Alabama 

TOM COTTON, Arkansas 

PAUL COOK, California 

GEORGE HOLDING, North Carolina 

RANDY K. WEBER SR., Texas 

SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania 

STEVE STOCKMAN, Texas 

RON DESANTIS, Florida 

DOUG COLLINS, Georgia 

MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina 

TED S. YOHO, Florida 

LUKE MESSER, Indiana 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American 

Samoa 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia 

THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida 

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York 

KAREN BASS, California 

WILLIAM KEATING, Massachusetts 

DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island 

ALAN GRAYSON, Florida 

JUAN VARGAS, California 

BRADLEY S. SCHNEIDER, Illinois 

JOSEPH P. KENNEDY III, Massachusetts 

AMI BERA, California 

ALAN S. LOWENTHAL, California 

GRACE MENG, New York 

LOIS FRANKEL, Florida 

TULSI GABBARD, Hawaii 

JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas

AMY PORTER, Chief of Staff THOMAS SHEEHY, Staff Director

JASON STEINBAUM, Democratic Staff Director 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page

MARKUP OF 

H. Res. 499, Condemning the violation of Ukrainian sovereignty, independence, and territorial integrity by military forces of the Russian Federation .. 2

En bloc amendment to H. Res. 499 offered by the Honorable George Holding, a Representative in Congress from the State of North Carolina, 

the Honorable Joseph P. Kennedy III, a Representative in Congress from 

the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, the Honorable Adam Kinzinger, 

a Representative in Congress from the State of Illinois, the Honorable 

Mark Meadows, a Representative in Congress from the State of North 

Carolina, and the Honorable Scott Perry, a Representative in Congress 

from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania ...................................................... 15

Amendments to H. Res. 499 offered by: .............................................................

The Honorable William Keating, a Representative in Congress from 

the Commonwealth of Massachusetts ..................................................... 23

The Honorable Ted Poe, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Texas ...................................................................................................... 25

Amendment to the Poe amendment offered by the Honorable

Alan Grayson, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Florida ................................................................................................. 34

Modified Grayson amendment to the Poe amendment ....................... 35

The Honorable Tulsi Gabbard, a Representative in Congress from the 

State of Hawaii .......................................................................................... 38

APPENDIX 

Markup notice .......................................................................................................... 42

Markup minutes ...................................................................................................... 43

Markup summary .................................................................................................... 45

The Honorable Eliot L. Engel, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of New York: Prepared statement ...................................................................... 46

The Honorable Joseph P. Kennedy III: Prepared statement ............................... 47

(1)

CONDEMNING THE VIOLATION OF 

UKRAINIAN SOVEREIGNTY, INDEPENDENCE, 

AND TERRITORIAL INTEGRITY BY MILITARY 

FORCES OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION 

THURSDAY, MARCH 6, 2014

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS,

Washington, DC. 

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 11:31 a.m., in room 

2172 Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Edward Royce (chairman of the committee) presiding. 

Chairman ROYCE. This meeting will come to order. 

And pursuant to notice, we meet today to mark up House Resolution 499 condemning the violation of Ukrainian sovereignty, 

Ukrainian independence, and territorial integrity by military forces 

of the Russian Federation. 

I now call up the resolution, and without objection it is considered read and open for amendment at any point. 

[The information referred to follows:]

2


86961a-1.eps

113TH CONGRI<JSS 

2D SESSIOK H. RES. 

(Original Signature of ~Vlember) 

Condenming the violation of Ukrainian sovereignty, independence, and 

territorial integrity by military forces of the Russian Federation. 

IK THE HOUSE OF REPRESE~TATIVES 

}Ir. ROYCE (for himself and }Ir. EKGEL) submitted the following resolntion; 

which was referred to the Committee on _____________ _ 

RESOLUTION 

Condemning the violation of Ukrainian sovereignty, independence, and territorial integrity by military forces of the 

Russian Federation. 

Whereas the United States has been strongly committed to 

the sovereignty, democratic development, and prosperity 

of Ukraine since the recovery of its independence in 

1991; 

'''llE'reas the Ukrainian people have the right to freely deterIlllne their future, induding their eountry's relationship 

·with other countries and international organizations, 

v\~thout interference, intimidation, or coercion by other 

countries; 
3


86961a-2.eps

2 

"11ereas closer relations with Europe hold out the prospeet 

of a more stable and prosperous rkraine, which would be 

of benefit to all eountries, il1(~luding Russia; 

Whereas the military intervention by the Russian J<'ederation 

in Crimea is a violation of Ukraine's sovereignty, independence, and territorial integrity; 

'Vhereas this military intervention is a violation of international law, including the Russian Federation's obligations under the United 1\ ations Charter; 

"l'lereas this military intervention is a violation of the Russian Federation's obligations ul1(ler the 1994 Budapest 

lVlemoramlum on Security Assurances, m which it 

pledged to respect the independence and sovereignty and 

the existing' borders of Ukraine and to refrain from the 

threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or 

political independence of Ukraine; 

Whereas by its military intervention in Ukraine, the Russian 

Federation has ~violated the provisions of the Helsinki 

Final Ad Dedaration of Prin(~iples Regarding Relations 

Between Participating States of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe; 

Whereas the Russian J<'ederation's military intervention in 

Crimea represents a reckless escalation of its long-standing efforts to pressure Ukraine through political, diplomatic, and economic means to reduce its ties to Europe 

and the vVest and force it into a closer association v.~th 

Russia, induding through the establishment of a Eurasian rnion; 

"llereas the Russian Federation has used and is continuing 

to use coercive economic measures, including the manipu-
4


86961a-3.eps

lation of energy prwes and supplies, to plaee politi(~al 

pressure on Ukraine and other countries in the region; 

"11ereas the Government of Ukraine has exereised extraordinary rcstraint to datc in rcsponsc to thc usc of forcc 

against it on its territory; and 

Whcrcas thc immcdiatc dcploymcnt of intcrnational monitors 

from either the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe or the United :.J ations to Crimea and in 

othcr Ckrainian rcgions would providc transparcncy alld 

objective reporting regarding threats of violence and military 1:wtivity, and also enham~e the seeurity of the 

Ukrainian pcoplc in all rcgions: Now, thcreforc, bc it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives2 (1) condcmns thc violation of Ukrainian so v3 ereignty, independence, and territorial integrity by 

4 military forces of the Russian Federation; 

5 (2) states that the military intervention by the 

6 Russian Federation7 (A) is in brea(~h of its obligations umler 

8 the United :.J a tions Charter; 

9 (n) is in violation of the 1994 Budapest 

10 Mcmorandum on Sccurity Assuranccs, in which 

11 it pledged to respect the independence and sov12 ereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine 

13 and to refrain from the threat of use of force 

14 against the territorial integrity or political inde15 pcndcncc of Ckrainc; and 
5


86961a-4.eps

4 

(C) poses a threat to international peace 

2 and security; 

3 (:1) calls on the Russian F elleration to remove 

4 all of its military forccs from Ukraillc's Crimcan pcS ninsula, other than at those operating in accordance 

6 with its 1997 agrccmcnt on thc Status and Condi7 tions of the Black Sea Fleet Stationing on the Terri8 tory of Ukraine, and to refrain from interference in 

9 all regions of Ukraine; 

10 (4) declares that the Ukrainian people have the 

11 right to determine their own future free from out12 side interference; 

13 (5) commends the Ukrainian Government for 

14 its contillLlcd rcstraillt and avoidancc of military 

15 provocations; 

16 (6) ealls on the Ukrainian Government to con17 tinue to protect the rights of all minority popu18 lations within rkraine and make clear that it rep19 rcscnts all Ukrainian citizclls; 

20 (7) calls on all Ukrainians to respect the legiti21 mate government authorities in all parts of Ukraine, 

22 including in eastern and southern Ukraine; 

23 (8) calls for the deployment of independent 

24 monitors from the Organization for Security amI Co-
6


86961a-5.eps

operation m Europe in Crimea and other areas of 

2 Ukraine; 

3 (9) (~alls upon the PresicIent and the leaders of 

4 the other democratic states to not attend the G-8 

5 summit in Sochi, Russia and to consider eA'J)elling 

6 Russia from the group, given its illternational ag7 gression and internal repression that are incon8 sistent "with democratic standards; 

9 (10) calls on the Administration to work ~with 

10 our European allies and other countries to impose 

11 visa, finaneial, tracIe, and other san(~tions on senior 

12 Russian Federation officials, majority state-owned 

13 banks and commercial organi7.ations, and other state 

14 agencies, as appropriate; 

15 (11) states that the United States should par16 tieipate \vith its European allies amI other (~ountries 

17 in a joint effort to provide the Ukrainian govern18 ment with financial, economic, and technical assist19 ance, illcluding asset recovery, to assist an ecollomic 

20 recovery program that includes fundamental 1'e21 forms; 

22 (12) calls on the rnited States, its European 

23 allies, and other countries and international organi24 zations to provide assistanee to ensure that new ele(~-
7


86961a-6.eps

6 

tiom; ~eheduled for May 2014 are free, fair, amI III 

2 full accordance vvith international standards; 

3 (18) eall~ on the United State~ and it~ Euro4 pean allies and other countries to develop a longS term strategy to support economic development in 

6 Ukraine, includillg' enhanced relatiollships with 

7 'Vestern countries, organizations and institutions; 

8 (14) i'mpports efforts by Ukraine to achieve en9 ergy independence; and 

10 (15) affirms the right of all countries in the re11 gion to exerei~e their ~overeign right~ within their 

12 internationally recognized borders free from outside 

13 intenTention and to conduct their foreign policy in 

14 accordance with their determillation of the best in15 terests of their peoples. 
8

Chairman ROYCE. Furthermore, without objection, all members 

here may have 5 calendar days to submit statements for the record 

or any extraneous materials that they might want to provide. And 

after my brief remarks, I think I will recognize those who wish to 

offer amendments. 

Okay. After my opening remarks, let us do it this way. Any members who would like to speak on this resolution, let us get that debate out of the way, and then we will go to the members’ amendments, some of which will be accepted en bloc after they make their 

case, and some will be voted on independently that are more controversial. 

I would also like to thank the members for their cooperation in 

considering this resolution so quickly. As we heard during this 

morning’s testimony, Ukraine is in a very difficult, very tense situation. Time is of the essence. Congress needs to have its voice put 

in play soon on this, and this resolution is a straightforward declaration by the House in support of freedom-loving Ukrainians in 

their time of trial. It also condemns Russia’s unprovoked aggression, in no uncertain terms. 

This resolution is one part of a larger effort to provide assistance 

to Ukraine and to impose real costs on Russia for its actions, which 

this committee is working on. This resolution, among other provisions, condemns the violation of Ukrainian sovereignty and independence and territorial integrity by military forces of the Russian 

Federation. It declares the Ukrainian people have the right to determine their own future, free from outside interference. 

Importantly, the resolution calls on the administration to work 

with our allies to impose visa, financial, and other sanctions as appropriate. This action cannot go unchallenged. The action by Russia cannot go unchallenged. And as part of an effort to show Moscow how isolated they are, world leaders are speaking out. The 

House should speak out as well. 

