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

87–333PDF 2014

UKRAINE SUPPORT ACT; URGING THE GOVERNMENT OF BURMA

TO END THE PERSECUTION OF THE ROHINGYA PEOPLE

AND RESPECT INTERNATIONALLY RECOGNIZED HUMAN

RIGHTS FOR ALL ETHNIC AND RELIGIOUS MINORITY GROUPS

WITHIN BURMA; AND AFFIRMING THE IMPORTANCE OF THE

TAIWAN RELATIONS ACT

MARKUP

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

ON

H.R. 4278, H. Res. 418 and H. Res. 494

MARCH 25, 2014

Serial No. 113–152

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.R. 4278, To support the independence, sovereignty, and territorial integrity 

of Ukraine, and for other purposes ..................................................................... 2

Manager’s amendment to H.R. 4278 (Royce 96) offered by the Honorable 

Edward R. Royce, a Representative in Congress from the State of California, and chairman, Committee on Foreign Affairs .................................... 59

En bloc amendments to H.R. 4278 offered by: 

The Honorable Alan Grayson (Grayson 232), a Representative in Congress from the State of Florida ................................................................ 79

The Honorable William Keating (Keating 27), a Representative in Congress from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts ................................... 79

The Honorable William Keating (Keating 28) ............................................ 80

The Honorable Alan S. Lowenthal (Lowenthal 23), a Representative 

in Congress from the State of California ................................................. 81

The Honorable Luke Messer (Messer 120), a Representative in Congress from the State of Indiana ............................................................... 82

Amendments to H.R. 4278 offered by: 

The Honorable Gerald E. Connolly (Connolly 98), a Representative 

in Congress from the Commonwealth of Virginia .................................. 83

The Honorable Jeff Duncan (Duncan 46), a Representative in Congress 

from the State of South Carolina ............................................................. 86

The Honorable Jeff Duncan (Duncan 45) .................................................... 93

The Honorable Joaquin Castro (Castro 23), a Representative in Congress from the State of Texas ................................................................... 97

The Honorable Ted Poe (Poe 74), a Representative in Congress from 

the State of Texas ...................................................................................... 99

The Honorable Steve Stockman (Stockman 14), a Representative in 

Congress from the State of Texas ............................................................ 101

The Honorable Tulsi Gabbard (Gabbard 1), a Representative in Congress from the State of Hawaii ................................................................ 102

The Honorable Matt Salmon (Salmon 40), a Representative in Congress 

from the State of Arizona ......................................................................... 103

Second-degree amendment to Salmon 40 offered by the Honorable 

Edward R. Royce ................................................................................ 107

The Honorable William Keating (Keating 26) ............................................ 111

The Honorable Jeff Duncan (Duncan 46 revised) ...................................... 115

The Honorable Gregory W. Meeks (Meeks 26), a Representative in 

Congress from the State of New York ..................................................... 117

H. Res. 418, Urging the Government of Burma to end the persecution of 

the Rohingya people and respect internationally recognized human rights 

for all ethnic and religious minority groups within Burma .............................. 123

Amendment in the nature of a substitute to H. Res. 418 offered by the 

Honorable Edward R. Royce, the Honorable Eliot L. Engel, a Representative in Congress from the State of New York, the Honorable Steve 

Chabot, a Representative in Congress from the State of Ohio, and the 

Honorable Tulsi Gabbard (Royce 97) .............................................................. 127

H. Res. 494, Affirming the importance of the Taiwan Relations Act .................. 132

Amendment in the nature of a substitute to H. Res. 494 offered by the 

Honorable Edward R. Royce (Royce 94) ......................................................... 135

APPENDIX 

Markup notice .......................................................................................................... 144

Page

IV

Markup minutes ...................................................................................................... 145

Markup summary .................................................................................................... 147

The Honorable Eliot L. Engel: Material submitted for the record ...................... 148

(1)

UKRAINE SUPPORT ACT; URGING THE GOVERNMENT OF 

BURMA TO END THE PERSECUTION OF THE ROHINGYA 

PEOPLE AND RESPECT INTERNATIONALLY RECOGNIZED 

HUMAN RIGHTS FOR ALL ETHNIC AND RELIGIOUS MINORITY GROUPS WITHIN BURMA; AND AFFIRMING THE IMPORTANCE OF THE TAIWAN RELATIONS ACT 

TUESDAY, MARCH 25, 2014

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS,

Washington, DC. 

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:06 a.m., in room 

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

Chairman ROYCE. This committee will come to order. Pursuant 

to notice we meet today to mark up three bipartisan measures. 

Without objection, all members may have 5 days to submit statements for the record and any extraneous material on any of today’s 

items, and we will now call up the Ukraine Support Act, H.R. 4278. 

Without objection, the bill is considered read and open for 

amendment at any point. 

[The information referred to follows:]

2


87333a-1.eps
3


87333a-2.eps
4


87333a-3.eps
5


87333a-4.eps
6


87333a-5.eps
7


87333a-6.eps
8


87333a-7.eps
9


87333a-8.eps
10


87333a-9.eps
11


87333a-10.eps
12


87333a-11.eps
13


87333a-12.eps
14


87333a-13.eps
15


87333a-14.eps
16


87333a-15.eps
17


87333a-16.eps
18


87333a-17.eps
19


87333a-18.eps
20


87333a-19.eps
21


87333a-20.eps
22


87333a-21.eps
23


87333a-22.eps
24


87333a-23.eps
25


87333a-24.eps
26


87333a-25.eps
27


87333a-26.eps
28


87333a-27.eps
29


87333a-28.eps
30


87333a-29.eps
31


87333a-30.eps
32


87333a-31.eps
33


87333a-32.eps
34


87333a-33.eps
35


87333a-34.eps
36


87333a-35.eps
37


87333a-36.eps
38


87333a-37.eps
39

Chairman ROYCE. And after my brief remarks I will recognize 

our ranking member, Mr. Eliot Engel from New York, and then 

any other members seeking recognition to speak on the bill. We 

will then proceed to consideration of a manager’s amendment, then 

to an en bloc package of bipartisan amendments, and then to any 

free standing amendments that may remain before the committee. 

Now, let me make the observation that Russia’s armed intervention in Ukraine and its illegal annexation of Crimea have created 

an international crisis and the danger, obviously, is far from over. 

President Putin has deployed Russian forces on Ukraine’s borders 

and may yet attempt to carve off additional pieces of eastern or 

southern Ukraine. If we wish to prevent him from further aggression then the United States and our allies must take immediate action to strengthen Ukraine’s sovereignty, to strengthen their independence, to target responsible Russian officials and others in 

order to give the Russians second thoughts before they take any 

additional action. 

This bill provides much needed assistance to Ukraine’s struggling democracy which will be tested in the Presidential election 

that is scheduled there for May 25th. This includes security assistance. It also supports the reform of its police force and the removal 

of those responsible for the violence against peaceful protesters. In 

addition, it promotes economic reform, anti-corruption efforts, the 

recovery of assets stolen by former Ukrainian officials and other 

urgently needed measures. 

This legislation enhances the availability of accurate news and 

information needed to counter the propaganda sent in by Moscow, 

and that propaganda from Moscow is being used right now to create confusion and fear and unrest in the country. And so this legislation will authorize increased funding for Radio Free Europe, 

Radio Liberty and the Voice of America, and it will enable these 

institutions to expand their broadcasting in Russia. There will be 

additional reporters, additional stringers so that in the Russian 

language, Ukrainian language, Tatar language—the languages spoken in Ukraine and this part of the world—there will be the ability 

for people to hear in real time what is really going on instead of 

just what is on Russian television. 

If we are to help Ukraine break free of Russia’s grip then we 

must help it escape from Moscow’s control over its energy supply. 

The U.S. has a readily available tool to help accomplish this goal, 

which is to remove existing restrictions on our export of oil and 

natural gas into Ukraine and into Eastern Europe. This will not 

only boost the U.S. economy and create American jobs but also enhance our national security by undermining Russia’s ability to use 

its energy exports to blackmail other countries, including our allies 

in Europe. Tomorrow the committee will hold a hearing on the very 

important and timely subject of the geopolitical potential of U.S. 

energy exports which is of direct relevance to the situation we face 

in Ukraine. 

Let me also make the observation that our Chairman of the Joint 

Chiefs recently told a committee in the House an energy-independent U.S. and net exporter of energy as a nation has the potential to change the security environment around the world, notably, 

in Europe and in the Middle East. 

40

And so as we look at our strategies for the future, I think we 

have got to pay more and particular attention to energy as an instrument of national power. The reason we are concerned about 

this is this is 70 percent—70 percent of the exports out of Russia 

today. 

It is 52 percent of the entire budget for the Russian military and 

Russian Government that is coming because of the ability of Russia 

to have a monopoly on Ukraine—a monopoly, frankly, that Russia 

has used to its advantage in the past to undermine Ukraine. 

This bill ramps up pressure on Putin and his accomplices who 

have played key roles in Russia’s aggression. By specifically targeting them we can demonstrate that they will pay a heavy personal price for the confrontation they have engineered. The sanctions are aimed not only at the government officials but also at 

those who hold no official position but nevertheless wield great influence over government policy, including the so-called oligarchs. 

I am pleased to have worked closely with Ranking Member Engel 

on this bipartisan bill. I believe it will send a clear message of 

American resolve. I think it will be heard in Kiev. I think it will 

be heard in Moscow and, frankly, throughout the region. 

And with that, let me turn to our ranking member, Mr. Engel 

of New York. 

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for holding this 

markup of the Ukraine Support Act. I am very pleased to be the 

lead Democratic co-sponsor of this legislation and I want to commend you for once again working with us in a bipartisan way. 

I say this, and I cannot say this too often, that I wish the rest 

of the Congress would take its cue from this committee and to 

show that we really can work in a bipartisan way to do what is 

best for our country. 

President Putin’s invasion of Crimea is a blatant violation of 

international law and also of Russia’s commitments to its neighbor. 

The phony referendum he organized at the barrel of a gun has culminated in the first outright annexation of territory in Europe 

since the end of World War II and now he is massing troops on 

Ukraine’s border, greatly increasing the risk of further violence and 

conflict in Ukraine and the wider region. 

The United States must take a strong stand against this naked 

aggression. H.R. 4278 reaffirms our strong support for the people 

of Ukraine at this very difficult time. It authorizes assistance for 

the country as it seeks to regain its economic footing and prepares 

for democratic elections. 

It supports efforts to help Ukraine recover looted assets and professionalize its law enforcement and it requires additional broadcasting to Ukraine and other countries in the region to counter the 

outrageous propaganda generated in Moscow while endorsing the 

deployment of international monitors throughout Ukraine. 

The legislation also supplements the President’s efforts to impose 

sanctions on those responsible for violating Ukraine’s sovereignty 

and territorial integrity, looting Ukraine’s economy and violating 

human rights in Ukraine. 

It sends a clear message to Putin and his cronies that Russia’s 

reckless actions will have serious consequences. On that note, I 

would like commend President Obama for imposing sanctions that 

41

have already started to impact Russian economy and for leading 

the effort to suspend Russia’s participation in the G–8. 

Finally, the bill expresses support for continuing U.S. security 

assistance to Ukraine and reaffirms our commitment to the security of our NATO partners in Eastern and Central Europe. 

Mr. Chairman, the House recently passed legislation to provide 

$1 billion in loan guarantees to Ukraine and the European Union 

has pledged $15 billion in assistance. But the most significant element of the international community’s assistance to Ukraine will 

be provided by the International Monetary Fund. 

The IMF is now the most important international body for emergency rescue of countries facing serious economic difficulties. But 

the future of the IMF and our influence within that organization 

requires that Congress pass legislation to put into effect the 2010 

plan to slightly adjust the voting shares on the IMF board and activate the IMF reserve account, known as the New Arrangements to 

Borrow. 

The IMF is not in our committee’s jurisdiction but it is, clearly, 

in the interest of the United States that Congress act as soon as 

possible to maintain the IMF’s critical role in international crises. 

I am told that by passing IMF reform it will ultimately mean 

about $6 billion of extra aid to Ukraine. I believe that we need to 

take a firm stance together and we are doing it with this legislation. 

I think that Russia needs to understand that we are going to 

boost Ukraine so that ultimately the Russian aggression will prove 

a detriment to what they think they have done rather than give 

them a plus because of the stealing of territory from Ukraine. 

This will only further our resolve to bring Ukraine looking westward rather than eastward. So we are making clear by passing this 

bill to the people of Ukraine that the United States is with them 

and that we are committed to helping them build a more democratic, prosperous, secure and just Ukraine, as I said before, looking westward rather than eastward. 

So I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this 

very important legislation. I thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman ROYCE. Thank you, Mr. Engel. Ms. Ros-Lehtinen had 

asked for some time for a brief opening statement. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. This bill 

is important because it shows our strong support to the Ukrainian 

people and it says to all freedom-loving friends and allies in the region that the U.S. will not stand idly by as Russia bullies its way 

in an attempt to rebuild another Soviet Union. 

The Obama administration must get tough against Russia by 

sanctioning more Russian oligarchs by adding more names to the 

Magnitsky List, revoking the 1–2–3 agreement with Russia and reexamining our PNTR agreement with Moscow. 

I would also like to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for including in 

the bill language to support the Iran, North Korea and Syria Nonproliferation Act, INKSNA. 

The language reasserts that the administration must comply 

with reporting requirements to fully implement this act, language 

that was approved by the full House of Representatives last ConVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:54 Jul 02, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\_FULL\032514M\87333 SHIRL
42

gress by a vote of 418 to 2. The reports have been delinquent for 

4 years and that is not acceptable. 

I would also like to note, Mr. Chairman, that I have a commitment from the full committee to move a free standing INKSNA legislation through the House this year and my staff is eager to work 

with your staff to make this happen. I thank the chairman for that. 

And while it is vital that we continue to support the Ukrainian 

people, we must not let this overshadow our Venezuelan friends 

who continue to be brutally oppressed under Maduro and his cronies, and that is why I have introduced a bipartisan bill. 

I thank the members of this committee who have co-sponsored 

it—H.R. 4229, the Venezuelan Liberty and Democratic Solidarity 

Act, which seeks to hold accountable violators of human rights of 

the Maduro regime and I hope that we can markup this bill soon, 

Mr. Chairman. Three more were killed yesterday in Venezuela and 

one of the opposition leaders, Maria Corina Machado, was stripped 

of her congressional seat by Maduro. 

Why? Because she had the audacity to come to the United 

States, here, in this shining city on the hill to speak in front of the 

OAS. She was denied the opportunity to speak before the OAS and 

now she is potentially facing a charge of treason for coming to 

speak here. 

So I urge my friends and colleagues to hold those accountable 

who are violating the human rights of and the dignity of others in 

Venezuela and throughout the entire hemisphere. I thank the 

chairman for the time. 

Chairman ROYCE. Let us go to Mr. Brad Sherman of California. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Thank you. I think it is important that we adopt 

bipartisan legislation as quickly as possible and that we avoid—

that we avoid controversial and partisan division and avoid those 

divisive elements that are only tangentially related to helping the 

Ukraine. 

I think is important that the sanctions provisions give the President flexibility especially because there are going to be some individuals who, our intelligence indicates, inside the councils of Russia 

are trying to push toward restraint and there will be others in 

Putin’s circle who are pushing in the wrong direction. 

And so we need to calibrate these sanctions person by person and 

I think can only be done by the executive branch. Putin comes off 

looking tough and trying to look victorious. But we should point out 

that he has in effect seized the consolation prize. 

There will be those in Moscow who will ask the question who lost 

the Ukraine because they had a pro-Russian Government in Kiev 

and now they have a pro—a Russian Government only in the Crimea. 

Putin backed a kleptocrat, he lost the Ukraine and now he is trying to look like a winner in the world and a winner to his own people by seizing one province wrongfully. Because that seizure was 

wrongful, we have to impose sanctions to show that we are dedicated to the concept of territorial integrity and the rule of international law. 

But our ultimate focus has to be on preventing Russia from trying to take more of the Ukraine and demonstrate that there will 

43

be massive sanctions that will undermine the Putin regime if he 

goes further into the Ukraine. 

We also have to call on the government of Kiev to do everything 

possible to refute Putin’s charge that this a regime of winners. This 

cannot be at a time of national crisis anything other than a government of national unity. 

We need to see the Ukrainian Government do all that it can to 

involve those who were elected and there was a majority in the 

party of regions—those who are open to the use of not only the 

Ukrainian language but the Russian language and those who are 

willing to continue—to consider federalist principles and the devolution of power to different regions, all to show that this government in Kiev is not going to represent just Maidan, just western 

Ukraine but even those Russian speakers in the south and the 

west. 

Finally, as to energy exports from the United States, that, over 

a period of decades, might lower energy prices and affect the revenues of Saudi Arabia, Iran, Moscow and others. But I don’t think 

that a country like the Ukraine that does not have a single LNG 

import terminal is going to be effected in the short or medium term 

by whether we export natural gas. 

While technically we could export petroleum, we will be importing far more petroleum than we export for many years to come. So 

there is a brewing controversy on whether we should drill, baby, 

drill and export our—some oil and maybe more natural gas. 

I am hoping that our focus today will be on things that affect the 

Ukraine in the short and medium term, and I yield back. 

Chairman ROYCE. Just to recognize myself for a minute, I very 

much agree with the gentleman from California on his point for all 

Ukrainians to contemplate this issue of national reconciliation. 

It is at this time that Ukrainians in the east, the south, the west 

all really need to figure out how to send the message that all 

Ukrainians are welcome regardless of language, regardless of ethnicity. 

On, however, the issue of gas, we have already seen Hungary 

and Poland—we have seen the ability of the use of the gas lines 

that exist in Eastern Europe with the reverse flow of that gas to 

send 2 billion cubic meters last year into the Ukraine. 

The Ukraine is in this tenuous position and, frankly, Russia’s annexation was made easier by the energy grip it had. The fact that 

if we get energy or gas into Eastern Europe that we can use existing pipelines to get it to the Ukraine is an important consideration. 

Now, clearly, it will take time to ship that gas. But at the same 

time, markets tend to move instantaneously with information and 

if we telegraph the message that that is our intent then he already 

begins to see the impact of that on the futures market of gas. 

Gazprom really is the state-controlled gas company that Putin has 

used to cut off the supply to Ukraine and earlier this month it did 

this just as it did in 2002 and 2009. 

Gazprom recently wrote in the financial press as now saying it 

is going to double the price Ukraine pays for natural gas, which 

would really cripple the economy there. 

So that is why—Mr. Sherman as well—I raised this as a consideration—a geopolitical tool here that could be used in order to send 

44

the message that we have got a strategy in order to undercut the 

ability of Putin to do this. 

Do any other members seek recognition on the base text? Mr. 

Chabot. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Move to strike the last 

word. 

I want to commend you and the staff for getting this timely legislation on Ukraine before the committee this morning. It is very important that the Congress map out a strong position on President 

Putin’s acts of thuggery and I know we can count on the solid support of this committee today on H.R. 4278. 

I also want to express my strong support for the resolution affirming the importance of the Taiwan Relations Act. As we commemorate the 35th anniversary of the TLA let us remember that 

our diplomatic relationship with the People’s Republic of China is 

premised on the expectation and the principle that the future of 

Taiwan will be determined by peaceful means. 

Finally, Mr. Chairman, I strongly support H. Res. 418 which 

raises awareness of the ongoing violence and discrimination of the 

minority Rohingya Muslim population in Burma. The resolutions 

call for the U.S. and international community to hold Burma accountable to end its blatant persecution of the Rohingya population 

comes at a critical time. 

So I thank you for bringing these very important issues up this 

morning, Mr. Chairman. I yield back my time. 

Chairman ROYCE. We go to Mr. Meeks. 

Mr. MEEKS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to thank you 

and Ranking Member Engel for coming together and speaking with 

one voice. 

I think that as we talk about what is going on in the Ukraine 

now it is important that there is unity and that we try to speak 

from the United States’ point of view with one voice from both the 

Democrats and the Republicans because the issue involves or is important to all of us and that we look at those areas of which are 

our common denominator so that we try to deal with those matters 

that we can come to an agreement on. 

Likewise, I think it is also important and I think that the President of the United States has been doing a good job in making sure 

that we are not speaking with one voice as the G–7 is currently 

meeting and operating—that also that we have to listen to the 

voices of our NATO allies because if it is just something done on 

a bilateral area and not a multilateral area then that then divides 

us and it weakens us and the resolve to make sure that Mr. Putin 

doesn’t go further or look to divide us from our allies. 

So it is important as a conversation and the President’s negotiating that we are doing certain things and we take into consideration our NATO allies and their position and how far that they can 

go and move and we lead in that direction because, you know, the 

dialogue and the conversation. 

But if ever we get to the point where we say that we don’t care 

what they think or how it affects them then it will affect us also 

in a negative way. It will affect the leverage that we will have on 

Mr. Putin. 

45

So we have got to make sure that we are mindful of, you know, 

where our allies are. Especially, I know I have talked to some 

members yesterday from the German Parliament and they have 

deep concerns in regards to Mr. Putin and moving forward and 

wanting to make sure that we stay in lock step—they stay in lock 

step with the United States. 

They have some other problems also and they want to make sure 

that those are listened to, that we work together. And I think what 

I have heard by the President talking about that if there are 

some—further movement by Mr. Putin then our allies are ready to 

escalate the sanctions and we should be ready to move forward and 

get—and tighten those sanctions in that regard. 

But I just, you know, want to be mindful, you know, it is easy 

to say to—sometimes to go to war or to send weapons or do that. 

That is the easy thing to do. The hard thing to do sometimes is to 

sit down and try to figure out how we stay in line with our allies 

and work together and I hope that they do that. 

I hope that we do that because just as this is important for us 

to stay together and come together it is important for us to make 

sure with our international allies and to that regards, you know, 

we talk about, you know, our colleagues to the west. It is important 

for us to be reengaged and reinvigorate those relationships. 

And so as we talk about the Ukrainian issue we have got to 

make sure, and I couldn’t agree more with what you said, Mr. 

Chairman, and what Mr. Sherman said about Ukrainians coming 

together, it is now time for them to unite, to speak with one voice 

also. 

That is tremendously important. It is important for us also to 

make sure that right now, not waiting until another time, that we 

engage with the Moldovans and the Georgians and the people from 

Azerbaijan and all of the other countries in the region, that we are 

talking to them and they know that we have an interest in their 

overall well being and their economy and in their democracies. 

Let us not wait until there is something else that happens and 

then we all of a sudden are jumping in. Let us show, and I think 

that that is what this bill does—it shows that we are going to 

stand by the Ukraine. 

We are going to try to help them with their economic circumstances so that they can stand on their feet and improve their 

democracy. It sends the right message. I believe then thereby it 

will send the right message to our other allies in the region. 

That is tremendously important and, again, I end as I started, 

Mr. Chairman, because we could get into a lot of other debate here 

that could divide us but you and Mr. Engel have chosen not to do 

that. You have chosen to focus on what brings us together and I 

think you should be complimented for that, and I yield back the 

balance of my time. 

Chairman ROYCE. Thank you, Mr. Meeks. 

We go to Mr. Rohrabacher. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I am afraid I will be opposing—again, probably the lone voice in some of these debates—opposing this measure and I do so in great despair as to the direction 

of what is going on in our country today in relationship to Russia. 

46

I worked for many, many years and put my life at risk several 

times. I was not in the military but put my life at risk several 

times in order to defeat communism. I spent my whole life trying 

to defeat communism. We were not trying to defeat—we were not 

trying to become hostile to the people of Russia. 

We were against the Soviet Union, which is not Russia. Now we 

have a situation in which there is a, obviously, distinct difference 

of national interests and instead of trying to play a constructive 

role it appears that we have opted out instead to fan the flames 

of hostility between our two countries. 

There are many people who I worked with over the years who 

are stuck in the Cold War. They cannot sit by and understand that 

Russia has its national interests as we have our national interests 

and try to find ways that we can work together in peace and 

friendship, understanding that we are two great powers that have 

national interests at stake. 

I do not—in this particular debate if we are to be listened to and 

to be—and try to find a peaceful solution the Russians have to respect that we are there trying to find a solution, not try to utilize 

this controversy as a means of defeating them and pushing them 

into a hole because, after all, they are Russians and they are thugs 

and they are gangsters and, of course, our people are—would have 

never committed such crimes as sending an army into Crimea. 

I would like to commend my good friend, Congressman Engel, 

who worked very closely with me when we backed the Kosovars’ 

right to self-determination and supported the bombing of Serbia in 

order to protect those people’s right of self-determination. 

What do the people of Crimea want? I don’t think anybody in 

here will disagree with the fact that it is clear the people of Crimea 

would rather be part of Russia than be part of a pro-European or 

European-directed Ukraine. 

Well, the people of Crimea just like the people of Kosovo have 

their right of self-determination or should have. I think Russia was 

wrong. I think Putin was wrong in trying to send in a military 

force. 

I think that clouded the issue. But the hypocrisy on our side of 

suggesting or trying to suggest this is out and out aggression for 

the people of Crimea to have their will to be part of Russia is a 

little bit overwhelming. 

I remember—just more recently than Kosovo I remember—didn’t 

we support South Sudan breaking away from Sudan? Yes, we did. 

Well, let us—you know, let us be just in our criticism. 

Yes, Putin should not have sent in those troops but this was and, 

again, he should not have had the right—he shouldn’t have had the 

wording they had on their referendum in Crimea. They could have 

had an adequate wording on the ballot and, yes, they should have 

had the OSCE in to determine what the people of Crimea want officially. 

But in our heart of hearts we know that the people of Crimea 

and especially those of us who have been there—10 years ago I visited Crimea. They all spoke Russian. 

Now, what is that? It is a historic reality unfortunately because 

Stalin murdered so many people there and ethnic Russians moved 

in and we know that, and we are sorry about that. 

47

But self-determination is based on people who live in a given territory determining their future and in this case the Russians are 

supporting the people of Crimea’s right to determine where they 

want to go and we are opposing that and making it sound like it 

is naked aggression and doing so at great—I say great damage to 

the long-term security of both the United States and Russia. 

Russia and the United States should be best friends because we 

face the same ultimate enemies of a radical Islamic movement that 

would murder our own people and, yes, an emerging China that 

hasn’t had one bit of reform at all. 

Yet we have placed Russia—sanction after sanction on Russia 

that has had dramatic reform, whose churches are full, yet we give 

China, what, we give China technology. We give them subsidies. 

We give them recognition and yet they murder religious believers 

even as we do, and we ignore that. The double standard that we 

have for Russia has been aimed at pushing them into a hostile relationship with us and I oppose that whole concept. Thank you very 

much, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman ROYCE. Thank you, Mr. Rohrabacher. 

We go now to Mr. Connolly of Virginia. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. I thank the chair. 

I am astounded at the apology I have just heard from my friend 

from California. Reform? I think not. Apparently, once a KGB 

agent always a KGB agent. 

Mr. Putin seems to have learned nothing from history other than 

there is power at the end of the barrel of a gun. To cite Russian 

speakers in Crimea as a rationale for one of the most audacious 

power grabs in the 21st century, in Europe no less, forgets history. 