And with that, I will open the committee to any comments that 

members would like to make on the resolution itself at this time. 

Mr. Meadows. 

Mr. MEADOWS. I just would like to thank the chairman for his 

work and, quite frankly, for bringing this to the attention of the 

House in such an expedited manner. The chairman is correct in 

terms of the critical nature. Every hour makes a difference. And so 

I would just like to thank the chairman for his leadership and the 

committee for their work on bringing this forward, and I support 

the resolution. Yield back. 

Chairman ROYCE. Any other members who would like to be 

heard on the resolution at hand? Mr. Brad Sherman of California. 

Mr. SHERMAN. I support the resolution. Happy to co-sponsor it. 

I think it is important in this resolution not only to urge Russia 

to do what it should do, and I think the resolution does a good job 

of that, but to also urge those in Kiev to broaden their coalition to 

include people in the government that were with the party that actually won the last internationally monitored election, and to not 

adopt measures that would question the use of the Russian language or reduce the level of official language status that the Russian language has according to laws that existed at the beginning 

of this year. 

9

If we want a united Ukraine, the government in Kiev has got to 

not be a government of the winners but a government of the entire 

country. And I hope that that is part of the message we send, 

whether it is in the text of the resolution or not, and I yield back. 

Chairman ROYCE. I thank the gentleman. Mr. Grayson of Florida. 

Mr. GRAYSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I support this resolution and strongly object to and condemn Russian interference in 

any other country, including neighboring countries. That being 

said, I think that the resolution fails to come to grips with the fundamental issue that is facing us around the world when we are addressing the situation, which is this. The Ukraine is an artificial 

creation, and, specifically, a creation of Lenin and Khrushchev 

slapping together a Ukrainian population with a Russian-speaking 

population and a Russian Ukrainian-speaking population. 

Time after time and in election after election, we have seen a 

sharp geographic division in the country between east and west. In 

the west, you have Ukraine and Ukrainian speakers. In the east, 

you have both Russians and Ukrainians who speak Russian primarily. Once again, over and over again, we see in the west one 

party winning 80 or 90 percent of the vote, the Ukrainian party; 

the other party in the east winning 80 or 90 percent of the vote, 

the Russian party. 

These are Siamese twins joined at the hip, and they need to be 

over time very carefully and tenderly separated. That is the only 

way that we are going to see any sort of resolution of the situation. 

I would hope to see U.S. policy that recognizes that. I would hope 

to see U.S. policy that favors regional autonomy and the right to 

self-determination to both sides of the country. It is clear now that 

in the west there is a strong desire for the western part of the 

Ukraine to join Poland and other neighboring countries as part of 

the EU. That is not shared by many people in the eastern part of 

the country. 

The Russians and the Russian speakers in the east favor a different policy entirely. We have to come to grips with that. If autonomy means anything, it means the right to determine who it is who 

will be determining your future. In the west, there is a desire to 

see the EU help determine the future of the Ukraine. In the east, 

there is a desire to see Russia help determine the future of the 

Ukraine. 

The area that the Russians are now using military forces to try 

to control is an area that voted for the deposed government with 

over 90 percent of the vote. Again, I don’t in any way agree with 

what the Russians have done, but I do have to wonder what point 

there is in engaging in this kind of Cold War attitude, this ‘‘us 

versus them’’ attitude, and failing to come to grips with the underlying problem. 

Basically, we are talking about a country that cannot even agree 

on an alphabet. And as long as that remains true, there will be no 

peace in the Ukraine, regardless of what we do or what the Russians do. 

I yield back. 

Chairman ROYCE. Yielding myself such time as I may consume, 

let me point out that there are many countries in which more than 

10

one language is spoken. But in the case of the Ukraine, when the 

vote for independence came, the Russian-speaking portion of the 

country, as well as the Ukrainian-speaking portion, voted overwhelmingly for independence. 

Likewise, when the vote came on the referendum, basically, on 

Yanukovych, to remove him from his post, 328 members, both east 

and west, from the east and the western portion of the country, 

voted in favor of his removal. That is 100 votes above and beyond 

the number required for passage as, indeed, the parliamentarians 

who belong to his own political party, the Party of Regions, voted 

overwhelmingly in favor of impeachment. 

The EU observers, by the way, including the Polish and the 

French and the German foreign ministers, were at Kiev at the 

time, and immediately affirmed to the media that there had been 

no coup, that the overwhelming majority of Parliament had voted 

for a new government. 

Now, as Ukraine goes to elections in May, this is an opportunity. 

It is an opportunity for us in the Congress, as we stress in this resolution, to encourage inclusion in the Ukraine. We recognize that 

Poland and Ukraine have an overwhelming majority of people who 

want an independent Ukraine. 

And, yes, it is true; some look east and some look west, and ultimately it is up to the Ukrainian population to resolve this peacefully through their elected government. But I think we can assert 

the principle that Ukraine be allowed to serve both those roles, to 

trade to the east and trade to the west, to trade to the north with 

Poland and to the south with Moldova. 

I think that we have an opportunity also in engagement, and I 

hope to do this, you know, in our delegation that we take with this 

committee in April in Kiev, to stress the importance of inclusion 

with respect to different languages, because so many conflicts start 

out over language. But in this particular case, if we recognize the 

history, part of this is because of Soviet meddling in the past. 

The eastern Ukraine once had an additional 8 million Ukrainian 

speakers. Joe Stalin, unfortunately, during the collectivization, 

forced collectivization of the country, moved them out to Siberia. 

Most of them perished, most of the population that was moved. 

And, subsequently, there were the purges under the Soviet system. 

So, yes, Russian speakers moved in, but what is interesting 

about Ukrainian independence is the overwhelming support from 

all parts of the country, whether Tatar or Ukrainian or Russian 

speaking. And given this important consideration, I think we have 

here before us a resolution that carefully explains, in a way that 

will help bring leverage to wind down this crisis, our recognition 

that all minority groups need to be included there. 

And I think the template for democratic governance—and I don’t 

doubt this is going to be difficult, because Ukraine does not have 

a history of compromise in its political system. But what we are 

suggesting here, and with further EU engagement, our hope is that 

we can help bring together the different political parties and factions. 

And the best way to do it is what is in this resolution, calling 

for an election in which everyone goes to the polls, and a legislature which is representative, and then bring in the forms which 

11

end the corruption, because also a portion of this resistance that 

you see in the country is to the historical corruption, the endemic 

corruption there. 

And that is the other issue that needs to be addressed, and we 

are addressing that as well with the engagement of Europe and the 

United States. 

Mr. KINZINGER. Will the chairman——

Chairman ROYCE. And I will yield to Mr. Kinzinger. 

Mr. KINZINGER. I just want to make the point that in the 

United—as a Republican from Illinois, the United States actually 

votes quite differently based on geography, and in some cases it 

seems like we actually speak different languages as well. But we 

are able to stand together as one country and achieve a common 

objective, so I just wanted to add that to the chairman’s point. 

Chairman ROYCE. I thank the gentleman. 

Mr. Cicilline of Rhode Island. 

Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Chairman, I yield my time to Mr. Grayson. 

Mr. GRAYSON. Thank you. Responding to the point that was just 

made, if you go back and you look at the election results for the 

1868 election and the 1872 election here in the United States, at 

the end of the bloodiest war that we have ever experienced, you 

don’t see the polarization state by state that you see in the recent 

Ukrainian elections going back to 2004. 

There is actually a greater polarization today in the Ukraine determined by the election results than there was in those elections. 

There was no state in the United States that voted as much as 80/

20 in the 1868 election. Many, many provinces in the Ukraine 

voted more than 80/20, either for the pro-Ukrainian party or the 

pro-Russian party. 

That is the fact, and that shows that they have reached the end 

of the line. There must be some kind of acknowledgement of the 

fact that the people in the eastern part of the Ukraine do not want 

to be part of the EU, and the people in the western part of the 

Ukraine do not want to be lorded over by Russia. 

And we need to—if we are going to have any hope of progress, 

we need to recognize that. We have had our velvet divorces around 

the world before. Nobody claims anymore that the Czech Republic 

should be slapped together with Slovakia. 

Sometimes it is done in a less peaceful manner as occurred with 

Sudan and South Sudan recently. But the fact is that there are irreconcilable differences between these two parts of the population, 

and I will vote for this resolution, but I think that it is a shame 

that the resolution does not acknowledge the basic fact that has 

caused the situation in the first place. 

Chairman ROYCE. Could I ask if Mr. Cicilline would yield me 

some time? I understand the gentleman’s point. I would point out, 

if we are looking at the 1868 and 1872 elections, I am not sure if 

you follow this logic that that would be borne out, because Confederate soldiers were not allowed to vote in those elections. Indeed, 

the distance between the north and the south would be far greater 

if they had been given the franchise to vote. 

This is different than in the Ukraine, because in the Ukraine, 

after the collapse of the Soviet Union, those who had been on the 

side of the Soviet Union were allowed the franchise, were allowed 

12

the right to vote. I would make that as an example of the fact that 

we, in the United States, have gone through something as wrenching, perhaps more wrenching with respect to the Civil War, and 

have eventually come closer together. 

I think the point that you make, Mr. Grayson, which is the most 

concerning one is about the fact that the difference with respect to 

language itself creates probably more of an impediment than anything else, and that is an area where we can weigh in, where we 

can assure minority rights and do so, and articulate the fact that 

all minority rights should indeed be guaranteed and respected. 

And I think this way forward is perhaps the one way we can underscore your vision of trying to address this issue. I do not think 

a balkanization of the east and the Ukraine would—based upon the 

polling that I have seen, it is opposed by the Ukrainians themselves. And I think a better resolution would be one, as I stated 

earlier, where Ukraine looks east and west, and I think this resolution overall urges that right to self-determination to all of the people of the Ukraine. 

Mr. Cicilline, did you want to reclaim time to make a point? 

Mr. KINZINGER. Thank you. You are like the timekeeper now. 

I just—I thought the chairman made a great point earlier, and 

I just want to reiterate it to make sure it wasn’t lost in his powerful overall point, which is the situation we see in Ukraine, in terms 

of the ethnic divisions, was engineered by the Russians. This was 

engineered by Stalin. Stalin intended to populate east Ukraine so 

that some day, whether it was in 2014 or whether it was 20 years 

after he did it, some day he could claim legitimacy to that very important part for him. 

So I hope that point is not lost, that this is something that was 

engineered in the mind of Stalin. 

I thank the gentleman from Rhode Island, and I yield back. 

Mr. GRAYSON. May I ask for some time? 

Chairman ROYCE. Recognizing Mr. Grayson. 

Mr. GRAYSON. Thank you. Just to be historically accurate, it 

wasn’t Stalin that added the eastern part of the Ukraine. It was 

Lenin, and it was Khrushchev. So the gentleman seems to be misinformed in that regard. 

Chairman ROYCE. If I could—it was Mr. Khrushchev with respect 

to, if I—Mr. Grayson, yielding myself such time as I may consume, 

it was in 1956 that Mr. Khrushchev actually transferred Crimea to 

the Ukraine, thus creating the current boundaries of the country. 