Crimea was settled by Stalin, by Russian speakers, and they—

and he expelled and executed the native population of Crimea, and 

this so-called referendum in Crimea was also done at the barrel of 

a gun. Russia’s interests weren’t threatened in the Crimea. 

The new government in Kiev never abrogated the treaty that allowed Russian privileges—naval privileges through 2042. The 

Ukrainians didn’t occupy Russian military stations in the Crimea 

and around the region. It was the other way around. 

For the United States and its allies to allow this naked aggression to go unaddressed would be truly an abrogation of our moral 

responsibility and turn our back on what we should have learned 

from 20th century history. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Would the gentleman yield for a question? 

Mr. CONNOLLY. If I may continue for a second. We need to stop 

talking about he better not go further. I am stuck at Crimea and 

I hope my colleagues are too. It is wrong. 

It cannot be allowed to stand and we must make him pay a price, 

and the difference between now and Stalin is that his economy is 

integrated into the global economy. The ruble will fall. The stock 

market will pay a price. 

Investment will suffer because we are going to help make it so 

until he relents, until they pay a price that is so great, systematic, 

comprehensive in their economy that he will understand that we 

no longer operate by the rule of the jungle in Europe or, indeed, 

anywhere on the face of the planet, not with our blessing, not with 

our apology. 

48

So I strongly support the legislation in front of us, Mr. Chairman, and I respectfully but forcefully disagree with virtually everything my friend from California has just said and I now would 

yield for a question. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. The question is I would take it that you also 

opposed America’s support for the people of Kosovo and the South 

Sudan for their self-determination, and could you cite any polls 

that indicate that the people of Crimea—every indication that I 

have seen from the experts indicate that they overwhelmingly want 

to be part of Russia—do you have any polls that indicate any different? 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Well, you have asked several questions. I decidedly see Kosovo and South Sudan as distinctly different. Both of 

those were in fact subject to international sanctions, to international controls and to, in the case of Kosovo, concerted NATO action pursuant to law—pursuant to statutes that govern that action. 

This has none of that, not even the pretense of it other than an 

action by—a unilateral action by the Russian parliament——

Mr. ENGEL. Would the gentleman yield? 

Mr. CONNOLLY [continuing]. And a patsy action by the Parliament in Crimea. 

Mr. ENGEL. Would the gentleman yield? 

Mr. CONNOLLY. I would. 

Mr. ENGEL. Thank you, and I agree with everything the gentleman just said. Let me say to my friend, my colleague from California who really stood with me and others very valiantly throughout the entire Kosovo War in 1999 and has been a strong supporter 

of human rights, but I disagree with him tremendously in trying 

to say that there is any kind of analogy between what happened 

in Crimea and what happened in Kosovo. 

I don’t believe that every separatist movement claiming some 

kind of referendum should be allowed to form either an independent country or to be part of a power grab. What happened in 

Kosovo was genocide. That didn’t happen in Crimea. 

What happened in Kosovo was the Serbian leaders trying to 

drive every ethnic Albanian out of Kosovo and the ones that he 

couldn’t drive out he actually murdered them. That was a situation 

that came about by the actions of the Serbian Government. 

So I think to draw any kind of analogy whatsoever between what 

happened in Kosovo to what happened in Crimea is just incorrect. 

We don’t think that every minority group or majority group that 

is part of another country has a right to declare its own country. 

But when genocide is happening I think that tilts the balance 

and that is why NATO, as Mr. Connolly points out, uniformly said 

enough is enough and intervened to stop the genocide. So no analogy at all between Crimea and Kosovo. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Chairman, I know my colleague, Brad Sherman, wanted to ask a question. Would the chairman indulge me to 

yield to my colleague? 

Chairman ROYCE. If you wish to yield at this time that would 

be——

Mr. CONNOLLY. I thank the chair. 

Mr. SHERMAN. I would just point out the people of South Sudan 

were faced with mass murder, perhaps genocide. The people of 

49

Kosovo were faced with mass murder and ethnic cleansing, and the 

people of Crimea saw that their rights were being protected. 

They are an autonomous region. They continued to have their 

language rights. There is a difference. I yield back. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Chairman, I just want to say on a point of 

personal privilege——

Chairman ROYCE. I think the gentleman’s time has expired. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. I know, but I want my colleague to know he 

knows he has my deep respect. But on this issue, he also has my 

passionate disagreement. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. I thank the chairman. 

Chairman ROYCE. We now have—we now go to Judge Ted Poe 

of Texas. 

Mr. POE. I thank the chairman. Mr. Chairman, this issue is of 

importance to the United States’ national security interest. I think 

we are living in a fantasy land if we think that the bully-bear 

Putin wants to be nice to the neighbors that surround him. 

That is absolutely naive. He watched as we watched when the 

Russians invaded Georgia. There was a little bit of press worldwide 

about the invasion of the Republic of Georgia and I am not talking 

about the state of Georgia in the South. 

I know some of my Georgia friends are concerned about thinking 

that Georgia has been invaded and they didn’t know about it. But 

in any event, he watched to see what we would do. He took onethird of the country. 

We said that is not nice. You shouldn’t do that. You are invading 

a sovereign country, and we moved on and he is still there. Onethird of Georgia is still occupied by the Russian army. The West, 

the world did nothing. 

So he then looked at the Crimea. That was next on his list, and 

I agree with my friend from Virginia, we should be concerned about 

Crimea first before we are wondering about whether he is going 

into Moldova, the rest of the Ukraine, Estonia, Belarus. You know, 

those are possibilities. 

And what happened in Crimea? He marched in. We watched, and 

dealing with Putin he has started Cold War II. We should be aware 

of this, and whether we like it or not he chose this activity. 

So I think it is in our national security interest and the security 

of our allies and our friends that he be told no, you can’t do this 

without some consequences. This legislation presents those consequences to the Russian bear, letting him know no, you are not 

going to get away with it this time. 

And so I have—as mentioned earlier, I have great respect for my 

friend, Mr. Rohrabacher from California. But on this issue I think 

we should act, act decisively and act with the appropriate measure 

of sanctions to let, you know, the Napoleon of Siberia know he can’t 

just invade countries and the rest of the world just moves on, and 

there should be consequences. I support the legislation. 

Chairman ROYCE. Would the gentleman yield time to the Chair? 

Mr. POE. I certainly will. 

Chairman ROYCE. Well, thank you. I did want to make one observation here, Mr. Poe, and that is what we are not talking about is 

a revival of the Cold War. 

50

What we are talking about is trying to get some leverage on Russia in order to wind down this situation and I think we should be 

clear here. 

We are not reviving confrontation. The individual who did that 

is the head of state for Russia and he, obviously, has the ability 

to wind this down. But if we put additional pressure on him and 

those close to him, I think we might have considerable more success at this than we have in our attempts to cooperate with him 

over the many years where he has rejected the approach of cooperation and he has chosen aggression—aggression against the 

Ukraine, aggression against other countries. 

I don’t think we can allow him to proceed unchallenged or we are 

going to be faced with this challenge again and again. There will 

be other unnecessary crises that will result if we don’t move decisively. 

So yes, the United States stands ready to cooperate with Russia 

but we need to give an incentive for Russia to cooperate with us. 

Again, this is one of the reasons why I have suggested that by 

bringing competition into this with respect to gas into Ukraine and 

Eastern Europe and breaking the monopoly that Russia has—it is 

70 percent of the export out of Russia, it is 52 percent of the entire 

budget for his military and government—if we do this along with 

the other steps that we take here to build democracy, to build support for institutions within Ukraine, I think we have taken a decisive step to create those second thoughts, to create that leverage. 

And my time has expired so I will now go to Mr. Grayson of Florida. 

Mr. GRAYSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Ranking Member Engel. I want to join in some of the comments that 

were made by my friend Dana from California. 

Less than 2 weeks ago in response to a question from the gentleman from central Florida, Secretary Kerry said that without a 

doubt if there were a free and fair election in Crimea, Crimea 

would vote to join Russia. 

I think that is an important fact. In fact, I think that is the central fact of the situation that we face today. 

All over the world, millions of people are stuck in the wrong 

country and the term—the great accomplishment of the 20th century was to seek the end of colonialism, the end of colonies, millions and millions of people stuck in the wrong country by means 

of military force by European powers. 

Maybe the goal of the 21st century is to see the fulfillment of 

that principle that groups of people can join together and create a 

country, join another neighboring country, be part of the country 

that they want to be part of—the principle of self-determination. 

We can’t ignore the fact that 2 million people in the Crimea feel 

that at least until now they were stuck in the wrong country. This 

situation was created when, in 1956 Khrushchev, as a gift, gave 

the Crimea to the Ukraine. 

At that point it didn’t matter too much because both Ukraine 

and Russia were part of the Soviet Union. Since the dissolution of 

the Soviet Union at the beginning of the ’90s it has mattered a lot 

and in fact there are Russian speakers, large groups of Russian 

speakers, who are now beyond the border of Russia, and one of the 

51

great issues of Russian foreign policy for the past 20 years has 

been what do we do about that—how do we deal with the fact that 

there are substantial numbers of people who are now outside of our 

border who identify themselves as Russians or ethnically Russian 

or culturally Russian or indistinguishable from the people within 

our borders. 

The old Soviet Union contained 15 states with borders that were 

arbitrary. Now, there are actually parts of the old Soviet Union 

that are fundamentally different from Russia. For instance, if in 

fact we saw Russian military action against Lithuania, obviously, 

we would repudiate that. We would do everything we could to stop 

that. 

The Lithuanians historically, ethnically, in terms of religion, in 

terms of culture are fundamentally different from the Russians. 

The Crimeans are not. 

In one election after another after another in the entire 20 years 

that the Ukraine has been an independent country again, since it 

was an independent country hundreds of years ago, the Crimean 

population has shown that it is loyal to the Russians. It identifies 

with the Russians. It has voted over and over again with the Russian party contesting elections in the Crimea. 

Now, recently we saw that the candidate whom the Crimeans 

supported by over 90 percent of their votes the Russian-speaking 

candidate was thrown out of office. Now, you may say that he was 

thrown out of office for good reason. There are allegations against 

him that he was corrupt. 

There are allegations against him that he used the military 

against his own people to stay in power. But the fact is from the 

perspective of the Crimeans, their leader, the one that they placed 

in charge of their country, was thrown out of power. 

So it should come as no surprise, as Secretary Kerry recognized, 

that the Crimeans had had enough and they wanted to leave this 

artificial entity called the Ukraine. 

Now, in fact, the Russians did assist. They assisted by disarming 

the local Ukrainian army and navy. That is what they did. They 

did it virtually bloodlessly. They did that so that the Ukrainian 

army and navy could not interfere in the referendum that was 

held. 

That is the fact of the matter. Why are we pretending otherwise? 

Why are we speaking about naked aggression? Why are we speaking about stealing Crimea? Why are we speaking about bullying or 

the new Soviet Union or thuggery or audacious power grabbing or 

bully-bear Putin or Cold War II? 

I am surprised that Judge Poe didn’t tell us that he has said that 

the Iron Curtain has descended over Sevastopol. The fact is, as the 

chairman has recognized, this is not some new Cold War that is occurring. In fact, it is quite the contrary. 

We should be pleased to see—pleased to see when a virtually 

bloodless transfer of power establishes self-determination for 2 million people somewhere in the world—anywhere in the world. 

And, in fact, what we are seeing here instead is the vilification 

of Putin, the vilification of Yanukovych, the vilification of anybody 

who we try to identify as our enemy. Before it was Saddam Hussein. Before that—before and since then it has been Assad. 

52

This does not help. The basic provision here, the basic principle 

here is self-determination. That is what is happened in the Crimea 

and it is not for us to determine otherwise. I yield back. 

Chairman ROYCE. Would the gentleman yield for a minute? 

Mr. GRAYSON. Yes. 

Chairman ROYCE. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I want to 

make clear that the adjectives used or referenced are not the adjectives we use in this carefully worded resolution, first of all. 

Second, the problem or the difficulty isn’t so much with the example of a Lithuania. The problem is with the example of an Estonia or Latvia, countries in which people were moved out during 

Stalin’s tenure into Siberia and replaced with ethnic Russians so 

that today in those two countries you have strong minorities of 

Russian speakers in Estonia and Latvia. 

You have the same situation in Crimea to a greater extent because in Crimea the majority of the ethnic population in fact perished in the gulags and so within migration of Russian speakers 

into the area you have a different circumstance. 

Part of the problem in terms of the way in which the referendum 

was held was, clearly, it was unconstitutional. It was illegal. It occurred under Russian military occupation and coercion. But you 

also had a situation where opponents were silenced. 

International monitors were barred and, most importantly, voters were not given the option of preserving Crimea’s current status 

with Ukraine because the only choice on the ballot was independence and de facto independence. 

And, frankly, I think the vote itself was unnecessary because the 

Ukrainian Government had made it clear that it would discuss increasing autonomy for Crimea and, frankly, that was probably the 

way to solve this thing. 

By allowing Crimea to have that autonomy within whatever you 

wanted to call, you know, let us say one country two systems but 

you would—you would basically be giving to Crimea the autonomy 

that the local population desired. 

The Presidential elections that are now planned for May 25th are 

going to provide a legitimate opportunity for all Ukrainians to 

make their voices heard on the future of their country. I am going 

to lead a delegation there in April. 

We are going to speak to all factions in the Ukraine. Mr. Sherman spoke to the issue that we want to convey one of an attitude 

of national reconciliation for Ukrainians. 

But right now we are faced with a certain challenge and that 

challenge is if we do not send a strong message here, what happens 

with respect to Estonia or with respect to Latvia if a similar situation surfaces where the argument is made that a Russian population lives within those two countries, and we can, of course, extend that to any number of countries on the periphery of Russia, 

as you have pointed out, I think that we have got to get back to 

a process whereby this is done in consultation with the international community and there isn’t an excuse given for Russia to 

move aggressively on other countries, using as an argument, frankly, propaganda that is not really occurring. 

And the propaganda component of this was the thought that ethnic Russians were being beaten. This is why in our legislation one 

53

of the most important aspects, to me, is also the inclusion of Radio 

Free Europe, Radio Liberty broadcasting into the country in these 

languages to allow ethnic Russians to know in real time what is 

actually happening in the country to offset propaganda. 

But I did want to bring up those points with respect to the underlying resolution. We are going now to Mr. Smith of New Jersey. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and Ranking 

Member Engel, for introducing this comprehensive legislation to 

support Ukraine in its urgent effort to meet its current crisis including viability of its democratic institutions. 

Russia’s land grab in Crimea violates the core principles of the 

bilateral and multilateral treaties between Ukraine and Russia, the 

Budapest Memorandum, the United Nations Charter, as well as 

the Helsinki Final Act. 

The proposed legislation includes a strong sanctions component 

against Russians responsible for this aggression. H.R. 4278 also authorizes targeted sanctions against Ukrainians involved in undermining the democratic processes and provides assistance to the 

Ukrainian Government for identifying and recovering stolen assets. 

It is, after all, these criminal officials including, and especially, 

Yanukovych and his cronies who have so harmed the Ukrainian 

people and placed the country in the vulnerable position which 

Russia has ruthlessly exploited. 

Another key provision of the bill provides support for Ukraine’s 

democracy and civil society, and here I want to recognize the importance of supporting as well the faith-based groups and organizations that played such a prominent role on the Maidan and in supporting the movement for democracy and the rule of law. 

The Ukrainian democracy movement is in large part a religious 

movement. Orthodox and Catholic clergy, for example, were prominent in the protests and the drama of priests carrying icons confronting soldiers became as much a symbol of the democratization 

movement as anything else. 

Religious and faith-based organizations are very much part of 

civil society and democratization and a conscientious voice for the 

rule of law and anti-corruption efforts, and this legislation with the 

amendment that will be offered shortly includes them specifically, 

and I yield back. 

Chairman ROYCE. We go now to Mr. Lowenthal of California. 

Mr. LOWENTHAL. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

I want to thank you, Chairman Royce, and Ranking Member 

Engel for bringing forward the Support Ukraine Act, which I 

strongly support. It is critical to the United States to back Ukraine 

sovereignty, its territorial integrity and its independence. 

I condemn Russia’s attempt to annex Crimea in violation of 

international law. I strongly support the sanctions for individuals 

responsible for the loss of Ukrainian assets who have significantly 

undermined democratic processes in the Ukraine or have committed human rights abuses. 

However, I would like to raise an issue that is contained in the 

Support Ukraine Act which probably is not within the jurisdiction 

of this committee. As we seek to promote democratic values in the 

Ukraine and to support those democratic and uphold those values, 

54

we must not lose sight of our own democratic values here in the 

United States. 

The bill provides broad discretion to the administration and its 

staff in the Department of State and Homeland Security to revoke 

visas for individuals they determine to meet certain criteria. 

While I understand and support the need to provide discretion to 

the administration under these extraordinary circumstances, I remain concerned about the lack of any judicial recourse for those 

that are affected. 

As this bill moves forward, which I do support and hope that it 

does, I will request that the Judiciary Committee address this lack 

of judicial recourse. Thank you, and I yield back. 

Chairman ROYCE. And if—would the gentleman yield for just one 

moment? 

Mr. LOWENTHAL. Yes, I would. 

Chairman ROYCE. If I could respond to Mr. Lowenthal. The sections of the bill regarding visa sanctions, including the preclusion 

of judicial review, these are not amendable at our markup. 

I just wanted to explain this, that those portions which concern 

the immigration and nationality act and parts of Title 28 of the 

U.S. Code that deals with the judicial proceeding portion of this, 

they are in the legislative jurisdiction of the Judiciary Committee. 

So that will be part of the process. 

We go now to Mr. Weber of Texas. 

Mr. WEBER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. With great respect for 

my friend from California who is from the best named city there, 

Sherman Oaks, I want to address the idea that there is a brewing 

controversy over drilling and selling natural gas, and I want to 

bring my colleague’s attention to the fact that when President Bill 

Clinton was in office there was a controversy over drilling in the 

ANWR. 

And a lot of the comments and I think my colleague in California 

said drill—the brewing controversy of drill, baby, drill. There was 

a bumper sticker that was very prevalent in Texas back during the 

controversy over ANWR that said drill here, drill now, pay less. 

Joaquin, you might remember that. 

And the comments were made, those who were against drilling 

in ANWR, that look, it would take 10 years for any of that oil to 

reach us. By the time the permits were done, by the time the pipeline was built, by the time production was done it would be 10 

years before we would see any of that oil. It is pointless. 

And so if memory serves me correct, Bill Clinton left office in 

2001. Had we drilled then we would have the benefit of that energy 

now. I think this current crisis points up the fact that it is indeed 

a controversy that when America can become energy independent 

it not only serves to create jobs in this country, which we sorely 

need right now, but it also produces energy independence, national 

security for America and even produces national security around 

the world. 

Ask our friends in the Ukraine if they would rather be buying 

LNG—and I have three LNG plants either in my back yard or in 

my district—ask them if they would rather be buying gas from 

America or the Russian bear, as Judge Poe called him. 

55

I think the answer is pretty straightforward. We cannot, in my 

opinion, ignore the fact that this is a national security controversy, 

if we want to use my colleague’s words from California, but that 

it is an important one that needs to be had, and had we drilled in 

the ANWR 15-plus years ago we would be in lot better shape. The 

world would be a safer place. 

So the question I pose: 10 years from now are we still going to 

be saying oh, we have got this brewing controversy about drill for 

natural—LNG and natural gas and export it to other countries? 

It means jobs for us. It means a balance of trade for us. It means 

national security for us, and it means—I would argue it means 

international security around the world. So that the kinds of things 

that we saw Putin do the Ukraine in cutting off their energy supply cannot be done. 

Now, I am going to switch gears to Part B. When you have a Crimean legislature that votes unanimously to be reannexed into Russia, where are the people to stand up and say no? And I was told 

by one of my colleagues when we last had this discussion, well, if 

you had a gun aimed at your head you would say no, too. 

You would have joined—you would have joined, rather, and voted 

for annexation, and I reminded him that 56 signers of our Declaration signed their name to a document, stuck their finger in the face 

of the—the eye of the biggest tyrant in the world, King George, 

back then—the most powerful country with the most powerful 

army. 

And in signing that Declaration they signed their death warrant 

knowing that they would either be shot on sight or hung as a traitor. If people in Crimea did not want to be annexed where were the 

voices to stand up and say no? 

So it troubles me that we are guaranteeing them money and that 

we are getting involved, as my friend from California, Congressman Rohrabacher, says, in a situation where, clearly, it seems as 

if either they were unwilling to stand up and fight for their own 

liberty or unwilling to pay that price, and yet we are going to get 

involved and we are going to get between the two. 

That is very troubling. I have great respect for Chairman Royce. 

I have been overseas with him and watched him amongst the other 

countries and the knowledge he has and the way he is respected. 

So I am going to wrestle with this one, and I have great respect 

for my colleague, Mr. Sherman, from Sherman Oaks, the best 

named city in California. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Gentleman yield? 

Mr. WEBER. I will yield. 

Mr. SHERMAN. We are about to have hearings on the whole issue 

of energy exports. My hope is to keep that out of this resolution 

here because it can be controversial. Had we drilled at ANWR, 

there are various things that would have happened, but I think 

that Russia would be hurting just as much for every barrel of oil 

that it exports as today. I don’t think it would have affected world 

prices. And I would point out that in Japan now, they are paying 

triple what we are for natural gas. They are paying one and a half 

times what they are in Germany. And I doubt that we are going 

to see a decline in what Europe is willing to pay for Russian natVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:54 Jul 02, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\_FULL\032514M\87333 SHIRL
56

ural gas, knowing that the Japanese are there as potential buyers. 

I yield back to the gentleman. 

Mr. WEBER. I thank the gentleman for his comments. Mr. Sherman, I will shut up and yield back. Thank you. 

Chairman ROYCE. Thank the gentleman from Florida. We are 

going to have to move to consider the manager’s amendment en 

bloc and other amendments. I have got Ms. Frankel from Florida 

seeking time and Mr. Keating. I thought I would recognize them 

and then try to move to, since we are going to have members who 

are going to have amendments, but let us now go to Ms. Frankel. 

Ms. FRANKEL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do support this act, 

but I do have—I have enjoyed this debate and I would like to raise 

two questions and then I would yield my time to those who would 

like to answer. This has to do with the proliferation of nuclear 

weapons. Under the Budapest Amendment of 1994, the United 

States, the United Kingdom, and the Russian Federation made assurances to protect Ukraine in the event its territory or sovereignty 

is threatened by a foreign entity in exchange for Ukraine voluntarily giving up its uranium and nuclear warheads to Russia, at 

the time the world’s third largest arsenal. 

So my first question really would be probably to Mr. Grayson and 

then Mr. Chairman, I would appreciate your answer, is how would 

you relate this Ukraine Support Act to that agreement? And secondly, do either of you believe that this act will in any way affect 

negotiations either with Iran or Syria? I would yield my—Mr. 

Grayson, you want to take a stab at that? 

Mr. GRAYSON. Yes, I think it is fair to say that the Russians 

have skated around the agreement that they signed 20 years ago. 

I think that there is a great deal of troubling details with regard 

to how the situation has unfolded. I think the chairman quite accurately enumerated many of them. The question for me is whether 

that somehow trumps the desire and the need for the people of Crimea for self-determination. In my case, I think it doesn’t. That 

doesn’t mean that we need to overlook the fact that the Russians 

appear to have violated the agreement that you mentioned, overlook the fact that the Russians doubled the legal amount of soldiers 

that they had in the Crimea leading up to the referendum and a 

number of other irregularities. But I don’t think that we are on the 

right side of history as President Obama might say. We are standing against the right of the people of the Crimea for self-determination. 

Ms. FRANKEL. Mr. Chair, or maybe Mr. Engel, could you answer 

that question, your thought of how the Budapest Memorandum of 

1994 relates to this discussion? 

Chairman ROYCE. Would you repeat that question, Ms. Frankel? 

Ms. FRANKEL. There was, it is my understanding Ukraine voluntarily gave up its nuclear arsenal with the promise from the United 

States, United Kingdom, and the Russian Federation to protect 

their sovereignty, so it seems to me there may be some precedent 

or implications if we do not move forward with this type of act. But 

I just wanted to get your sense of that. 

Chairman ROYCE. Well, I would just point out that the political 

document that you refer to, Ms. Frankel, was not a security treaty. 

The United States is not bound under that document. And so I 

57

don’t think that is relevant to the debate of the resolution here, nor 

do I think this resolution complicates in any way the suggestion 

that I think you are alluding to. 

Ms. FRANKEL. Well, Mr. Chair, if I may? 

Chairman ROYCE. Yes. Perhaps I don’t understand exactly what 

you are asking. 

Ms. FRANKEL. I think it supports it. I think that just in terms 

of precedent, I mean if we do not back up in some way an agreement, we got Ukraine to give up a nuclear arsenal with an assurance to maintain, that we would protect their territorial integrity. 

Obviously, Russia is violating that. 

Mr. ENGEL. Ms. Frankel, if you would yield to me? 

Ms. FRANKEL. Yes. 

Mr. ENGEL. I think you are right on the money with that one, 

absolutely. That was signed at a time when Russia perhaps felt 

more vulnerable than it feels now and Putin feels strengthened 

now for many reasons, one of which is the energy revenues that he 

gets making Russia a power again. And therefore, he has conveniently neglected, abrogated, or whatever it is, agreements that Russia signed back then because he feels he is stronger now. He is a 

bully now and he can afford to do it. So I think you are quite right. 

This legislation stands up to that and says there is bad faith by 

Russia. It is not simply a matter, as some of my colleagues have 

put it of self-determination. It is a matter of Putin being a bully 

because he just feels that he can be. 

Ms. FRANKEL. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

Chairman ROYCE. Would the gentlelady yield? Again, the point 

I was making is that the document itself does not require a military response clearly, but Putin’s logic would dictate that we take 

what steps we could to leverage the conduct of Russia in order to 

penalize Russia for violating the agreement that Ukraine made as 

you have articulated and so that Russia understands that there 

will be a consequence in the future if this conduct continues. And 

I think what gives us all pause is this speech he made to the Duma 

recently in which he said the boundaries of Russia are not the 

boundaries of the current map of Russia, that Russian populations 

anywhere are considered part of Russia. That type of extra 

territoriality is perhaps a signal that we have to be aware of other 

intentions and hence, prudence would suggest that we need to 

move decisively with leverage in order to put pressure on Moscow 

not to attempt this. 

Mr. Keating. 

Mr. KEATING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to close and 

frame this resolution that I am supporting, this legislation this 

way. What was done and what Russia did was illegal. Now there 

are other means of dealing with issues of autonomy. There are 

international ways to deal with that, and with Kosovo they did that 

with the Security Council. 

It can be done under the Ukraine constitution and the Prime 

Minister has made clear that he is open to discussions and dialogue 

on these issues of autonomy. If it is done legally everyone’s rights, 

including groups like the Crimean Tatars, everyone’s rights are 

better protected. That is the way it should happen. The way it has 

happened has been at the barrel of a gun. That is what this legislaVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:54 Jul 02, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00061 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\_FULL\032514M\87333 SHIRL
58

tion addresses. The illegality of what was done and I don’t think 

that should be lost in us. And I yield back. 