And you are correct, Mr. Lenin prior to that. 

But, you know, so many countries across eastern Europe are the 

consequence of these machinations over time. And I think the bottom line, again, is that self-determination has to be left to the people of the country. And I believe if we have a fair and free election 

in May, that this will be the best way forward for the Ukrainian 

population. 

Let me recognize Mr. Connolly from Virginia. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wish to associate 

myself with your remarks, Mr. Chairman. I certainly appreciate 

Mr. Grayson’s reminding us of the historical context, but where do 

we go with that? I am concerned about two things here. One is 

there is no end of boundaries and borders we could start redrawing 

13

based on artificiality or convenience from the Mideast to Africa to, 

as you point out, Mr. Chairman, former Soviet Republics. 

Many boundaries are very arbitrary, and, you know, we have 

paid a price sometimes for that arbitrariness. But to go back in and 

decide that we are going to redo them all because somebody in history got it wrong I think is somebody else’s task, way beyond the 

work of this committee. 

Secondly, I also believe that the danger of dwelling too much on 

that is that unwittingly—unwittingly, it gives a rationale for what 

Putin has already done. The fact that the Crimea was added to the 

Ukraine in 1956 in no way—and I know Mr. Grayson is not suggesting this—but it in no way justifies what Russia and Putin have 

done. Who wants to go down that road in terms of that justification? 

So I believe the resolution in front of us is a balanced one, as you 

suggest, Mr. Chairman, and I intend to support it. I yield back the 

balance of my time. 

Did Mr. Kinzinger want some time? Or is he—all right. Mr. 

Chairman, I would yield back the balance of my time. 

Chairman ROYCE. Thank you. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Unless Mr. Grayson——

Chairman ROYCE. Thank you, Mr.——

Mr. CONNOLLY [continuing]. Unless Mr. Grayson wants more 

time. 

Mr. GRAYSON. I would simply reiterate that—I have already indicated that I support the resolution, but I think the resolution is at 

best a half-measure that doesn’t acknowledge the underlying cause 

or attempt to come up with a solution. Self-determination has to 

be the key. The way to self-determination in the Ukraine is 

through devolution, local autonomy, and perhaps ultimately 

through independence. I don’t see this crisis ending in any real way 

without that happening. 

I yield back. 

Chairman ROYCE. I am just going to close my arguments, yielding myself such time as I may consume, with this point. The resolution does not assert a position on Crimean secession. What it 

does is call for all citizens in Ukraine to respect the current government authorities, and that is a necessary step in promoting stability and rule of law in the country. 

And the resolution also calls on the Ukrainian Government to 

protect the rights of all minority populations within Ukraine, which 

is important, particularly for ethnic Russian minorities in the eastern and southern regions. 

I think Mr. Duncan of South Carolina was seeking recognition. 

Mr. DUNCAN. I thank the chairman for his effort here, you know, 

and I appreciate the comments that brought this into historical 

perspective. But the time and history that I think about as we talk 

about the Ukraine is 1776, 1777. I think about a people in the 

Ukraine that are seeking liberty and seeking self-governance, and 

I think about—when we talk about the Crimea and we talk about 

the different ethnicities of the Ukraine territory, I think about, 

should we be concentrating on trying to engineer another state? Or 

should we let the Ukrainians deal with that? 

14

And definitely the Russians are involved in not just the Crimea, 

but by sinking one of their own ships and blocking the naval passage for the Ukrainian Navy to have access to the Black Sea for 

their own protection and their own protection of their maritime 

fleet, we definitely see Russia socioengineering and militarily involved there. 

So when I think about 1776, and I think about this being the 

Ukraine’s 1776 moment, pursuing self-governance, pursuing liberty, the things we take for granted in this country, I also think 

about their desire for help from another free country—the United 

States of America. And I think about the French courts at the time 

in 1777 when Ben Franklin is asking for financial aid so that this 

fledgling nation could win its war and win its independence and actually pursue self-governance. 

And so as we debate and vote further on today with financial 

loan guarantees, we need to keep in mind that we wouldn’t be here 

had not another country stepped up to provide that opportunity for 

us. 

And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Chairman ROYCE. Thank you. Before we go to the en bloc, are 

there any other members seeking recognition on the underlying 

bill? 

[No response.] 

Seeing none, in order to expedite consideration, and with the 

prior concurrence of the ranking member, I ask unanimous consent 

that the following amendments, which members have before them, 

be considered en bloc—the Holding amendment, Number 15; the 

Kennedy amendment, Number 8; the Kinzinger amendment, Number 10; the Meadows amendment, Number 32; the Perry amendment, Number 31. 

Without objection, so ordered. 

[The information referred to follows:]

15


86961b-1.eps

AMENDMENT TO H. RES. 499 

OFFERED BY MR. HOLDING OF NORTH CAROLINA 

Page 6, line 9, strike "and". 

Page 6, after line 9, insert the following: 

(15) supports efforts by Ukraine to improve 

2 transparcncy, combat corruption, and protcct indi3 vidual rights through an independent judiciary and 

4 strong rule of law; amI 

Page 6, line 10, strike "(15)" and insert "(16)". 

~ 
16


86961b-2.eps

AMENDMENT TO H. RES. 499 

OFFERED BY MR. KENNEDY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

After the first clause of the preamble, insert the following: 

Whcrcas 011 Ja11uary 29, 2014, thc Committcc 011 j1'orcign 1\ffairs of the House of Representatives agreed to House 

Resolution 447, supporting the democratic and European 

aspiratiom; of the people of Ukraine and their right to 

choose their <Jwn future free of intimidation and fear, 

whieh resolution was agTeed to hy the House of Reprcsc11tativcs on Fcbruary 10, 2014; 

In the second-to-last clause of the preamble, strike 

"and" at the end. 

After the seeond-to-last (~lause of the preamhle, lllsert the follovving: 

~Whereas the instability III Ukraine has forced 2:30 Peace 

Corps volunteers to leave Ukraine; and 
17


86961b-3.eps 86961b-4.eps

AMENDMENT TO H. RES. 499 

OFFERED BY MR. KINZINGER OF ILLINOIS 

Page 5, line 12, after "Russian Federation Offieials," insert "Russian and Ukranian oligarehs and others complicit in Russia's intervention and interference in 

Ukraine," . 

AMENDMENT TO H. RES. 499 

OFFERED BY MR. MEADOWS OF NORTH 

CAROLINA 

Strike paragTaph (g) of the resolved text and insert 

the follovving: 

1 (9) calls upon the President and the leaders of 

2 other democratic RtateR to hoycott the G-M Rummit 

3 in Sochi, Russia, to convene a G-7 summit in J Ulle 

4 2014 outside of Russia that does not include Russia, 

5 and to consider expelling Russia from the group, 

6 given its record of international aggression, domestic 

7 repression, and human rights records that are incoll8 sistent ,,,ith democratic standards; 
18

Chairman ROYCE. Do any members seek recognition to speak on 

any of the en bloc items that they have—Mr. Kennedy of Massachusetts. 

Mr. KENNEDY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to voice my 

support, obviously, for my amendment in the en bloc that is now 

up for consideration. It includes an amendment that I offered that 

would include a reference to a resolution that the House already 

passed on February 10. Additionally, it seeks to add a clause and 

has some grammatical corrections to make sure that that cause fits 

in, to say that the ‘‘instability in the Ukraine forced 230 Peace 

Corps volunteers out of Ukraine.’’

Mr. Chairman, as you are aware, I am a former Peace Corps volunteer. It is an organization that has a special place in my heart. 

And recognizing that on February 24, 2014, Peace Corps announced that all Peace Corps volunteers in Ukraine are safe and 

accounted for, but they had to be evacuated, rounded up and evacuated. Peace Corps had been working in Ukraine since 1992 under 

an agreement brokered by President George Bush and the former 

Ukrainian President Kravchuk. 

To date, over 2,740 American volunteers have lived and worked 

in Ukraine, fostering a competitive, collaborative, cooperative spirit 

between our two countries. They served in Ukrainian schools, 

bringing resources and innovative practices to the country’s education system, fostering foreign exchange of information, and best 

teaching practices. 

They have worked tirelessly on social and economic development, 

working in tandem with the Ukrainian communities, supporting 

critical service providers, assisting local institutions, fostering cooperation between non-NGOs, government entities, and private enterprises. 

Perhaps most importantly for me, Mr. Chairman, a Peace Corps 

volunteer named Alex Kaplan is a native of my district, and he was 

one of the many Americans who were evacuated from the Ukraine 

within the last 2 weeks as the crisis escalated. He was teaching 

secondary education at a local school, as well as volunteering at a 

local animal and homeless shelter, a girls orphanage, and several 

English language clubs. He talked in a recent article, in a recent 

interview, about the strong bonds he formed with his community 


86961b-5.eps
19

and, most importantly, the fact that he would go back in a heartbeat to continue his service once the threat subsides. 

Since the inception of the Peace Corps, volunteers like Alex have 

embodied the spirit of service, peace, and cooperation that are the 

fundamental pillar of American foreign policy. Their inclusion in 

this resolution underscores the enduring commitment to those values and a world that is freer and fairer than before. 

I ask for your consideration for the amendment. Thank you. 

Chairman ROYCE. Thank you, Mr. Kennedy. 

We will go to Mr. Perry of Pennsylvania, and then Mr. Sherman 

of California. 

Mr. PERRY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to just speak on 

behalf of my amendment regarding the paramilitary forces in Crimea. It seems that Mr. Putin continues to propagate the myth that 

Russia does not interfere in the internal affairs of other nations. 

The fact is is that Russia has a very long history of interfering in 

former Soviet states, and it seems that Mr. Putin mourns the loss 

of the empire and has set one of his goals to reconstruct a modern 

version of it through his proposed Eurasian Union. 

But to do so, he needs Ukraine, and he doesn’t need a democratic 

revolution so close to Moscow that threaten his de facto autocracy. 

So he reserves the right to resort to economic blackmail and, in 

Georgia in 2008, and now Ukraine, military intervention to keep 

his neighbors in line. 

Russia has been stoking separatist sentiment for years in Crimea 

and now is doing it at gunpoint. Strong evidence suggests that 

members of Russian security services are at the heart of the highly 

organized anti-Ukraine forces in Crimea. While these units wear 

uniforms without insignia—a violation of international law, by the 

way—they drive vehicles with Russian military license plates and 

freely identify themselves as Russian security forces when asked by 

the international media and the Ukrainian military. 

My amendment and this amendment simply reflects the consensus of international community and identifies the reality of the 

facts on the ground by calling on the Russian Federation to end its 

support for separatist and paramilitary forces in Crimea. 

And I yield back. 

Chairman ROYCE. Thank you. We go now to Mr. Sherman. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Just a brief comment, the Meadows amendment 

does call on the President not to attend the G8 or G7. I support 

that, but with the hope that Russia will respect the territorial integrity of the Ukraine, and nothing would make me happier than 

for Russia to do the right thing and the President to enjoy his trip 

to Sochi. 