Chairman ROYCE. I thank the gentleman for yielding back. If 

there are no further speakers on the underlying bill, I recognize 

myself to offer a manager’s amendment which was provided to your 

offices last night and the clerk will report the amendment. 

Ms. MARTER. Amendment to H.R. 4278 offered by Mr. Royce of 

California. 

Chairman ROYCE. Without objection, the manager’s amendment 

is considered read and I will recognize myself briefly to explain the 

amendment. 

[The information referred to follows:]

59


87333d-1.eps
60


87333d-2.eps
61


87333d-3.eps
62


87333d-4.eps
63


87333d-5.eps
64


87333d-6.eps
65


87333d-7.eps
66


87333d-8.eps
67


87333d-9.eps
68

Chairman ROYCE. This amendment includes several items which 

were shared with the ranking member and which were distributed 

to all members’ offices. There are also additions from other members of the committee, Mr. Smith and Mr. Cicilline. As I noted in 

my opening statement, the underlying legislation is a strong message of support for Ukraine and pushes back against Russian aggression and this amendment contains a few more items in support 

of that cause. 

Importantly, the amendment allows for the President to target 

those corrupt officials closest to Putin, targeting them for their 

asset and visa bans and last week four individuals and one financial institution were targeted for providing material support to 

Russian officials. We can and should ramp this up. This is Putin’s 

power base. Expropriation, corrupt government contracts, bribery, 

it is all rampant and it is all despised by the Russian people. And 

this provision lets them know whose side we are on. 

The amendment also calls for close scrutiny of Russia’s efforts to 

arm Bashar al-Assad in Syria and I appreciate Ms. Ros-Lehtinen’s 

and Mr. Cotton’s close attention to that issue. Moscow’s support 

has been essential in Assad’s 3-year slaughter of his own people. 

The amendment also calls for a determination as to whether or 

not Russia is in material breach of the INF Treaty. There is recent 

credible reporting that Russia has violated this treaty. The administration owes Congress, I think, a determination in this regard. 

And on security assistance, the amendment answers increasingly 

bipartisan calls to do more to help improve the capability of 

Ukraine’s armed forces, which have been neglected for decades. 

And lastly, the amendment includes several technical changes to 

perfect the language in the underlying bill. So do any other members seek recognition to speak on the manager’s amendment? I will 

go to Mr. Engel. 


87333d-10.eps
69

Mr. ENGEL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to speak in strong 

support of the manager’s amendment. I want to tell our colleagues 

specifically what the amendment does. It amends the base text as 

follows. It adds language on Ukraine and human rights. It has language on community and faith-based organizations in Ukrainian 

civil society. It adds language to help improve the capabilities of 

Ukraine’s armed forces. It adds language allowing the President to 

sanction those who are complicit in significant corruption in Russia. It also adds language requiring closer scrutiny of Russia’s efforts to arm the Bashar al-Assad regime in Syria. It requires the 

President to report on whether Russia has materially breached its 

obligations under the INF Treaty. It includes a number of technical 

and perfecting changes to the language in the underlying bill. 

So Mr. Chairman, I think that these amendments strengthen the 

bill and are right in line with what we are attempting to. I strongly 

support them and I yield back. 

Chairman ROYCE. Mr. Rohrabacher from California. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I rise 

in respect to my colleagues, but in strong disagreement with this 

manager’s amendment as well. There is no doubt there is significant corruption in Russia. There is no doubt about that. And there 

is no doubt there is significant corruption in a huge chunk of this 

planet and the governments that control the people on those 

chunks of the planet. We know that, for example, Mr. Yanukovych 

who was elected as President of Ukraine who was then removed, 

I might add, from being the President of Ukraine, that he was 

elected because the people that we have supported, and I say we 

because I was deeply involved in supporting this Orange Resolution 

they had. They had conducted themselves in a very corrupt way 

and the people of Ukraine were upset with the pro-Western group 

that had been put in place and they elected this pro-Russian 

Yanukovych and they elected him to be their President. All right. 

Right now, simply to condemn the corrupt leaders of Russia in 

a world like this is a hostile act toward Russia. It is a hostile act 

toward those particular people that run Russia. I am not saying we 

shouldn’t recognize them, they do not meet anywhere near the honesty standards that we have, but for us to single them out right 

now as compared to what is going on in China, as compared to 

what is going on in so many other countries in the world is telling 

them we consider them our enemy. And this is what we are talking 

about today is an effort to rush headlong into the Cold War again 

by declaring war on these people. That is what we are doing. 

We are declaring war on them as individuals, singling them out 

from all the corrupt dictators around the world. Let me note with 

Assad, yes, I think Assad is a corrupt dictator and he has had a 

rotten regime in Syria and Putin has supported him. But of course, 

our guys support al-Qaeda, the people who murdered 3,000 Americans on 9/11. Our allies are supporting those guys. So no, we are 

going to condemn Russia for supporting Assad because he is a corrupt dictator. 

What did Russia just do? They just gave $2 billion in support for 

General Sisi. Well, thank God they did that, but they are not going 

to be doing that in the future if we start singling them out in such 

a hostile way that they know that we are at war with them as indiVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:54 Jul 02, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00073 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\_FULL\032514M\87333 SHIRL
70

viduals and war with Russia again. That is not what is best for our 

country. And it is not what is best for the world. 

And as far as one last note, from what I understand what happened in Crimea, not one person was killed, maybe one, maybe 

there was one. What happened in Kosovo when we were supporting 

self-determination which we should have supported, and in Sudan, 

we are talking about thousands of people who lost their lives, yet 

we have to go and condemn the Russians of course when no one 

lost their life in an attempt to make sure that people of Crimea 

had a right to control their own destiny and their own self-determination. So I would oppose this manager’s amendment as well as 

the bill. 

Chairman ROYCE. I am going to recognize myself for a few minutes here. First, I want to make it clear that this bill includes 

measures to address and sanction corrupt Ukrainian officials as 

well. Asset seizures, sanctions, visa bans, all apply in this legislation to those Ukrainian officials involved in that kind of conduct, 

but it also applies to the Russian oligarchs that have been involved 

in this situation. 

Why? Well, for one reason we should look at every bit of leverage 

we have in this situation in order to put pressure on Russia to 

make certain that Moscow does not move into southern Ukraine or 

eastern Ukraine or in other territories. And second, corruption is 

the most despised activity in Russia today. It is one of the reasons 

Russians view the actions of the state as so irresponsible. So it is 

not as though in targeting corruption related to these activities we 

are doing something that runs cross current with the interests of 

the people in Russia. 

The authority in the legislation, if you look at it, is very permissive. In other words, we are saying that the administration has the 

ability to do this. Why would we want to give the administration 

this authority? Because again, we are sending the message that 

Moscow needs to ramp this down, that we need to have a resolution of this crisis. And the only way we are going to get there is 

if we have significant leverage here. So there is a lot of flexibility 

involved in the language that we have in the document. 

Frankly, and lastly, this group is Putin’s power base. We have 

seen the way that things have been nationalized in Russia and 

power transfer to oligarchs that are very close to the head of state. 

And if we are going to succeed in this endeavor, those who have 

been engaged in ill-gotten gains need to be penalized, need to feel 

that there is a consequence for that type of activity. So for those 

reasons I think this is important. 

Mr. Cicilline was seeking to be recognized. 

Mr. CICILLINE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I want to thank 

you and Ranking Member Engel for holding today’s markup on 

these three important issues, particularly with respect to the situation in Ukraine. 

Even as we address the crisis in Ukraine, I appreciate that we 

are also reaffirming our commitment to human rights in Burma 

and our strong economic relationship with Taiwan. But I want to 

thank you, Mr. Chairman, and our Ranking Member Engel for 

leading this committee again in a bipartisan manner as you reVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:54 Jul 02, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00074 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\_FULL\032514M\87333 SHIRL
71

spond to the situation in Ukraine and leading the Congress in a 

thoughtful, unified response to this crisis. 

Following the recent unilateral annexation of Crimea by Russia, 

the legislation before this committee condemns the aggressive actions by Russia and supports Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial 

borders. It is also critical the United States make clear that our 

Government will stand in solidarity with our NATO allies. This bill 

will be integral in demonstrating our support of the Ukrainian people and our commitment to Ukrainian territorial integrity. 

I would like to thank you, Chairman Royce, for your inclusion of 

Section 205 of the Ukraine Support Act which calls on President 

Obama to expand the list of Russian officials sanctioned under the 

Magnitsky Act. 

I was also pleased that President Obama and other world leaders 

have decided to suspend Russia’s membership in the G8. This action illustrates Russia’s loss of international stature due to its violation of international law and undermining of the democratic process in Ukraine. 

Finally, I offer my thanks to you, Mr. Chairman, for working 

with me to include my amendments language in the manager’s 

amendment. I believe it is critically important to reaffirm that the 

United States policy is to encourage Ukraine to protect the fundamental human rights of all individuals. The underlying bill encourages Ukraine to respect the rights of ethnic, religious, and linguistic minorities which is important. But this amendment will 

make clear that the United States will continue to protect and defend the rights of all Ukrainians as they pursue freedom, democracy, and equality under the law. 

I thank you again, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back. 

Chairman ROYCE. Will the gentleman yield? 

Mr. CICILLINE. Yes. 

Chairman ROYCE. I want to thank the gentleman from Rhode Island for yielding and for his contribution to this base text because 

I think he made a very good point. I think when we were writing 

the language in terms of respecting the rights of ethnic and linguistic minorities in Ukraine, his point that we should expand that 

and touch on the importance of promoting and protecting human 

rights across the board is particularly important given the troubling reports of attacks against peaceful protesters and intimidation of journalists and activists in Ukraine. Protecting the fundamental human rights of all individuals are going to be essential to 

a successful democracy in Ukraine. I therefore thank the gentleman again for his contribution. 

Mr. KINZINGER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You have a situation 

right now where you have an armed force, whether shots are fired 

or not. You have an armed force walking into a sovereign nation 

and tearing a sovereign European country apart. I don’t know in 

any way why anybody on this committee would defend that, would 

call that some kind of self-determination, would call that anything 

but an aggression and a rebuilding of the Soviet Union. 

I think it is completely legitimate to go after corrupt officials in 

Russia. My friend from California is very quick to go after corrupt 

officials in Afghanistan every time the issue of Afghanistan comes 

72

up and in fact, becomes the impetus for the argument about why 

we should pull out of Afghanistan. 

I also would like to remind folks that have talked about the 

issues all around the globe. I agree, China is a major threat to the 

United States and probably one of our chief competitors in the 

world with the exception, of course, of al-Qaeda and global terrorism. But I would remind everybody that China has yet to invade 

a neighbor in the way that Russia is invading, has invaded Georgia, is invading Ukraine, is ready to rebuild the Soviet Union. And 

the second we see China do that I think we ought to also respond 

very strongly. A lack of strong response here will mean that China 

is more likely to do just that exact thing. 

And then I wanted to address the issue of Assad because I think 

this is a big issue. Assad has murdered almost 200,000 of his own 

people. He did it initially with chemical weapons that choke children to death and people to death as they basically die, as they realize they are dying from their own lack of breath and are unable 

to survive. So now instead of using chemical weapons, he has decided to use barrel bombs which you load with 55-gallon drums 

filled with explosives and igniters, drop them on an area that you 

want to empty. It doesn’t matter if there are children there; 

women, men, it really doesn’t matter because you just drop this 

barrel bomb and kill whoever is in the way. 

There is no defending Assad in Syria. The opposition, some of 

them have links to al-Qaeda, but that is partially because Assad 

is attacking Free Syrian Army and allowing al-Qaeda-linked opposition to grow so that he can do the narrative that he is some savior of Christian religion in Syria. So I think all of the Russian influence we are seeing in Syria, the rebuilding of the Soviet Union 

that we are seeing going on right now, I think it is essential and 

I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your leadership. It is essential that 

we react very strongly to this because the lack of doing this will 

not only mean that Russia is going to continue to push the lines, 

it is going to continue to claim ethnic minorities everywhere that 

surrounds it. The Baltics are next, right? Moldova is next. They 

can claim that they are a Russian interest anywhere. But it is not 

acceptable and if we see what is going to happen, China can take 

the same impetus if we stand by. 

Mr. Chairman, I yield back and I thank you. 

Chairman ROYCE. Thank you. We go now to Mr. Smith, who 

worked to include good language on community-based and faithbased organizations in this Ukrainian civil society thrust in the 

bill. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you for including it, Mr. Chairman. And I just 

want to make a very brief point again, to my good friend, Mr. Rohrabacher. You contrast this legislation and this effort with Iran 

Sanctions Act championed by Ileana Ros-Lehtinen and many others, but she was the leader, which targets the entire populace of 

Iran. This is targeted, it is modest. It is proportionate. It holds 

harmless the Russian people, while picking out those who have 

committed egregious acts of corruption and violence and my friend 

from California is right. Yanukovych won a free and fair election 

in 2010. He won it against Yulia Tymoshenko. I have actually 

chaired hearings and heard from her daughter because she was 

73

then unjustly imprisoned after the fact by Yanukovych. 

Yanukovych was unfortunately in a race to the bottom corruptionwise as well as repression. 

During the Maidan demonstrations, he actually sent out his 

bully boys and people were wounded on Independence Square. 

They would follow people who were wounded to the hospital and 

then they would disappear, presumably tortured, killed, and never 

heard from again. That is where the faith-based organizations, Mr. 

Chairman, in one of their many acts of bravery stepped in and actually opened up the monasteries and the churches as a place of 

refuge, brought in nurses and doctors and denied access to 

Yanukovych’s bully boys and said, ‘‘You are not coming in.’’ So they 

were right there throughout all of this, but again, this legislation 

is all about targeting. 

And I would remind my colleagues, I wrote the Belarus Democracy Act in 2004, 10 years ago. It targeted Lukashenka who until 

recently was known as the last dictator of Europe. He has a despicable regime. I have met with him in Minsk. This man tortures. 

His bully boys, like Yanukovych’s, are known for their use and employment of torture against the civil society and especially against 

those who are in the opposition. 

We tried to do this with China, I say to my friend and colleague. 

I offered legislation that is law today that has been absolutely 

unimplemented, first by the Bush administration and now by the 

Obama administration, that targets people who commit repressive 

acts in the People’s Republic of China. So this idea of targeting individuals is not new. It is certainly with precedent. It holds harmless the general population of these countries and says we are 

going after the offenders, those who have committed acts of human 

rights abuse and violence and the like. So I think this is an excellent bill. It is a modest bill and again, it is proportionate. It goes 

after those who are committing——

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Would the gentleman yield for a question? 

Mr. SMITH. I would be happy to yield. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. You just mentioned the targeting of—your 

legislation, the targeting of individuals in China who are engaged 

in corrupt practices. Am I not a co-sponsor of that bill? 

Mr. SMITH. Yes, you are. One is already law. Passed in the year 

2000. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. And let me just note that what we are discussing here is the fact that we are not enforcing that law, but yet 

we now want to enforce a law like this on people who are equally 

corrupt and let me just note I would in no way try to defend these 

people who run Russia as being anything but corrupt officials, but 

the fact is that they will be the ones who we will enforce this notion on and thus, if you are the only one in the world who ends 

up having such a standard enforced, is there some reason for them 

not to think that we are going to war with them? 

Mr. SMITH. I say to my friends, enforcement even of the 

Magnitsky Act has been shoddy and spotty as the gentlelady from 

Florida pointed out and there is language in this bill that calls for 

an expansion of that list. There are people who have committed 

horrific deeds that are not on the list. We are calling on the administration to do a better job with that which is already law as it reVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:54 Jul 02, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00077 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\_FULL\032514M\87333 SHIRL
74

lates to Russia, as it relates to China, although that is not the context of this debate. And to say with regards to Ukraine and as the 

chairman pointed out so well, this not only applies to the Russians 

who have committed misdeeds, but also to the Ukrainians. I thank 

my friend. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER [presiding]. Mr. Vargas from California seeks 

recognition. 

Mr. VARGAS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I appreciate it. 

I wasn’t going to speak. I think it is important that we have a robust discussion and I think the discussion here today has been fascinating. 

The only thing that I would want to add is this, that it is dangerous when we canonize a strong man and I think some of the 

language that I heard today about Putin filling the churches in 

Russia and somehow unifying people around the Russian area is 

dangerous. We have seen this in the past where a strong man 

comes to power. He is held up by his own people and then begins 

to almost become an other worldly figure around the world. This 

is very dangerous. And I hope we don’t lose sight of that. 

Again, some of the language I heard today canonizing Putin in 

that way I think is dangerous. I just wanted to mention I do support the measures before us. Thank you. 

Mr. GRAYSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This bill, in terms of 

what it does, not what it says, but what it does essentially seems 

to accomplish two things. One is that it increases aid to the 

Ukraine. The second is that it imposes sanctions on some class of 

individuals who are powerful individuals in Russia. And the manager’s amendment specifically goes to some substantial lengths to 

strengthen the part of the bill that imposes sanctions on individuals in Russia. 

I’d like to hear from the proponents of this bill and this manager’s amendment exactly what they think will be different in the 

real world as a result of the passage of this bill. 

I don’t want to sound flip, but I will tell you that we weren’t expecting Putin to visit Disney World any time in the near future, 

so the fact that this bill prevents him or some of his colleagues 

from doing so doesn’t seem to me to be reflective of anything that 

would actually affect their motivations, much less affect their actions. And that concerns me. 

I understand that as a Congress, there’s only so much that we 

can do to affect a situation so far from our shores. In fact, I think 

that that’s true in general that there’s a very narrow limit to what 

we can accomplish when dealing with foreign policy as a whole. 

But I do want to hear what it is that this bill, the passage of this 

bill and this manager’s amendment will do that will be different, 

that will actually make a difference and affect the motivations of 

people who are in charge in Russia. 

Chairman ROYCE. I thank the gentleman. Will you yield? 

Mr. GRAYSON. Yes. 

Chairman ROYCE. I appreciate that, Mr. Grayson. The people 

wielding power in Russia are not just the officials in that country. 

The people who have enormous power there are people who have 

stolen enormous amounts of money. They have basically taken resources because of their political pull, because of their closeness 

75

with President Putin, but they have transferred a lot of that wealth 

offshore. They are susceptible because they do like to travel abroad, 

and they do like to move their money out of the country. They are 

susceptible to pressure if we apply smart sanctions. They are 

friends, they are accomplices of President Putin, and so they do 

have enormous influence at the end of the day on Russia’s foreign 

policy. And the combination of Putin’s concentration of power not 

just for his own advantage, but for the advantage of these individuals who have this wealth at risk, the combination of repression 

against the people, and against the political rights of all Russians, 

and the theft, if you think about it, the theft of Russia’s wealth 

through corruption have resulted now in an authoritarian system 

that is pursuing an aggressive foreign policy, one that has started 

in the Ukraine but may not end there on the basis of President 

Putin’s last speech to the Duma. 

So, we have an ability here to send a message cross current with 

that approach, or a message that instead says to the Russian people we stand with you against those who have received ill-gotten 

gains. In particular, these individuals have benefitted as we know 

from the dissolution of Rule of Law in Russia. So, as we’re looking 

for leverage, this is a way to put enormous pressure on Moscow. 

That would be the calculus in terms of the smart sanctions that we 

have, in my view, in the bill. 

Mr. GRAYSON. All right. I’ll reclaim my time. 

So, just to pursue this further, what we’re talking about here is 

using the fact that the Russian oligarchs have amassed a large 

amount of offshore assets outside of Russia which we will use to 

pressure against them to get them to them to pressure, presumably 

Putin, to change Russian foreign policy and make it more, shall we 

say, discreet. 

So, for instance, one could picture the United States and the European Union working together to actually seize, through sanctions, the assets of Russian oligarchs that are held outside of Russia including, for instance, ownership of the Brooklyn Nets. One 

could picture, for instance, nationalizing the Nets. I’m not sure that 

would be worth very much, but one could do that. 

So is it, in fact, anticipated that this bill would be used for the 

purpose of actually seizing assets of Russian oligarchs that are held 

offshore in the United States or in Europe, or elsewhere? 

Chairman ROYCE. Our President will be meeting with heads of 

state in Europe to discuss next steps, but this would give the President the ability to freeze those assets. And I would argue that the 

specter of those assets being freezed will focus the mind of those 

close to President Putin. This is not as confrontational as other approaches that might be suggested, but it is one that I think is effective because the amount of wealth we’re talking about, the amount 

of ill-gotten gains, and the amount of influence that these people 

have is truly disproportionate. 

Russia is no longer a society in which the direct influence of the 

people are as influential as those who have replaced them with political pull, by being close to the head of state. So, their input, I 

think, at the end of the day is going to be important. 

I’ve raised other leverage that we have in the legislation, as well, 

but for this issue that’s the calculation. 

76

Mr. GRAYSON. Thanks for the explanation, Mr. Chairman. 

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

Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Chairman, I was simply going to observe, I 

find it interesting that our friend from Florida has made a passionate case for the justification of the power grab in the Crimea 

because of Russian heritage, and the will of Russian majority at 

the expense of a very substantial Tatar minority. And, of course, 

we ignore in the process of that rationalization the fact that Russian thugs were bussed into Crimea deliberately to influence the 

outcome, deliberately to intimidate those who might have a different point of view. 

Mr. GRAYSON. Will the gentleman——

Mr. CONNOLLY. But my only point is, I find it odd having given 

that passionate statement we’re suddenly now concerned about the 

efficacy of the sanctions legislation in front of us. 

Which is it? Do you favor the power grab in Crimea, or do you, 

in fact, simply want to make sanctions even more effective? I yield 

back. 

Mr. GRAYSON. Will the gentleman yield to me? 

Mr. CONNOLLY. I certainly will. 

Mr. GRAYSON. Okay, it’s both. I yield back. 

Chairman ROYCE. All right. We recognize Mr. Yoho of Florida. 

Mr. YOHO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I appreciate it. And 

I understand the intent of what we’re trying to do here. And I do 

support the intent of supporting the people of the Ukraine; however, I think the process that we’re going through is a little bit misguided. And what we’re talking about is, you know, Russia stepping up and showing their power. 

I’ve got in front of me kind of the history of the Crimean peninsula, and it says that Crimea is an autonomous parliamentarian 

republic within Ukraine subject to the Constitution of Ukraine, in 

accordance with the laws of Ukraine, but they also have their own 

constitution, and they stand as kind of an independent state, from 

what I read here. And 58 percent of the population of Crimea is 

ethnic Russia. 

Again, I support the intent of what we’re trying to accomplish, 

but I think what we’re seeing in Russia is Mr. Putin stepping up. 

He’s emboldened. You’re seeing Venezuela emboldened. You’re seeing China emboldened along with Iran and Syria. And I think the 

reason we’re seeing that is we’re trying to project strength, but 

they see us as weakened. 

And I know I don’t need to remind everybody that we’re $17.4 

trillion in debt. The Government was shut down in September and 

October because of the lack of funds, and yet we want to give more 

money to a country, and we have to borrow that money; yet, we 

have people in our own country that can’t get health insurance, or 

they can’t send their kids to school. And for us to project strength, 

I think it’s time we strengthen America and rebuild America. 

And that’s the only way you can show up in a fight say, or in 

a confrontation, you can’t show up when you’re hemorrhaging. And 

I think the rest of the world knows we’re hemorrhaging. So, again, 

I support what we’re trying to accomplish. 

And I need to just for information to pass this out, that we gave 

the Ukraine over $102 million last year and we’ve committed or obVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:54 Jul 02, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00080 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\_FULL\032514M\87333 SHIRL
77

ligated $3.6 billion since 1990 to help them do all the things that 

we should have been monitoring that has brought us to this point. 

And to go forward and say money is the solution without being 

from a point of strength, I think is erroneous. And I just think it 

sends the wrong message that we can solve this problem. 

Chairman ROYCE. Will the gentleman yield? 

Mr. YOHO. Yes, sir, I will. 

Chairman ROYCE. Okay. This bill only addresses already appropriated Fiscal Year ’14 funds, not any new money. What we’re 

doing in this legislation for the members’ edification here is we’re 

prioritizing and moving the funding that was appropriated specifically focused on what we can do on democracy building in the 

Ukraine here with respect to taking such issues as the Overseas 

Private Investment Corporation which pays for itself, but we’re giving it added impetus for those businesses that are going to invest 

there. The OPIC insurance policy will stand behind those businesses, and other funding to build civil society with respect to the 

training of law enforcement and so forth. 

Mr. YOHO. Will the gentleman yield back? 

Chairman ROYCE. I will. 

Mr. YOHO. On page 6 of this bill, it says ‘‘Congress finds the following, Ukrainian economy is weak and vulnerable.’’ And then it 

goes on to say, ‘‘A financing gap which the Government of Ukraine 

has estimated will amount to $35 billion over the next 2 years.’’

That’s deficit spending, and a large underground economy has 

developed. This economic condition undermines, and I want to emphasize this, this economic condition undermines democratic prospects in the Ukraine. 

Again, we’re at a $500 billion deficit, and it’s soon to return to 

$1 trillion because of our economy. And it goes on to say, ‘‘Years 

of poor economic management and performance have undermined 

and may continue to undermine political stability and unity within 

Ukraine.’’

Chairman ROYCE. If the gentleman would yield, I just need 

to——

Mr. YOHO. We’re supposed to be talking about the United States 

on the way this is—poor economic management and performance. 

So, yes, sir, I’ll yield. 

Chairman ROYCE. I think when the gentleman reads that statement it sounds as though this measure would appropriate $35 billion. That is not—it referenced the fiscal problem——

Mr. YOHO. Right. I understand. 

Chairman ROYCE [continuing]. That exists in the Ukraine. But 

the lion’s share of that is being shouldered by Europe. I think if 

you totaled, and I’m doing this by memory, but if you totaled up 

the provisions here in terms of supporting law enforcement in the 

Ukraine, et cetera, it’s about $68 million. 

The reference that you’re citing is simply the facts on the ground 

in Ukraine, but——

Mr. YOHO. Oh, I agree with that. 

Chairman ROYCE [continuing]. Not what we’re committing to. 

And I do want that to be understood here. And, again, the $68 million or so that we do commit here is money that was already approVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:54 Jul 02, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00081 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\_FULL\032514M\87333 SHIRL
78

priated for the budget for Foreign Affairs that we are reprioritizing 

for this purpose. So, I think that clarifies a little bit——

Mr. YOHO. If I had my druthers, I’d rather pay off our debt with 

that money at this point in time. 

Mr. GRAYSON. Will the gentleman yield? 

Mr. YOHO. I’m out of time. It’s up to the chairman. 

Mr. GRAYSON. I ask for unanimous consent, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman ROYCE. Yes, absolutely, Mr. Grayson. 

Mr. GRAYSON. Thank you very much. 

My reading of the bill, Congressman Yoho, is that we’re actually 

taking money from the Pakistani aid budget and putting it into the 

Ukraine aid budget instead, so rather than stealing from Peter to 

pay Paul, we’re actually stealing from Paracha to pay Pavel. I yield 

back. 

Chairman ROYCE. And I believe, if I could—would the gentleman 

yield? 