But I don’t want to offer an amendment on this. I think it is understood that we are calling for this boycott on the assumption that 

the Russians don’t get the message between now and then. 

Chairman ROYCE. Thank you. We go now to Mr. Holding of 

North Carolina. 

Mr. HOLDING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, as we 

heard during our hearing, in both the immediate and long term, 

Ukraine is going to require a wide range of assistance from the 

United States and our international partners. My amendment adds 

a resolve clause to the resolution that expresses the support of the 

20

House to work with our partners in Ukraine to improve transparency, combat corruption, and protect individual rights through 

an independent judiciary and a strong rule of law. 

Making improvements in these areas will all be crucial to the 

long-term stability in Ukraine, and they are also the foundation on 

which strong democratic governance is built. And I ask members 

to support my amendment and support the en bloc package. 

I yield back. 

Chairman ROYCE. I thank the gentleman. 

Mr. Kinzinger of Illinois. 

Mr. KINZINGER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you 

for accepting my amendment in this package. It strengthens our 

underlying bill by adding, and it calls on the administration to oppose visa, financial, trade, and other sanctions on not only Russian 

Federation officials, but also on Russian and Ukrainian oligarchs 

and anyone else complicit in Russia’s intervention and interference. 

The President has made it clear the steps that Russia has taken 

violate Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity and our 

breach of international law. I am pleased Congress and the administration are moving forward together toward implementing tough 

sanctions and would hope that our friends in the EU would consider the long-term implications that weakness toward Russia will 

mean. 

I would also like to add my support for Mr. Keating’s amendment. I have been concerned in what I have seen in terms of our 

allies, the French, having a naval contract with the Russians. And 

it is a naval contract to sell ships to the Russians that are actually 

beneficial in controlling the Black Sea coastline. And one of the difficulties Russia had in their illegal war with Georgia was their inability to control the Black Sea coastline, and this contract with 

French shipbuilders would actually give them that ability. 

So I hope our EU partners look very closely at their mil-to-mil 

relationship with Russia and consider doing the right thing on behalf of freedom-seeking people all over the globe. 

And I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman ROYCE. I thank the gentleman. 

Mr. Meadows, were you seeking recognition on your amendment? 

So recognized. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I will be very 

brief. The amendment—I appreciate the chairman’s consideration 

of this en bloc, basically calling on a boycott, joining with the President and asking other democratic states to boycott the G8 summit 

in Sochi, to convene a G7 summit someplace outside of Russia. I 

appreciate my colleague from California’s pointing out—Mr. Sherman—his support of the amendment. 

And certainly all of us want to recognize the fact that if Mr. 

Putin decides to go a different direction and reverse this course he 

is on, we will gladly look at restoring relationships. 

I also want to say that in spite of what may have been heard 

here today, I want the Ukrainian people to recognize that Democrats and Republicans, the administration and Congress, are joining together to make sure that we stand alongside the freedom-loving people of the Ukraine, and we will stand up for them in this 

21

particular venture. And so I would urge the support of this amendment. 

And I thank the chairman and yield back. 

Chairman ROYCE. Are there any other members seeking recognition? Mr. Brooks of Alabama. 

Mr. BROOKS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It has been said that to 

some degree America has been playing marbles, which if you have 

ever played marbles as a kid you know that the long-term strategy 

is not very in-depth, while Russia is playing chess. And if you play 

chess, you understand that you have to calculate each potential 

move of your opponent, and for each of those moves have your responses available and at hand in order to ensure ultimate success. 

In that vein, with the economic sanctions that we are seeking, 

I am inquiring of the members what our next move is depending 

on what Russia does. So if we evict them from the G8 and they become—or we become a part of the G7, or if we do impose significant 

economic sanctions, what might Russia’s responding move be, by 

way of example? How do we react if Russia’s next move is to say, 

‘‘We are no longer going to allow you to hitch a ride to the International Space Station’’? 

What does America do under those circumstances inasmuch as 

we are likely years away from having a human spaceflight capability given the President’s rather unilateral termination of the 

Constellation Program years ago, and the President’s decision to 

not only mothball our space shuttles but to put them in museums 

rather than have them available as a contingency, such as what 

has arisen? 

What do we do if Russia’s next move is to say to the United 

Launch Alliance, as was evidenced by a hearing this week in the 

Senate, that Russia is no longer going to deliver engines to the 

United Launch Alliance which in turn supplies our capabilities of 

launching satellites into space? 

Many of those satellites are military in nature, highly classified, 

and so my query to, say, Mr. Meadows or Mr. Keating or the chairman, or any other members is, what is our next move if Russia decides as their next move to deny us access to manned space flight 

to the International Space Station? Or denies us the rockets that 

we need to put our satellites in space? 

Now, don’t get me wrong with my query. I intend to support this 

resolution, because to a large degree I see it as authorizing the executive branch to determine what economic sanctions are appropriate, and I personally believe that that is the executive branch’s 

responsibility and duty. And I hope that they will play chess rather 

than marbles, but please, if anyone has any suggestions in particular on how we are going to resume our manned space flight capabilities in a short period of time, I would like to hear it. 

Mr. KINZINGER. Will the gentleman yield? 

Mr. BROOKS. Yes, I will. 

Mr. KINZINGER. I think it is very interesting a cosmonaut and an 

astronaut are actually coming back together. If it hasn’t happened 

already, it is happening within the next few days. Even during the 

Cold War, we had great relationships in terms of some of that. 

There was the Soyuz U.S. mission or something that happened. 

22

I also do wonder if Vladimir Putin, when he makes a decision to 

go into Ukraine or Georgia or terrorize his neighbors, if he sits 

around and wonders all these questions, too, and then decides he 

doesn’t want to do anything because he is afraid it might hurt our 

space alliance. So I would just humbly and kindly say to my friend 

that I think reacting from a position of strength on the United 

States is the best thing that we can do against this incursion into 

Ukraine. And while I think what is the next step is a worthy question to have, I don’t think our adversaries wonder with quite the 

caution that the gentleman is asking the question. 

I yield back to the gentleman. 

Mr. BROOKS. Thank you. I appreciate your comments, but I note 

that you did not answer my question. If anyone has any idea as 

to how we are going to engage in manned space flight if Russia 

does tit for tat, I am anxious to hear. If anyone has any suggestions 

on how we are going to be able to launch our satellites, given our 

reliance on Russian engines, I am anxious to hear. 

In the alternative, I would hope that the members of this committee would significantly increase funding for NASA so that we 

can very quickly resume those launch capabilities and return 

America to the preeminent position in space that we held for decades. 

Chairman ROYCE. Mr. Brooks, I am going to yield myself such 

time as I might consume. The point you raise is the very reason 

why we need to use the leverage that we have at our disposal right 

now in order to get Russia to recognize that it cannot continue to 

escalate this crisis in eastern Ukraine. 

You see, if we were to wait and not take action, it is probable 

that Russia would be emboldened to believe there were no consequences for its actions. And at that point, it might move or attempt to move its agents, city hall by city hall, across the eastern 

part of the country, encouraging them to lift the Russian flag and 

creating a division within each of those provinces, each of those 

communities, each of those towns, and thus really magnifying what 

could end up being a civil war within Ukraine and the east. 

However, if we take action now and show that there are economic consequences, and if Europe stands with us, and if Russia 

is isolated internationally so that the vote, let us say, at the United 

Nations has only one vote in opposition and that is the veto from 

Russia, but the rest of the international community, all calling here 

for the rule of international law, then it is quite probable that with 

that type of leverage we can deescalate this conduct on the part of 

Putin and get us back to the point of cooperation. 

But at this point, if we do not take decisive action, then it is far 

more likely that the escalation will eclipse the joint cooperation on 

programs such as the one you are most concerned about right here. 

So in that context, I would suggest that this is the most responsible 

action we can take in order to weigh in and have Russia consider 

the considerable downside effects should they continue to escalate 

the crisis. 

Mr. KEATING. Mr. Chairman? Mr. Chairman? 

Chairman ROYCE. I will yield. 

Mr. KEATING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to respond 

to the gentleman from Alabama’s comments about an amendment 

23

I plan to offer in a few minutes. I just want to remind everyone 

that suspending military cooperation, that was already one of the 

first acts that our administration already did. That is done. 

So the purpose of the amendment I will be offering is to reach 

out to those other countries, our allies in Central Europe and our 

NATO members, to do the same as we are doing. So just to clarify 

that, Mr. Chairman, before I offer the amendment I wanted that 

point clarified. 

I yield back. 

Chairman ROYCE. Thank you, Mr. Keating. 

Hearing no further requests for recognition, the question occurs 

on the bipartisan en bloc amendment. All those in favor say aye. 

[Chorus of ayes.] 

All those opposed, no. 

[No response.] 

In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it and the en bloc 

amendment is agreed to. 

Does Mr. William Keating have an amendment at the desk? 

Mr. KEATING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment 

at the desk. 

Chairman ROYCE. The clerk will report the amendment. 

Ms. MARTER. Amendment to H. Res. 499, offered by Mr. Keating 

of Massachusetts. On page 5, between the eighth and ninth resolved clauses, insert the following new paragraph. 

Chairman ROYCE. Without objection, the amendment is considered read. The Chair recognizes Mr. Keating from Massachusetts 

to explain the amendment. 

[The information referred to follows:]

Mr. KEATING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. NATO Secretary-General Rasmussen announced that NATO was suspending most of the 

alliance’s meetings with Russia and was reviewing the entire range 

of NATO-Russia cooperation. The Baltic States, Poland, and other 

allies in Central Europe have called on NATO members in the EU 

to impose an arms embargo. The UK has said it is reviewing its 

arms exports to Russia. 


86961c.eps
24

However, other NATO members have said an arms embargo 

would be premature. The key reason, of course, is concern about 

possible revenue losses. This amendment calls on European allies 

to suspend export of military equipment that could be used to support Russian aggression in the region. This is an obvious step for 

allies to take in response to an unprovoked act of military aggression in their own neighborhood. 

I ask for support of this amendment. And with that, I yield back. 

Chairman ROYCE. Do any other members seek recognition? Any 

further debate on this amendment? 

[No response.] 

Hearing no further—no further requests for time, we will go then 

to the vote on the amendment. All those in favor of Mr. Keating’s 

amendment please say aye. 

[Chorus of ayes.] 

All those opposed, no. 

[No response.] 

In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it and the amendment 

is agreed to. 

Are there any other amendments? The Chair recognizes Mr. Poe 

of Texas. 

Mr. POE. I have an amendment at the desk, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman ROYCE. The clerk will report the amendment. 

Ms. MARTER. Amendment to H. Res. 499, offered by Mr. Poe of 

Texas, page 6, line 9, strike ‘‘and,’’ page 6, after line——

Chairman ROYCE. Without objection, the amendment will be considered read. The Chair recognizes the author to explain his 

amendment. 

[The information referred to follows:]

25

Mr. POE. I thank the chairman. Mark Twain once said that history doesn’t repeat itself, but it does rhyme. Well, Russia is being 

the poet these days. First, the Russians moved into Moldova in 

1992. They moved into Georgia in 2008. I happened to be in Georgia 2 weeks after the tanks came rolling in, and now they are doing 

the same thing with the Ukraine. 

This is not the first time the Russians have used the economic 

and political weapon of natural gas against the Ukrainians. They 

have turned off the gas twice before. And, once again, I happened 

to be in the Ukraine when they turned off the gas in winter, and 

it was cold. And it was for political reasons, but it was an economic 

weapon that the Russians used against the Ukrainian people. 

As we look at the Ukrainian situation, it is a situation that is 

bigger than just Ukraine. It is the Russian influence on the region 

and holding that region hostage with the use of energy, primarily 

natural gas. 

This past weekend the Russians even warned that Ukraine’s discount on natural gas was in jeopardy, but there is something that 

we can do, not only to help the Ukrainians but help stability in the 

area, and help the United States as well. And that is by selling 

American natural gas to the Ukrainians, the former Soviet Republics, even to Western Europe. There is a demand and the American 

supply is overwhelming. 

We have more natural gas than we can use in the United States. 

Our current reserves are roughly 97 times what the U.S. consumed 

in all of 2011. There is so much natural gas in North Dakota that 


86961d.eps
26

there are 1,500 flare-ups now, which would be equivalent to heating over 1 million homes. That is gas that they are burning off. 

We have abundant natural gas in this country, primarily in 

Texas. There is an ice cream company in Texas that says—Blue 

Bell, it is the best in the world, by the way—that says as their 

commercial, ‘‘We eat all we can, and we sell the rest.’’ Well, I think 

that should be our policy with natural gas—we use all we can and 

we sell the rest. 

And here is an opportunity that we could buttress the economic 

political weapon the Russians are using against the former Soviet 

Republics to bring them back, and that is the use of natural gas. 

And this legislation would simply ask the—put part of this bill a 

requirement that the United States have a policy of moving forward with exporting natural gas to the Ukraine and other countries. 

According to The New York Times, the Obama administration is 

pushing the idea. The Head of the State Department, Bureau of 

Energy Resources, Carlos Pascual, is a former Ukrainian Ambassador to Ukraine, he said Gazprom’s influence will be weakened as 

American supplies are shipped onto the global market. His team is 

already working to help the Ukraine and other countries break 

away from the dependence of Russian natural gas, and American 

exports would send a signal that the global gas market is changing 

and the United States is a player, but also the Russian influence, 

economically and politically, is diminishing. 

So my amendment calls for our Government to increase American natural gas exports to the Ukraine, the former Soviet Republics, and European countries. 

And I reserve. 

Mr. CHABOT. Will the gentleman yield? 

Mr. POE. Yes. 

Mr. CHABOT. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I would just like 

to correct the record in one respect. I agree with everything that 

the gentleman said except the greatest ice cream in the world is 

made in Cincinnati. It is Graeter’s ice cream. [Laughter.] I yield 

back. 

Chairman ROYCE. Do you export it? 

Mr. CHABOT. Yes, we do. And everybody loves it. 

Mr. POE. I reserve. 

Chairman ROYCE. Mr. Sherman of California. 

Mr. SHERMAN. I rise in opposition, reluctant opposition, to my 

colleague’s amendment. I think it is important that we have a resolution that passes overwhelmingly on the floor of the House in just 

a few hours. It would be brought up under a suspension. The way 

to do that is to focus on where we are unified, which is our foreign 

policy toward the Ukraine. 

This House is not all that unified on energy policy. As a matter 

of fact, we just had votes on the floor of the House where there was 

substantial opposition to a bill dealing with energy policy. I think 

we have got another energy policy vote this afternoon, which will 

not pass on a suspension. 

The issue of exporting natural gas is controversial as a domestic 

issue. Consumers in the United States, and especially manufacturers in the United States, enjoy the fact that natural gas prices are 

27

substantially lower than they are on the world market. Exporting 

natural gas would then cause Americans and others to pay the 

world price. 

In addition, I don’t have to tell the gentleman that we have some 

environmentalists in our caucus that do not want to see an increase in fracking, an increase in natural gas production. And regardless of where any member stands here on whether we should 

export natural gas, whether Federal land should be open to more 

exploration, I would call upon everyone who is a member of the 

Foreign Affairs Committee to say, ‘‘Let us bring a foreign affairs 

resolution to the floor of the House, rather than one that there will 

be pressure on at least Democrats to vote against on these domestic energy issues.’’

We had one series of votes on controversial energy issues this 

morning. We have another one this afternoon. We don’t have to 

turn this foreign affairs resolution into a third partisan divide, 

can’t pass on a suspension, or maybe can’t pass on a suspension, 

controversial vote. 

The chair of our T&T, including Trade Subcommittee, and I have 

had hearings on this issue. I see merits on both sides of whether 

we should export natural gas. What I don’t see is a reason to put 

it in the Ukrainian resolution. 

Mr. DEUTCH. Point of order, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman ROYCE. The gentleman is recognized for a point of 

order. 

Mr. DEUTCH. To follow Mr. Sherman’s comments, is the—does 

this committee have jurisdiction over the export of natural gas? 

Chairman ROYCE. Well, we would have jurisdiction over exports 

and export promotion. And on top of that, in the resolution itself 

it makes reference to Ukrainian energy independence. So, yes, very 

clearly it would be germane, and it would be——

Mr. DEUTCH. Parliamentary inquiry——

Chairman ROYCE. Yes. 

Mr. DEUTCH [continuing]. If this language is added to the resolution, will the Energy and Commerce Committee then command jurisdiction? 

Chairman ROYCE. I don’t think so. I will recognize the Parliamentarian. 

The PARLIAMENTARIAN. Sir, that would depend on an intervening 

decision by that committee to seek a sequential referral with the 

House Parliamentarians, and we can’t prejudge that. 

Mr. DEUTCH. Right. And I would just join my colleague, then, in 

the great concern that that potential claim of jurisdiction could 

slow down this very important statement that the House Foreign 

Affairs Committee and the Congress should put forward immediately. There is no time for delay. 

I yield back. 

Mr. SALMON. Mr. Chairman? 

Chairman ROYCE. I will recognize the gentleman from Arizona. 

Mr. SALMON. Mr. Chairman, I know we have had hearings on 

this issue as well and spoken to numerous folks in the industry 

and analysts on Wall Street. The fact is, the current law already 

exists for the administration and for the Department of Energy to 

grant these permits. It doesn’t require new law. All this is doing 

28

is encouraging them to use the laws that are already on the books 

to do that. 

So I don’t see where there would be any jurisdictional issues personally that go back to the Energy and Commerce Committee. And, 

additionally, the economists that I have spoken to about whether 

or not prices would rise in the United States if we export LNG or 

CNG have already been debunked. In fact, if they listen to the gentleman as he explained, they are actually burning off excess right 

now. And so many of the folks that are going to deploy new gas 

resources are not doing it because right now of the price of natural 

gas, so it is actually hurting us. 

And, thirdly, if this isn’t a foreign policy issue, I mean, I think 

most people would agree that Russia has undue influence over this 

country, over Ukraine, because of the energy that they supply. So 

it is a foreign policy issue, and I would argue and speak out in 

strong favor of the gentleman’s amendment. 

Mr. DEUTCH. Mr. Chairman? Mr. Chairman, further to my parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman, I——

Chairman ROYCE. Mr. Deutch. 

Mr. DEUTCH [continuing]. Just to clarify, I appreciate my friend’s 

belief that the Energy and Commerce Committee would not have 

jurisdiction. But just to confirm, it is the position of staff of this 

committee that indeed they would have the ability to claim jurisdiction. 

Chairman ROYCE. Well, that is not an inquiry, first of all. But 

let me respond to the overall point. Given the desire on the part 

of the institution to move this legislation, I do not believe for one 

moment that they would request referral on this initiative from the 

Foreign Affairs Committee. 

And let me just take a moment here to explain that Mark Udall 

of Colorado is making this case for natural gas exports, given the 

Ukraine crisis. I understand that there might be some various perspectives on the committee on this issue, but I would also ask the 

members to remember this is a non-binding resolution. 

It is a non-binding resolution that comes in the face of Mr. 

Udall’s call for action and the actions for others in order to do 

something to remove or at least signal—think this through, members, if you would—signal to the Ukrainian Government and to Europe that right now feel very much under the thumb of Russia that 

there is a way forward should the gas be cut off, that there is the 

hope that that gas could be exported from the United States into 

their markets, thus relieving the pressure that Russia might otherwise bring into play. 

I think the wider issues that have been made here, the economic 

benefits of exporting liquified natural gas, the fact that the Department of Energy did look at this long and hard, the administration 

looked at this, and the DoD and DOE decided that it outweighs the 

costs. The Department of Energy has found that America can 

produce more than enough natural gas to meet domestic demand 

affordably while also supporting export markets. 

And the report concludes that the net benefits of exports apply 

to consumers as well as the overall economy and that these benefit 

increase along with the level of exports. And other studies, of 

course, have reached similar conclusions. 

29

My takeaway from this is because it is non-binding, because it 

is sent as a message to Russia in the middle of Russia’s attempt 

to use this as a weapon, that at the end of the day, although there 

might be a divided vote on the amendment, I would suggest in the 

general scheme of things that this is not a final vote on the House 

floor, which would occur on something out of the Department of 

Energy for enactment of the final decision on such a provision. And 

so I just put that in context for everyone’s consideration. 

I think Mr. Meadows was requesting time. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to make 

sure that we set the record straight with regards to natural gas exports and speak in favor of this amendment, and would share with 

some of my colleagues opposite. The fact that we have met many 

of the greenhouse gas emissions standards—in fact, have met the 

Kyoto levels without passing that—is a direct response to our energy solution here in the United States, using much more natural 

gas. 

Quite frankly, the greenhouse gas emissions have been lowered, 

according to the EPA, by over 5 percent as a reduction that comes 

directly from the use of natural gas. And so some of the concerns 

that we might have with regards to greenhouse gas emissions 

would be addressed with regards to exporting natural gas instead 

of oil or other fossil fuels. 

I would also like to add that by most estimates, by many estimates, we have well over a 200-year supply of natural gas, and so 

the amount that the Ukraine would use or any consumption that 

might be used as a result of supplanting this particular flow from 

Russia would certainly be offset by the years and years of reserves 

that we have now. And so I would just urge my colleagues to support this resolution and do all that we can to provide relief for the 

freedom-loving people of Ukraine. 

And I yield back. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Will the gentleman yield? 

Mr. MEADOWS. Certainly. 

Mr. DUNCAN. I want to thank him for his comments. I want to 

just point out that this is not setting energy policy for the nation. 

This is taking available energy surplus that we have and exporting 

it to a nation that is in dire concern about the future of their energy security, because of the gas pipelines that are controlled by 

the Russians that go through the Ukraine. 

This isn’t just a Ukrainian issue. It is also going to spill over into 

a European issue because of those gas lines. 

Exporting natural gas and exporting the technology that would 

allow the Ukrainians to harvest and produce the resources that 

they have got is the right thing. In fact, last year Ukraine signed 

a natural gas exploration deal with both Royal Dutch Shell as well 

as Chevron, which pledged to invest as much as $10 billion if adequate supplies of Shell gas were found. 