Mr. GRAYSON. Yes. 

Chairman ROYCE. In terms of that portion of the budget, I think 

it’s broadcasted in Pakistan that we’re taking the funds and applying it here, for the record. 

Now, are there any second-degree amendments to the manager’s 

amendment? Hearing no second-degree amendments, the question 

occurs on the manager’s amendment. All those in favor say aye. 

All those opposed, no. 

Mr. YOHO. No. 

Chairman ROYCE. In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it, 

and the manager’s amendment is agreed to. 

And I would now to call up en bloc, this is a number of amendments from colleagues on both sides of the aisle that were sent to 

your offices last night. They’re in your packets this morning, so I’m 

going to ask unanimous consent that the following items be considered en bloc. Grayson Amendment 232. Keating Amendments 27 

and 28. Lowenthal Amendment 23. Messer Amendment 120. Without objection, so ordered. 

[The information referred to follows:]

79


87333e-1.eps 87333e-2.eps
80


87333e-3.eps
81


87333e-4.eps
82

Chairman ROYCE. Do any members seek recognition to speak on 

the en bloc amendments? Hearing no further request for recognition, the question occurs on the en bloc amendment. 

All those in favor say aye. 

All opposed, no. 

In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it and the items in 

the en bloc amendment are agreed to. 

Are there any other members——

Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman ROYCE. Mr. Connolly. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I have an amendment at the desk, Amendment 98. 

Chairman ROYCE. The clerk will report the amendment. 

Ms. MARTER. Amendment to H.R. 4278 offered by Mr. Connolly 

of Virginia. At the end of title I, add the following: Section 110. Annual report on security developments in the Russian Federation 

and their effects on——

Chairman ROYCE. Without objection the amendment will be considered read. 

[The information referred to follows:]


87333x.eps
83


87333f-1.eps
84


87333f-2.eps
85

Chairman ROYCE. The Chair reserves a point of order and recognizes the author to explain the amendment. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. I thank the chair. And I think this amendment 

has been provided both to the chairman and the ranking member 

for their consideration and clearance. This is a complementary 

amendment to a provision in the Senate bill requiring an annual 

report on security developments in the Russian Federation and the 

effects they might have on Ukranian sovereignty. 

The report includes an assessment of the security situation in regions neighboring Russia, including the Crimea. The goal is, in 

fact, shaping the security strategy of the Government of Russia, including potential annexation of non-Russian territory, trends in 

Russian security behavior that would be designed to achieve Russian security goals, and an assessment of the global and regional 

security objectives of Russia that would affect NATO, the Middle 

East, or the People’s Republic of China. 

An assessment of the capabilities of Russian military and those 

capabilities’ effects on potentially Russia’s neighbors, and any other 

developments that the Secretary of State considers of strategic importance to our national security with respect to this subject. 

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

Chairman ROYCE. I thank the gentleman for yielding. And I 

want to just share with you, Mr. Connolly, I support your amendment. 

Given Russia’s continued aggression toward Ukraine, which may 

yet extend to other countries in the region, I think this report 

would be very useful in helping to gauge the potential impact from 

the future development of Russia’s armed forces, and from its foreign policy. And, therefore, I would support its inclusion. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. I thank the chair. 

Chairman ROYCE. Do any other members seek recognition to 

speak on this amendment? Hearing no further requests for recognition, the question occurs on the amendment. 

All those in favor say aye. 

All those opposed, no. 

In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it. The amendment—

Mr. Duncan. 

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

Chairman ROYCE. The clerk will read the amendment. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Number 46. 

Ms. MARTER. Amendment offered by Congressman Jeff Duncan 

of South Carolina to H.R. 4278, the Ukraine Support Act. Section 

2(8) following ‘‘increased natural gas exports and energy efficiency,’’ 

insert ‘‘in Ukraine, which could be greatly enhanced by the advances in energy extraction and exploration technologies.’’ Should 

read: ‘‘to support energy diversification initiatives to reduce Russian control of energy supplies to Ukraine and other European 

countries, including United States promotion of increased natural 

gas exports and energy efficiency in Ukraine, which could be greatly enhanced by the advances in energy’’——

Chairman ROYCE. Without objection the amendment will be considered read, and the Chair reserves a point of order, recognizes 

the author, Mr. Duncan to explain the amendment. 

[The information referred to follows:]

86

Mr. DUNCAN. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I applaud the efforts of Chairman Royce and Ranking Member 

Engel in drafting this bipartisan legislation in support of Ukraine. 

It really comes down to what side of history do we want to be 

on. When history is written do we want to be folks that—Members 

of Congress and Americans that support a sovereign nation, a sovereign nation facing aggression that harkens back to the Cold War. 

So, I believe that we should use every tool in the toolbox to support 

like-minded nations like Ukraine. 

I support this legislation, but I believe the U.S. could do better 

to support the efforts and reduce Russian control of energy supplies 

to Ukraine and other European countries by increasing cooperation 

on energy extraction and exploration technologies such as hydraulic 

fracturing. 

This actually is larger than just Ukraine, because Europe is looking west to the U.S. We talked earlier about L&G exports, to lessen 

European dependence and Ukranian dependence on Russian 

sources of energy. Today, Ukraine is heavily dependent on Russia 

for its source of energy. In the past, about 80 percent of Ukraine’s 

oil and natural gas came from Russia. And according to the EU Energy Commissioner in 2012, about 60 percent of Russian natural 

gas headed Europe went through the Ukraine, pipelines that go 

through the Ukraine. It’s total dependence on Russia, and that concerns our friends on the other side of the Atlantic. 

Russia has used its leverage twice, in 2006 and 2009, to cut off 

the gas supply to Ukraine. Again, it’s used its leverage twice to cut 

off the gas supply to Ukraine. In today’s volatile situation, Russia 

has considerable leverage over Ukraine through its energy capabilities. 

According to a recent Forbes article, Ukraine could hold more 

than 40 trillion cubic feet of recoverable shell gas. That’s a move 

toward energy independence if they can harvest those resources. 

With the incredible growth in U.S. natural gas resources, particularly from shell gas, with growth up 72 percent since 2000, and 

49 percent since 2005, I believe that the U.S. and Ukraine should 

consider the benefits of energy extraction and exploration technologies; how to increase our cooperation to use U.S. expertise in 

fracking to help meet Ukraine’s needs to develop this capability. 


87333g.eps
87

We’re not forcing this technology on Ukraine, they have asked for 

it. Businesses are willing to get involved, and last year Ukraine 

signed a natural gas exploration deal with both Royal Dutch Shell 

and Chevron. This is something Ukraine wants. This is something; 

technology that we have. Regardless of where you come down on 

the political spectrum with regard to hydraulic fracturing, we’re 

talking about Ukraine as a sovereign nation wanting to pursue 

this. 

In that sense, we often say that it does more good to teach a man 

to fish rather than simply give him a fish. Well, I believe that it 

would be more sustainable for Ukraine in the long run if we apply 

this same principle. 

And with that, Mr. Chairman, I think we should support this 

amendment, and I urge our colleagues to support it. And with that, 

I yield back. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you. Do any other members seek recognition to speak on the amendment? I’m looking for baseball signals. Mr. Grayson is recognized. 

Mr. GRAYSON. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

I’d like to ask a few questions of the gentleman from South Carolina, specifically regarding the second part of his amendment. 

Why does the gentleman think it would be constructive for this 

Congress to tell the Ukrainian Congress what it should be passing 

or not passing? 

Mr. DUNCAN. Well, what we’re doing is trying to give them the 

ability to have access to the hydraulic fracturing technology. 

Mr. GRAYSON. Okay. I’m referring to the second part of the gentleman’s amendment. Perhaps I’m misreading it, but the second 

part says that, in Section 102(b)(5) you would add the following 

terms, ‘‘reducing corruption.’’ And, apparently, you’re trying to give 

examples of how to reduce corruption in the Ukraine, ‘‘supporting 

reform efforts of the Government of Ukraine to pass legislation,’’ et 

cetera, et cetera. That’s what I’m referring to. Has the gentleman 

offered that amendment? 

Mr. DUNCAN. I have that amendment coming up next. 

Mr. GRAYSON. Oh, that’s coming up next. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. GRAYSON. Okay. 

Mr. DUNCAN. That would be Amendment 45. We’re on 46. 

Mr. GRAYSON. All right. Then I’ll yield back. Thank you very 

much. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Yes. 

Chairman ROYCE. Yes. Did you want to speak to this amendment, Mr. Sherman? Yes. 

Mr. SHERMAN. I rise in cautious opposition to this amendment 

simply because we’re going to spend all day tomorrow talking about 

energy, talking about energy exports. Then our subcommittee is 

going to have, and the gentleman is welcome to come and participate, I’m sure, in hearings I think a day after that on petroleum 

exports from the United States. 

There’s no reason to put in this bill things that divide Americans, 

things that raise hot button issues about environment, and energy. 

We ought to be focused as narrowly as possible on the Ukraine. 

88

Now I will say this, your amendment does only a little bit to affect what is already in one sentence of the bill, but as for the idea 

that we need to focus on this now, we could do that in a separate 

bill months from now, weeks from now. 

As to petroleum, no amount of effort in the United States is 

going to have a significant impact on the worldwide price of petroleum. 

As to natural gas, they pay in Germany $10 roughly a unit, in Japan $16. Unless the gentleman has become a socialist, and I’m 

confident that he has not, he proposes that all of this energy development and export is going to be done by private companies who 

are going to sell for $16 rather than for $10. So, we may tomorrow 

have an interesting debate. 

Japan has moth balled all of its nuclear electric generation facilities. It is buying a huge amount of natural gas, and maybe that 

natural gas could come from the United States, but what does that 

have to do with the Ukraine? 

Whether we export natural gas, how much we drill is an interesting issue. That’s why I’ll be here tomorrow, and to think that 

if only we developed more natural gas in the United States our private companies would choose to sell it to the Ukraine for much less 

than Japan would pay for it seems unlikely. The Ukraine buys virtually all of its natural gas without it having to be liquified and 

regasified. Japan being an island has to have its natural gas 

liquified, then it has to turn it back into gassy state at great cost, 

so I don’t see a reason for this bill to focus on a red button, hot 

partisan, environmentalist versus economic development energy 

issue, and for that reason would oppose the amendment 

Chairman ROYCE. Will the gentleman——

Mr. SHERMAN. Yield to the chairman. 

Chairman ROYCE. I take the gentleman’s point, but if we think 

through another alternative, what if we were to use the permitting 

process on L&G as basically a strategic asset for foreign policy, and 

what if we were to just for the sake of argument grant that permit 

on the condition that the export in this particular case go to Eastern Europe or Ukraine, because our situation is this right now. 

We are flaring gas because of a glut. We’re capping wells. It 

seems to me that—and, again, I’m moved somewhat by the arguments that our Chairman of the Joint Chiefs made about using this 

as a strategic asset. I understand your point, that if we open this 

up and it was simply the argument that you were to expand to 

every market in the world, but what if we reached some kind of 

compromise on the idea that the additional increase in the export 

of L&G would be for a national purpose. 

Now, it would have the added benefit of increasing—it would actually increase the deficit for Russia if we did that. It would decrease our deficit if we did that. It would create more jobs in the 

gas and oil industry here in the United States if we did it. But I 

just raise it——

Mr. SHERMAN. I’m reclaiming my non-existent time. 

Chairman ROYCE. Yes. 

Mr. SHERMAN. I think that’s an interesting issue to discuss tomorrow. 

Chairman ROYCE. Yes. 

89

Mr. SHERMAN. It doesn’t have to be dealt with in this bill. It will 

raise even some questions on the right as to whether we should tell 

a landowner who wants to drill for natural gas, export that natural 

gas to Japan and get paid $16 per unit for it, that we’re not going 

to let that landowner do it. We’re not going to let that oil company 

do it. They’re going to have to sell to Ukraine for $9 a unit, or $10. 

That’s a good discussion for tomorrow. 

I haven’t hesitated to criticize people in my own party over in the 

other body for not moving as quickly as possible to help the 

Ukraine. So far, not a single piece of legislation has been signed 

by the President on the Ukraine. And Crimea has been invaded, 

seized, and annexed. I would like this bill to go forward, and I look 

forward to tomorrow’s hearings, and what you’re proposing. And I 

also think that, speaking of seizing territory, I think we should 

seize the jurisdiction of the Energy and Commerce Committee so 

that we’re in a position to decide not only whether or not that energy is developed and under what conditions, but to whom it is 

sold. And there’s one kind of naked aggression and power grab that 

I’m in favor of, and that’s it. 

Chairman ROYCE. Will the gentleman yield? 

Mr. SHERMAN. I yield back to the chairman. 

Chairman ROYCE. I appreciate the gentleman for yielding. 

It is our responsibility to set broad parameters on foreign policy. 

I do think this is a case where an absolutist position is probably 

not going to prevail. Either the absolutist position that all permits 

be granted, or the position that none be granted. 

I do, however, think it is worth contemplating this concept originally raised by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs that additional 

permits granted be in our foreign policy interest, and this is something that I think as the weeks unwind here is worthy of consideration because it might be a way to bridge the divide. 

I think Mr. Meeks was seeking recognition. 