The Ukraine has more than 40 trillion cubic feet of technically 

recoverable natural gas. This would allow the Ukraine to possibly 

have energy independence and lessen some dependence on a country that is sitting on their doorstep right now. This is the right 

thing. It does not set policy for this country other than it encourages taking some of the surplus we have got—that we have in this 

30

country and helping a friend, helping someone that is pursuing the 

liberty that we enjoy. 

So I appreciate the gentleman from Texas offering the amendment. I support it. I think it is the right thing, and I appreciate 

the gentleman yielding time to me. And with that, I will yield back, 

Mr. Meadows. 

Chairman ROYCE. Mr. Meeks of New York. 

Mr. MEEKS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to go back to 

what Mr. Sherman had indicated, because I think that the message 

that we also want to show and send is that we are all together, 

that there is no division in the United States Congress, irrespective 

of beliefs on Shell gas, et cetera. And what this amendment could 

cause is division because some individuals will not be able to or 

may not vote for the resolution because they have a different opinion. And I think that is going to have to be taken into consideration 

here. 

You know, I haven’t made a decision on Shell gas or whether I 

am for selling it abroad or not. You know, that is a decision that 

is going to have to be made. I don’t want to have to make that kind 

of decision, because the language that we utilize is important. Even 

though it is not binding, it is important and it is going to be read 

by others. 

And so for the sake of unity, in my estimation, we should try to 

make sure that we come up with a resolution that we all can 100 

percent say we are with and stand by and not cause any divisions, 

you know, that shows that there is any wrinkle between us, because that is then something that I think the Russians would love 

to exploit and say that we are not 100 percent together. 

And I think that the idea of us, as the United States Congress, 

saying that we are all together on this resolution sends by far a 

stronger message to Russia than us debating back and forth or 

having someone vote no because they are not for selling of Shell 

gas or exporting Shell gas. 

I yield back. 

Chairman ROYCE. Yes. Mr. Kinzinger of Illinois. 

Mr. KINZINGER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is a tough one. 

I have been out there agreeing that the best way to counter the 

Russians in the next decade or two is export of natural gas to make 

our allies’ reliance on them less important than their reliance on 

us, and I am 100 percent supportive of it. 

That said, Mr. Chairman, I am not sure if this is the place to 

put a resolution like this. I am undecided how I am going to vote 

on this, because right now I think the most important thing we can 

do as the United States Congress is to show unanimity on this 

issue, to show the people of Ukraine that we are behind them. And 

I don’t know if this is the place to engage on a debate that may 

be very divisive, that while I am on one side of it, and I am very 

passionately on one side of it, I understand that there are people 

that disagree with me. 

And I think and I am afraid, and with respect to Mr. Poe, I am 

afraid that the addition of this amendment will create division that 

will be, as was said by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, 

will be perceived by the Russians and even the Russian media as 

a Congress that is not united on support of the Ukrainian people. 

31

While I also understand that I am probably in a big-time minority on my side for doing this, I am leaning toward opposing this 

amendment, not because of my disagreement with what is in it but 

because of my belief that it is extremely important for us to present 

a united front on this issue. 

And with that, I will yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman ROYCE. I thank the gentleman. 

We will go to Mr. Connolly of Virginia. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I actually support 

what Judge Poe is trying to do here. I think it actually is important 

from a foreign policy point of view to be very clear with respect to 

the Putin administration in Russia that we are prepared to even 

substitute ourselves as a natural gas supplier in the event that 

they continue down the road they have chosen. 

But I want to echo what Mr. Meeks and what Mr. Kinzinger both 

just said. I think at this grave moment it is essential Congress 

speaks with one voice. It is essential we not divide this resolution 

today, so that there is no misconstruing the firm intent of Congress 

to resist the acts of aggression against Crimea and against the 

Ukraine by the Putin administration in Moscow. He needs to see 

that. He needs to hear that. 

A divided opinion, even though I may be on Mr. Poe’s side of this 

opinion, I think risks something very important in terms of our resolve and our ability to speak with one voice at this time of crisis. 

And I would urge my friend from Texas to consider that. I would 

urge the chairman to consider that as we proceed. 

And with that, I yield back. 

Chairman ROYCE. I would like to recognize Mr. Grayson on the 

underlying amendment, and also for a second-degree amendment. 

Well, let me just recognize Mr. Grayson at this time. 

Mr. GRAYSON. Thank you. I will reserve the right to offer an 

amendment shortly, if that is okay with the chairman. 

Chairman ROYCE. It is. It comes with my support, Mr. Grayson. 

Mr. GRAYSON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. My 13-yearold daughter would like to see increased exports of natural gas 

from the United States to the Ukraine, and my 13-year-old daughter would also like a pony. So with that in mind, I would like to 

ask Mr. Poe, the gentleman from Texas, a few questions. 

This resolution is about Russian military intervention in the 

Ukraine. Mr. Poe, are the Russians blocking the U.S. export of natural gas? 

Mr. POE. This resolution expedites the policy of the United 

States to be—to supply the Russians with—or supply the Ukrainians with natural gas. As you know, this whole intervention by the 

Russians in the region is based upon trying to control their energy. 

So we are letting the Russians know, as the administration has already said, to supply them, the Ukrainians—if we have the capability, supply them with natural gas. 

Mr. GRAYSON. Mr. Poe, that is a little too complicated for me to 

understand. Aren’t we already exporting all the natural gas that 

we can to the Ukraine and other countries in the region? Are the 

Russians preventing us from doing that? 

32

Mr. POE. No, we are not. There are 1,500 flare-ups in North Dakota as we sit here today that are burning off enough natural gas 

to heat 1 million homes. So, no, we are not exporting all we can. 

Mr. GRAYSON. What makes you think, Mr. Poe, that it is Russian 

military intervention in the Ukraine that is causing those gas producers to burn off that excess? 

Mr. POE. Because, as they have done in the past, the Russians 

use their economic stranglehold on the former Soviet Republics by 

holding them hostage with natural gas. Ukrainians get 60 percent 

of their natural gas from Russia. And if they don’t tow the line, the 

Russians turn off the gas, which they have done twice. So it’s one 

of the reasons why the Russians move in, in my opinion, to areas—

because they can control them economically; now they want to control them politically. 

Mr. GRAYSON. Mr. Poe, what is your plan for delivering natural 

gas from North Dakota to the Ukraine instead of having it flare 

off? Are you proposing a pipeline under the Atlantic Ocean? 

Mr. POE. Well, there would have to be, of course, the infrastructure to do so. And if we had the infrastructure already, we could 

have done it. But we don’t have that infrastructure, as you know, 

but this then sets a policy of the United States long term to the 

Russians that people in Eastern Europe, former Soviet Republics, 

are now going to have an option to get natural gas, and they are 

not going to have to get it only from the Russians. 

Of course, it could not be done today, but it would be a policy, 

as the administration has already said, to export natural gas so 

that they have other options. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Will the gentleman yield? 

Mr. GRAYSON. Your specific wording, Mr. Poe, says that you are 

calling on the United States to increase natural gas exports in 

order to reduce Russian control of energy exports. Are you saying 

that the Russians are now in control of American energy exports? 

Mr. POE. No, I didn’t say that at all. 

Mr. GRAYSON. Well, that is what the words say. 

Mr. POE. It doesn’t say that. Read it again. 

Mr. GRAYSON. Okay. 

Mr. POE. Russians do not control American exports. We control 

them. But right now we don’t allow our exporters to export natural 

gas because of a lot of other reasons we can discuss if you want 

to. All this does is set a policy saying that our answer to the Russians moving into other people’s countries: We are going to fight 

back politically and economically with energy. 

And this is the answer I think that we should tell the Russians. 

We should be a singular voice on this. ‘‘You are not going to be able 

to hold these countries hostage any longer over the issue of energy.’’ And that is the political development that is taking place in 

the Ukraine. Sixty percent of their natural gas comes from Russia. 

Why don’t we give the Ukrainians an option. 

Mr. GRAYSON. Mr. Poe, your amendment calls on the United 

States to do what you are describing here. Where is it in the Constitution of the United States that says that the U.S. House of Representatives, the representatives of the people of the United States, 

have any authority to call on the United States as a whole to do 

33

anything? Can you point to the part of the Constitution where it 

says that? 

Mr. SHERMAN. Will the gentleman yield? 

Mr. GRAYSON. Yes. 

Mr. SHERMAN. We require Federal approval for export facilities 

for liquefied natural gas. There are those in the Republican party 

who think that the Obama administration has been too reluctant 

to issue those permits. There are those in the environmental community that think we have already issued too many permits. But 

I think it is reasonable to say that this is an issue that we need 

to confront, and our committee has substantial jurisdiction in the 

area. 

But it is not Russia that is preventing the export of liquefied natural gas. That is a matter of the economic policy and the environmental policy that the administration has substantial control over. 

Mr. GRAYSON. Yes. 

Mr. SHERMAN. I yield back. 

Mr. GRAYSON. And that is exactly my point. I know nonsense 

when I see it, and this is poorly written nonsense, with all due respect to the gentleman from Texas. 

I yield the rest of my time. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Mr. Chairman? Mr. Chairman, I——

Chairman ROYCE. Mr. Meadows. 

Mr. MEADOWS [continuing]. I ask that we strike the last words 

of Mr. Grayson. You know, we are adding personalities here and 

personalties to this, and so I would ask that we would strike that. 

Chairman ROYCE. Let me do this. Let me just admonish all members, direct your questions to the Chair and let us try to follow Jefferson’s original rules of decorum here as we continue the debate. 

Does anyone want to be recognized for an amendment? 

Mr. GRAYSON. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I would like to be recognized 

for an amendment, and I think we have a copy at the desk. 

Chairman ROYCE. I ask if—do we have a copy of the amendment 

at the desk? 

Ms. MARTER. We do, sir. 

Mr. COLLINS. Mr. Chairman? 

Chairman ROYCE. Will the gentlelady—the gentleman is recognized. 

Mr. COLLINS. Is this coming in the form of a secondary amendment to this amendment? 

Chairman ROYCE. That is correct. I believe this is a second degree amendment to the amendment. 

Mr. COLLINS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman ROYCE. Thank you, Mr. Collins. 

The clerk will read the amendment. 

Ms. MARTER. Second-degree amendment to Mr. Poe’s amendment 

offered by Mr. Grayson of Florida, strikes the text of the amendment and substitute page 6, strike lines 1 to 4, and insert the following, ‘‘15, Calls on Ukraine and European countries and former 

Soviet Republics to support energy diversification initiatives to reduce Russian control of energy exports, including by promoting energy efficiency and reverse gas flows from Western Europe.’’

[The information referred to follows:]

34

Chairman ROYCE. The gentleman is recognized on his amendment. 

Mr. GRAYSON. Thank you. The purpose of my amendment is simply to try to bridge the gap that has appeared here today and to 

try to make this effort—this initiative to help the people in the 

Ukraine resist Soviet—excuse me, Russian intervention militarily, 

and to stand up as free people, and that we can do so unanimously. 

I understand the geopolitical issue involved here. I do understand that one way to help the people of the Ukraine is in fact to 

help them to be energy independent, just as it would help the people of America if we were all energy independent. 

So with that in mind, I introduce this amendment to call on the 

Ukraine and the European countries and former Soviet Republics 

to support energy diversification initiatives, to reduce Russian control of energy exports, including by promoting energy efficiency and 

reverse gas flows from Western Europe. 

I want to point out that the chair has discussed a potential 

amendment to this language which I certainly think could be constructive. We just simply didn’t have time to reach some conclusion, but the chair wants to discuss after this, if I understand the 

chair correctly, language to the effect of calling on the United 

States to increase gas exports and promote energy efficiency. 

My understanding is that third order amendments are out of 

order. So I don’t think we will be able to reach a conclusion on this 

given the timeframe that is contemplated. I offer my amendment 

with the chair’s recommendation in mind. 

I yield the rest of my time. 

Chairman ROYCE. I will yield myself such time as I might consume. So currently the second-degree amendment to Mr. Poe’s 

amendment as offered here by Mr. Grayson would read, ‘‘Calls on 

Ukraine and European countries and former Soviet Republics to 

support energy diversification initiatives to reduce Russian control 

of energy exports, including by promoting energy efficiency and reverse gas flows from Western Europe.’’

I would suggest that, if he withdraws this amendment, we would 

work to offer an amendment, and I would ask unanimous consent 

to do so, which seeks to achieve exactly that language in the first 

paragraph and calls on the United States to promote increased gas 

exports and energy efficiency. 

[The information referred to follows:]


86961g.eps
35

Chairman ROYCE. I think that that language would satisfy our 

desire collectively to send the message to Russia that there would 

be long-range consequences should this continue to escalate. At the 

same time, I suspect that that language would satisfy Mr. Poe and 

Mr. Grayson. 

And with that suggestion, maybe I could open this to debate. 

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman? 

Chairman ROYCE. Mr. Engel. 

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I would like to agree with what you 

just said. I think that this strikes a good balance. It talks about 

reducing Russian control of energy exports and, at the same time, 

it is likely not to get any negativity on the House floor. I do agree 

with our colleagues who have said that what we should aim for is 

for the maximum number of votes on the House floor to send an 

unequivocal message to the Russians that this Congress is united 

in opposing what they are doing. 

I am sympathetic to some of the points that Mr. Poe has raised. 

I think this does strike a happy medium, and I support it. I think 

it is a good compromise. 

Chairman ROYCE. I thank the gentleman. 

Now, again, reclaiming my time here, I am going to ask unanimous consent to add to the end of the Grayson amendment the following language, ‘‘And calls on the United States to promote increased gas exports and energy efficiency.’’ Afterwards, there will 

be a vote on the Grayson amendment. Those who wish to vote in 

opposition—by the way, is there any objection? 

[No response.] 

Chairman ROYCE. Hearing none, afterwards there will be a vote 

on the Grayson amendment, as amended, without objection, and 

following that, the Poe amendment, as amended by the Grayson 

amendment. So my hope is that that will satisfy the members of 

this committee, and the final language I think should be one that 

sends a strong message to Russia. 


86961e.eps
36

Members seeking to be recognized? Yes, Mr. Lowenthal, and then 

Mr. Kennedy and any other members. 

Mr. LOWENTHAL. Could you please——

Chairman ROYCE. Yes. 

Mr. LOWENTHAL [continuing]. Repeat exactly the words——

Chairman ROYCE. Yes. 

Mr. LOWENTHAL [continuing]. That you want to add? 

Chairman ROYCE. The addition, before the final period, in other 

words, ‘‘Reverse gas flows from Western Europe, and calls on the 

United States to promote increased gas exports and energy efficiency.’’

Mr. LOWENTHAL. Promote. 

Chairman ROYCE. I think——

Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chairman, I have a question. 

Chairman ROYCE. Mr. Perry had a question. 

Mr. PERRY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am curious about the 

verbiage ‘‘and reverse gas flows from Western Europe.’’ Does this 

essentially—I mean, it takes valving changes, and so on and so 

forth, and it takes a market that draws the gas to the customer. 

It doesn’t take us saying so. And does this mean that we are now 

going to advocate to sell our gas to Russia? 

Chairman ROYCE. No, it does not, Mr. Perry. But I want to recognize Mr. Grayson for an explanation of his amendment. 

Mr. GRAYSON. Well, the status quo these days is that Western 

Europe imports gas from Russia, and there is a perception on the 

part of many that that creates a certain dependency on the part 

of Western Europe to Russia, because Russia could turn off the tap 

in the same manner that Russia has turned off the tap to some of 

the former Soviet Republics. 

So reverse gas flow is meant to denote, in essence, energy independence for Western Europe, so that Western Europe does not remain dependent upon Russian gas to the extent that it already 

may be. 

Chairman ROYCE. Mr. Kennedy, did you seek recognition? 

Mr. KENNEDY. No, Mr. Chairman. I was helping out Mr. 

Lowenthal. Thank you. 

Chairman ROYCE. Okay. Other members seeking recognition? 

Oh, Mr. Castro, yes. 

Mr. CASTRO. I would just say, you know, since the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991, we essentially were encouraging Russia to become a capitalist democratic nation, and we encouraged their economic entanglements, now it seems like, not only with the United 

States but also with Europe. 

They are now in a position to use those entanglements as leverage in the situation in which we all now find ourselves. So I think 

there is a question now going forward, once this is resolved, what 

our strategy is with respect to Russia and whether, you know, the 

society of nations, including the United States and Europe, is going 

to encourage further economic development with Russia or not. 

I support along the lines where Congressman Poe is going. I do 

think that we need to be a supplier of energy to, you know, many 

of the nations that Russia now has a large share of the supply for. 

But I also think that we can’t pretend as though what has developed is only the product of what Russia has done. For many years, 

37

we have encouraged that, except that now instead of, you know, essentially doing what we had hoped they have taken a turn toward 

imperialism and back toward their Soviet actions. And that is the 

situation in which we find ourselves. 

Chairman ROYCE. Well, the question is on the Grayson amendment as modified——

Mr. STOCKMAN. Mr. Chairman? 

Chairman ROYCE. Yes. Who seeks recognition? 

Mr. STOCKMAN. Stockman. I have a real quick question. I tend 

to agree that if we adopt the language ‘‘reverse gas flows’’ that 

means Europe is going to sell to Russia. I just wish we would clarify that language, but I yield back. 

Chairman ROYCE. I thank the gentleman for yielding back. 

Mr. Grayson, would you like to elaborate any further on your 

amendment? 

Mr. GRAYSON. Sure. Russia has the largest hydrocarbon reserves 

in the entire world. It seems unlikely that Russia will be importing 

natural gas anytime soon. 

Chairman ROYCE. That is the language. 

Mr. GRAYSON. Well, actually, what we are doing is we are talking 

about reverse gas flows from Western Europe. That could be to 

Czechoslovakia, that could be to Poland, that could be to the 

Ukraine, that could be to any number of locations that are energy 

poor. Russia itself is enormously energy rich. 

Mr. KINZINGER. On that——

Chairman ROYCE. Yes, Mr. Kinzinger. 

Mr. KINZINGER [continuing]. What is wrong with Europe selling 

gas to Russia? That is a much better position than Russia selling 

gas to Europe, correct? 

Mr. WEBER. Mr. Chairman? 

Chairman ROYCE. Any other——

Mr. WEBER. I have a question, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman ROYCE. Any other members seeking recognition? Mr. 

Weber. 

Mr. WEBER. Yes. Just a question, I guess along with Mr. Grayson’s amendment. So, actually, for Western Europe to become that 

energy proficient, is he promoting fracking over in Western Europe? I just had a question for him. 

Chairman ROYCE. Reclaiming my time, I think the question before us is on the Grayson amendment, as modified by UC. All those 

in favor of the Grayson amendment, with our UC addition, please 

signify by saying aye. 

[Chorus of ayes.] 

All those opposed, no. 

[No response.] 

In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it. 

Hearing no further requests for recognition, the question occurs 

on the Poe amendment, as amended by the Grayson amendment. 

All those in favor say aye. 

[Chorus of ayes.] 

All those opposed, no. 

[No response.] 

In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it. The amendment is 

agreed to. 

38

Are there any other amendments? Ms. Gabbard, yes. 

Ms. GABBARD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be very brief. I 

believe my amendment is——

Chairman ROYCE. Ms. Gabbard, do you have an amendment at 

the desk? 

Ms. GABBARD. I do have an amendment at the desk. 

Chairman ROYCE. The clerk will read that amendment. 

Ms. MARTER. Amendment to H. Res. 499, offered by Ms. Gabbard 

of Hawaii. On page 3, in the last clause of the preamble, after the 

last ‘‘and’’ insert ‘‘regarding civil and political rights.’’

Chairman ROYCE. Without objection, the amendment will be considered as read. 

[The information referred to follows:]

Ms. GABBARD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman ROYCE. Ms. Gabbard, would you explain your amendment? 

Ms. GABBARD. Thank you very much. Very briefly, the amendment on page 3 directly relates to adding ‘‘regarding civil and political rights’’ so that as we look at the role of the international monitors and calling for them to move into the region, that they are 

not only looking at the direct threat of an escalating military tension but that they are also looking at the underlying tensions that 

exist within the civil and political arena. 

The second amendment on page 5 seeks to address the need, as 

we look to provide aid and assistance to Ukraine, to get to that end 

state of stability on all levels, whether it be economic or in other 

areas, that we also encourage the reforms needed to address corruption, which has played a direct role in the weakened state that 

we are seeing. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 


86961f.eps
39

Chairman ROYCE. I thank the gentlelady and thank her for the 

language on the anti-corruption measures which you have added to 

the base text here. 

Any other members seeking recognition on the Gabbard amendment? 

[No response.] 

Hearing no further requests for recognition, the question occurs 

on the amendment from Ms. Gabbard. All those in favor say aye. 

[Chorus of ayes.] 

All opposed, no. 

[No response.] 

In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it and the amendment 

is agreed to. 

Any other amendments? Any other members seeking recognition? 

[No response.] 

Hearing no further amendments to the measure, the question occurs on agreeing to House Resolution 499, as amended. All those 

in favor signify by saying aye. 

[Chorus of ayes.] 

All those opposed, no. 

[No response.] 

In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it and the bill, as 

amended, is agreed to. 

Without objection, H.R. 499, as amended, is ordered favorably reported, will be reported as a single amendment in the nature of a 

substitute. Staff is directed to make any technical and conforming 

changes, and that concludes our business for today. 

And, again, I want to thank our ranking member, Mr. Engel 

from New York, and all of our committee members for their contribution and assistance today. 

The committee stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:57 p.m., the committee was adjourned.] 

(41)

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

42

f


86961n.eps

FULL COMMITTEE MARKUP NOTICE 

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

W ASHTNGTON, DC 20515-6128 

Edward R. Royce (R-CA), Chairman 

March 6, 2014 

TO: MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

You are respectfully requested to attend an OPEN meeting of the Committee on Foreign 

AtIairs, to be held in Room 2172 of the Rayburn House OfIice Building (and available live on 

the Committee website at http/lwww.ForeignAffairs.bouse.gov) 

DAn:: 

TIME: 

MARKUP OF: 

Thursday, March 6, 2014 

Immediately following the conclusion of the Full Committee Hearing 

H. Res. 499, Condemning the violation of Ukrainian sovereignty, 

independence and territorial integrity by military forces of the Russian 

Federation. 

By Direction of the Chairman 
43


86961m-1.eps

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

MINUTES OF FULL COMMITTEE MARKUP 

Day_----"J:-"n"'u"'rs"'d"'a""I' __ ,Date ___ ""0"'31i"'O"'6'-'11"'4'---__ Room, ___ -=2-=1"-72=-__ _ 

Starting Time 11:31 A.M. Ending Time 12:57 P.M. 

Recesses '_0_ ( __ to __ ) ( __ 10 __ )( __ 10 __ ) L-to __ ) ( __ to __ ) L-to ~ 

Presiding Member(s) 

Rep. Edward R. Royce ,Chairman 

Check all of the following that apply: 

Open Session [Z] 

Execn live (closed) Session D Televised [Z] 

Electronically Recorded (taped) [Z] 

Stenographic Record [{] 

BILLS FOR MARKUP: (Include bill number(s) and litle«) of legislation) 

H. Res. 499 

COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: 

See Attendance Sheet 

NON-COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: 

None. 

STATEMENTS FOR THE RECORD: (List any statements submittedfor the record) 

SFR-Engel 

SFR - Kennedy 

ACTIONS TAKEN DURING THE MARKUP: (AUach copies oliegisla/ion and amendments) 

See Markup Summary 

RECORDED VOTES TAKEN (FOR MARKUP): (Allachjinal vote tally shee/listing each member) 

TIME SCHEDULED TO RECONVENE ___ _ 

or 

TIME ADJOURNED 12:57 P.M. 

Doug Anderson, General Counsel 
44

f


86961m-2.eps

I'RTiSTiivT 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

FUll COMMITTEE MARKUP 

MTi,ffiTiR I'RTiSnNT MnmTiR 

Edward R. Royce, CA X Eliot L. Engel, NY 

Christopher H. Smith, NJ Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, AS 

Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, FL X Brad Shemlall, CA 

Dana Rohrabacher, CA X Gregory W. Meeks, NY 

Steve Chabot. OH Albia Sires, NJ 

Joe Wilson, SC X Gerald E. Connolly, VA 

Michael T. McCaul, TX X Theodore E. Deutch, FL 

Ted Poe, TX X Briall Higgins, NY 

Matt Salmon, AZ X Karen Bass, CA 

Tom Marino, PA X William Keating, MA 

Jetl'Duncan, SC X David Cicilline, RI 

Adam Kinzinger. IL X Alan Grayson, FL 

Mo Brooks, AL X Jlk111 Vargas, CA 

Tom Cotton, AR Bradley S. Schneider. IL 

Paul Cook, CA X Joseph P. Kennedy III. MA 

George Holding, NC X Ami Bera, CA 

Randy K. Weber, Sr., TX X Alan S. Lmventhal, CA 

Scott Perry, PA X Grace Meng, NY 

Steve Stockman, TX X Lois Ff3llkel. FL 

Ron DeSantis, FL X Tulsi Gabbard, HI 

Doug Collins, GA X Joaquin Castro, TX 

Mark Meadows, NC 

Ted S. Yoho, FL 

Luke Messer. IN 
45

f


86961s.eps

3/6/14 Foreign Affairs Committee Markup Summary 

The Chair called up H. Res. 499 for consideration by the Committee. 

H Res. 499 (Royce), "Condemning the violation of Ukrainian sovereignty, independence, and 

territorial integrity by military forces of the Russian Federation." 

I) By unanimous consent, the following amendments (previously provided to Members of the 

Committee) were considered ell bloc and agreed to by voice vote: 

1. Holding 15 

2. Kennedy 8 

3. Kinzinger 10 

4. Meadows 32 

5. Perry 31 

2) Rep. Keating offered an amendment, Keating 1, agreed to by voice vote 

3) Rep. Poe o±Iered an amendment, Poe 69. 

a. Rep. Grayson o±Iered an amendment in the second degree to Poe 69, agreed to (as 

modified by a unanimous consent request by the Chairman). 

Poe 69, as amended, was agreed to by voice vote. 

4) Rep. Gabbard o±Iered an amendment, Gabbard 1, agreed to by voice vote. 

H. Res. 499, as amended, was agreed to by voice vote, and ordered favorably reported to the House by 

unanimous consent 

The Committee adjourned. 
46

f


86961h.eps

Statement for the Record 

Submitted by the Honorable Hliot L Hngel 

I strongly support H. Res. 499, a resolution Chainnan Royce and I introduced, which condemns 

the recent violation of Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity by Russia. 

President Putin has violated international law and his country's commitments to its neighbor. 

His act of aggression risks inciting further violence and anned conflict between two peoples with 

deep historical and cultural ties. 

And he has done this at a moment when Ukraine was on the verge of resolving several months of 

crisis with the selection of a new interim government. Rather than supporting stability, 

reconciliation, and Ukraine's return to political and economic health, he has chosen - on the 

flimsiest of pretenses - to promote discord and conflict, to set peoples and families against one 

another. 

This resolution puts President Putin on notice that his reckless actions will have consequences. It 

calls on the Administration to work with our allies to impose sanctions on Russia - and I 

commend the President for signing an executive order this morning to start this process. It 

supports efforts to increase Russia's diplomatic isolation. It calls on Putin to accept international 

monitors in Crimea and return his troops to their bases. And it makes clear our support for 

meaningful assistance to Ukraine and to Ukraine's interim government. 

The people of Ukraine, and the people of all countries in the region and throughout the world, 

have the right to determine their own future free of pressure and threats. As Ukrainians attempt 

to chart out their own course, they should know that the United States stands with them, and that 

we are committed to helping them build a more democratic, prosperous, secure, and just Ukraine. 

I therefore call on my colleagues to support this resolution. 
47


86961i-1.eps

Statement for the Record 

Submitted by the Honorable Joe Kennedy 

Thank you Chaimlan Royce and Ranking Member Engel for calling this 

heating today and for inviting the witnesses to testify on the current situation in 

Ukraine. I ask unanimous consent to submit the following Council on Foreign 

Relations article to the record. 

An Energy Weapon vs. Russia? 

20140J07&sp mid=45296923&sp rid=am91Lmtlbm51ZHIAZ21 haWv,~lY29tSO 

by Michael Levi 

March 5, 2014 

As the standotI between Russia and Ukraine drags on, there are increasing calls to use US. oil 

and gas exports to weaken Vladimir Putin's hand. There's something to this, but it's likely to be 

a lot less powerful than most pundits seem to think. 

Europe imports about thirty percent of its natural gas from Russia. Russia could, in principle, cut 

off some or all of that supply. That prospect presumably makes European leaders less willing to 

take strong positions against Russia in its confrontation with Ukraine. People have argued that 

boosting US. natural gas export capacity (or, more precisely, changing policy to make that more 

likely in the future) could do two things. First, in the current crisis, it could deter Putin from 

using the gas weapon, lest he encourage Europeans to make concerted etJorts to shift their longterm gas procurement to the United States when that becomes possible in a few years. Second, in 

future crises, it could blunt the Russian gas weapon, since US. exports would be available to fill 

in for Russian supplies. 

(You might have noticed that T haven't said anything about oil. That's because the idea that US. 

oil exports would give Europe some sort of special buffer is silly. The world oil market is pretty 

flexible, and US. exports would be a drop in an already large sea. To the extent that Europe is 

constrained in its ability to switch oil sources quickly, that's because of infrastructure, something 

US. exports wouldn't change.) 

There are two essential things to keep in mind when thinking through the claims about natural 

gas exports. 

First, decisions about whom to export to and import from are made by commercial entities, not 

by governments. When a U.S. analyst says, "we should tell Europe we'll sell them our gas", the 

tlrst response should be, "who's 'we"'~ (The second response should be, "who's Europe?") The 

U.S. government doesn't get to sell gas to anyone; it can create a framework in which 
48

Æ


86961i-2.eps

commercial entities can sell gas, but after that, it's up to those businesses to decide where the gas 

goes. Similarly, "Europe" doesn't buy gas - all sorts of European companies do, within 

European and national regulatory frameworks. 

Second, surging natural gas into Europe to respond to a crisis requires that there be infrastructure 

in place that can accommodate that surge. In the case we're talking about here, that means 

having a bunch of unused (or partly used) European natural gas import terminals that can 

suddenly absorb newly arrived US. supplies. And remember - back to the first point - these 

terminals will be built by private players. 

So what does this all mean for the big strategic claims? 

It is difficult to see how US. exports will substantially erode the long-run share of Russian gas in 

Europe. It is far more profitable for buyers of U.S. natural gas to ship it to Asia - where prices 

are far higher - than to Europe. (The exception is if European companies are willing to pay a 

hefty premium to get their gas from the United States - but remember, these are commercial 

entities, which makes it very difficult for them to do that.) There is, of course, a knock on effect 

from that, since if US. gas frees up other supplies that were destined for Asia, those supplies can 

potentially move into Europe instead. But Russia remains a relatively low-cost supplier into 

Europe, and can trim its prices to keep its market share. Moreover, unlike European gas 

companies, the big Russian players have much tighter ties with the state. If Moscow wants them 

to keep their share in the European market for strategic reasons, it may be able to make them do 

that. Russia would lose money - an important piece of geopolitical harm - but its leverage 

wouldn't be slashed. 

What about supplying gas to Europe in a crisis? Here the basic constraint is infrastructure Gas 

demand is seasonal, so during some parts of the year, there may be underutilized LNG import 

terminals. [UPDATE 3/6: Moreover, with a weak European economy, there is currentlv a lot of 

unutilized European LNG import capacity year-round; whether that persists indefinitely remains 

to be seen. Even in the current case, though, Russian imports into Europe greatly exceed spare 

LNG import capacity.] Were Russia to cut gas supplies to Europe during a crisis, ifprices rose 

high enough, those terminals could be used to surge in some supplies. During other times 

(notably winter, when gas demand is most acute) the terminals will be fully utilized, making 

them unavailable to bring in new LNG supplies. The only way around that is to overbuild. This 

might happen by mistake, but unless European policymakers offer financial incentives, profitseeking firms won't do it on purpose. 

There is one other wrinkle worth thinking about here. The United States is currently able to take 

a harder line against Russia than Europeans are in part because the U.S. economy is insulated 

from energy-related turmoil. Were the prospect of surging gas into Europe a real one, we'd be 

having all sorts of debates here about the economic fallout for the United States from escalation 

with Russia. [UPDATE 3/6: It's worth distinguishing here between swinging U.S. gas from 

Asian to European customers, which wouldn't affect the U.S. market, and boosting total U.S. 

exports, which would] Ironically, while being more connected to European gas markets might 

give the United States more tools in a future crisis, it could also deter Washington from 

aggressively confronting Russia.