Mr. MEEKS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I just wanted to join in with Mr. Sherman. I heard your idea, 

and it is something that is intriguing to me because I’ve been going 

back and forth as to what we should do. And I know talking to 

some individuals within my district, and making sure that I have 

foreign policy considerations also, but you’ve done such an excellent 

job, I think, in making sure that we have a bipartisan agreement 

where we don’t have any of those agreements, and we can have a 

separate—and I think that will take place tomorrow because I am 

listening. I think that to have an intense debate focused on this 

issue and this issue alone would be beneficial to members. I know 

it would be beneficial to this member to have a real debate on what 

we should do. And maybe if we can show that we’re just doing it 

for the Ukraine, and it helps us overall, our national interest, et 

cetera, that could win over some other members. But to do it in a 

bifurcated way, I think it’s tremendously important moving forward because we’ve done such an excellent job, I think, on this bill 

in a bipartisan way. So, I would agree with Mr. Sherman. Let’s debate that tomorrow. And I am intrigued by what the chairman has 

indicated, you know, setting as an example of how we could do it, 

and would love to hear more and have further debate in that regard. But I think that it should not be included in this bill. 

90

Mr. DUNCAN. Would the gentleman yield? 

Chairman ROYCE. Mr. Duncan, if I could first explain Mr. Duncan’s amendment very succinctly so that there’s a full understanding. ‘‘To support energy diversification initiatives to reduce 

Russian control of energy supplies of Ukraine and other European 

countries, including the U.S. promotion of increased natural gas exports and energy efficiency in Ukraine, which could be greatly enhanced by advances in energy extraction and exploration technologies.’’ This, specifically, is what Mr. Duncan is proposing. 

The one advantage of the language we have in the underlying 

bill is that, frankly, it is so broad it goes to the concept. As you 

correctly identify, and as the gentleman from California has stated, 

the specifics of this will be debated tomorrow. 

All I’m attempting to do here is to advance the argument that 

the focus should be on Ukraine to the extent that we can increase 

energy independence in Ukraine. I don’t really believe at the end 

of the day that is that debatable, or divisive an issue. 

I think when you get into the specifics in Energy and Commerce, 

that’s where the argument is going to occur. And if I were on that 

committee, that’s where I’d be advancing the arguments that I just 

made with Mr. Sherman, and one which at the end of the day Mr. 

Sherman, I suspect, might agree with me on. But that is not for 

the debate here and now, I concur, but the language we’re using 

here I just don’t see it as that objectionable because it is so broad 

based. It goes to the intent basically to leverage Russia. 

And with that, I should yield finally to Mr. Duncan. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Well, Mr. Chairman, you made the points that I 

was going to make, so I really don’t need to say anything further 

than Russia wants to control the Ukraine territory. They have the 

ability to control the Ukraine energy sources, just the nature of 

where we are with the natural gas and petroleum coming into 

Ukraine supplied by Russia. 

This would give diversification for the sovereign nation of 

Ukraine to possibly go after its own resources, be energy independent, lessen its dependence on Russia, and really support its 

own sovereignty with regard to energy security. 

So, with that, I appreciate the comments of the chairman. I yield 

back. 

Chairman ROYCE. And I see it, enhancing cooperation with our 

European allies on advances in the technology in the energy field, 

that’s going to provide the opportunity to increase those supplies. 

That’s going to undermine at the end of the day President Putin’s 

ability to leverage his energy supplies for increased political influence, so I support the amendment. But I think Mr. Cicilline wanted 

to speak on this issue. 

Mr. CICILLINE. Just a question, Mr. Chairman. 

I know this issue was raised when we considered the earlier resolution. 

Chairman ROYCE. Yes. 

Mr. CICILLINE. And I don’t think anyone is suggesting diversification is not a good, sound policy, but that’s actually not what the 

amendment does as I read it. It adds language that says, important 

language, ‘‘which would be greatly enhanced by the advances in energy extraction and exploration technologies.’’

91

We haven’t had any discussion about that. That’s actually what 

the amendment says. It adds that language, and I think for precisely the reasons my colleagues on the other side on the top tier 

mentioned this is going to invite a much broader debate between 

environmentalists and the industry about advancements in energy 

extraction and exploration technologies. And I, frankly, think it 

raises the danger that in this moment when we should be speaking 

with a very unified voice it’s bringing into this discussion not energy diversification. I think that’s already in the underlying manager’s amendment, but new language about great advancements in 

energy extraction and exploration technologies. And I——

Mr. DUNCAN. Would the gentleman yield? It doesn’t say what 

that technology is. It’s just saying that—it’s a statement, which 

would be greatly enhanced. And truly it would, it would be greatly 

enhanced. Their diversification initiatives would be greatly enhanced by energy extraction and exploration technologies regardless of what those may be. 

If the U.S. has the ability to help the Ukraine become energy 

independent regardless of what those extraction techniques or exploration technologies are, they should be—we should be open to 

giving those to the Ukraine should they ask for them. I think it’s 

just a statement there at the end. 

Mr. CICILLINE. Yes, reclaiming my time. That may well be the intention. I’m just suggesting that using this language is going to invite, likely to invite the kind of debate that I think is—that undermines the importance of doing this in a unified bipartisan way. 

And I——

Chairman ROYCE. Would the gentleman yield? 

Mr. Cicilline, the language—I guess I’m looking at this very legalistically, but the language says in Ukraine which could, fortunately says which could be greatly enhanced by the advances in energy extraction and exploration technologies. Does that give you 

any comfort, the—it’s basically a statement of fact, in other words, 

in which we say it could be. That’s the actual amendment, not his 

explanation of the amendment, but the actual——

Mr. CICILLINE. Right. Having the benefit of this discussion during this hearing, and it doesn’t give me grave concern. What I’m 

saying is that language without a lot of discussion around it, I fear 

is likely to raise the kinds of concerns that will cause people not 

to support this. And I think that would be very bad. That’s the reason I raise it. 

Chairman ROYCE. Mr. Kinzinger is seeking time. 

Mr. KINZINGER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

As I dealt with a week ago when we talked about this, I am a 

huge supporter of the idea of exporting our natural gas; playing a 

counter to Russia. I’m a huge supporter of what the gentleman 

from South Carolina is trying to do here. But this has been weeks, 

and we are finally getting a bill out, and I’m glad. And I commend 

the chairman on all his hard work to do it, but we saw the Senate 

getting mired down in a lot of issues, and I hope we don’t do that 

here. 

For that reason, and again I am completely supportive of the 

idea. I’m also on the Energy and Commerce Committee so, Mr. 

Sherman, we may have a little battle on the jurisdiction, but as a 

92

member of Energy and Commerce, we’re talking about this. We’re 

talking about this on the committee, and I am going to be on the 

side of helping Ukraine become energy independent with the help 

of the United States, but I will oppose this amendment because I 

think at this point we have got to move forward, get this thing out 

of here. And you see by what we’re doing on the committee and the 

battle that we’re having right now, this is going to be repeated on 

the floor, and while I disagree with my colleagues that would vote 

against it for that reason, there will be colleagues that will vote 

against it for that reason. And I think we’re miring ourselves down 

in the situation similar to what the Senate had. 

And I think, frankly, as the section reads already, ‘‘increase natural gas exports and energy efficiency,’’ is actually pretty sufficient 

for what we’re trying to do for this. 

Chairman ROYCE. Could I ask the gentleman, Mr. Kinzinger, if 

we attempted with Mr. Duncan and Mr. Cicilline to work out some 

kind of diversification language, could you see yourself——

Mr. KINZINGER. Sure. 

Chairman ROYCE. Well, then let me go to the real question, 

which is to Mr. Duncan. 

Mr. Duncan, if we were to work with Mr. Kinzinger and Mr. 

Cicilline during the next 1⁄2 hour while we move forward with these 

amendments to try to get some type of language to the issue of diversification of energy for Ukraine, would that be permissible? 

Mr. DUNCAN. I would support that. 

Chairman ROYCE. Okay, then you’ll withdraw the amendment 

pending 

Mr. DUNCAN. I will withdraw the amendment. 

Chairman ROYCE [continuing]. To work out language. 

Mr. DUNCAN. And I would request—I have another amendment 

at the desk, Amendment 45. 

Chairman ROYCE. The clerk will read the amendment. 

Ms. MARTER. Amendment to H.R. 4278 offered by Mr. Duncan of 

South Carolina. 

Page 8, line 5, insert before the period at the end of the following: ‘‘such as by supporting reform efforts of the Government of 

Ukraine to pass legislation related to greater accountability for 

government officials; greater protection of private property; and increased transparency of government funds.’’

Page 16, line 14, insert, ‘‘(4) the Government of Ukraine should 

make greater efforts to secure the protection of classified information and military equipment.’’

[The information referred to follows:]

93

Chairman ROYCE. The Chair is going to reserve a point of order 

and recognize the author to explain the amendment. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Folks, Ukraine is effectively bankrupt. It needs at least $20 billion in aid to stabilize its finances. Now, the Ukraine and the EU 

signed an Association Agreement last week, Ukraine’s financial situation, cultural polarization, and geographic divide alone present 

enormous challenges. 

Furthermore, Russia’s invasion of the Crimea captured the 

Ukraine’s Belbek Air Base on March 22nd, and the seizure of a 

Crimean naval base yesterday add immense risk and volatility to 

the region. So, while the U.S. must support those in Ukraine seeking greater freedom from Russian pressure, we also have a responsibility to the American people who require accountability and 

transparency of U.S. tax dollars. 

I’m concerned that the U.S. Government is not prioritizing anticorruption efforts in the Ukraine strongly enough. In fact, on 

March 14th representatives of Ukrainian public organizations and 

initiatives made some bold public statements to Parliament of 

Ukraine and a visiting bipartisan U.S. Congressional delegation 

where they said it will be impossible to implement measures offered to Ukraine by the United States without large-scale anti-corruptive strategy. 

The Parliament of Ukraine has yet to pass any law enabling new 

leaders of Ukraine to counteract corruption and change the system 

in the departments starting from now. So far there are no guarantees that money received by new Ukrainian authorities before the 

Presidential election for reforming and actual reloading of the state 

will be used transparently and for their designed purposes. 

Ukraine must not receive a single cent from foreign partners 

until necessary anti-corruptive legislative will be adopted, and 

leave taxpayers who will repay these debts often sufficient instruments of control over budget expenditures. All those were quotes 

from that meeting of last March 14th. 

My amendment is very simple. There are two sections that require U.S. policy toward Ukraine must emphasize more strongly 

anti-corruption efforts by the Government of Ukraine, and urge the 

Government of Ukraine to require greater accountability, protection of private property, and transparency. 


87333h.eps
94

This amendment also urges the Government of Ukraine to pass 

legislation to counteract corruption and secure the protection of 

classified information and military equipment since there has been 

many problems with the protection of these valuable assets. 

Again, this amendment urges the Parliament in Ukraine to do 

these sort of things. To speak I think to the original question from 

the gentleman from Florida earlier, this is not mandating that the 

Ukrainian Parliament do anything. This is urging them to pass legislation related to greater accountability for government officials. 

I think part of the revolution that we saw in Ukraine recently 

and the running off, so to speak, of the existing President was part 

of that anti-corruption mind set, so I would urge my colleagues to 

get behind this amendment and pass it. And with that, I’ll yield 

back. 

Chairman ROYCE. Thank you, Mr. Duncan. I don’t see this as 

being controversial because I think all of us agree that Ukraine 

must confront corruption head on. That’s why the bill prioritizes a 

number of anti-corruption initiatives here, including in the initial 

statement of policy, including in the subsection dealing with other 

donors and international institutions. 

If you read through the section regarding the recovery of assets, 

and in the section imposing sanctions upon certain individuals and 

entities in the Ukraine that were involved in corruption, so adding 

this additional language with respect to the Parliament, et cetera, 

I think is——

Mr. DUNCAN. I reclaim some of my time here. This is just really 

a statement of the sense of this Congress——

Chairman ROYCE. Right. 

Mr. DUNCAN [continuing]. With regard to corruption, with regard 

to private information, classified information, military equipment; 

what should the Ukraine do? We are responsible to American taxpayers. We’re supposed to be good stewards of that money, and to 

make sure that it’s not given to a government that’s going to continue corruption, that there is a democratically elected Parliament 

that will address that would be a good thing. And this is the sense 

of Congress, so to speak. And with that, I’ll yield back the balance. 

Chairman ROYCE. Do any other members seek recognition to 

speak on this amendment? Mr. Grayson. 

Mr. GRAYSON. Mr. Chairman, I think that the bill as it is now 

actually takes appropriate steps with regard to corruption, the 

issue of corruption in Crimea. I think this amendment does not. 

In context what this does is this amends part of the bill that describes the policy of the United States to work with other countries 

and international institutions to stabilize the Ukrainian economy 

while promoting critical needed structural economic reforms in the 

Ukraine including, and then it lists a number of structural reforms, 

the last one being reducing corruption. 

I think that that actually is apt. I think that’s sensible, and I 

think that that correctly describes the policy of the United States. 

I think that this amendment, if I may say this, butchers that provision by adding in a whole bunch of non sequiturs. What this does 

is it says that it’s the policy of the United States to reduce corruption by, among other things, providing greater protection of private 

95

protection. I don’t see how that has anything to do with reducing 

corruption. 

In addition to that, the whole premise of this amendment is to 

do these things by passing legislation in the Ukraine. So, I return 

to my original question. I don’t understand why the gentleman 

from South Carolina thinks that the Parliament of the Ukraine 

needs pointers on how to deal with corruption in the Ukraine. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Will the gentleman yield? 

Mr. GRAYSON. Well, I will yield to you with regard to a specific 

question. Can the gentleman tell us the existing state of law in the 

Ukraine, in other words, bills already passed by the Parliament to 

fight corruption, and what additional provisions the gentleman 

thinks are needed? 

Mr. DUNCAN. Thank the gentleman. I point directly to the statements that I made earlier. On March 14th the representatives of 

Ukrainian public organizations and initiatives made some bold 

public statements to the Parliament of Ukraine, and a visiting bipartisan U.S. Congressional delegation where they said this. And 

you weren’t in for this part of my testimony or opening statement, 

but ‘‘it will be impossible to implement measures offered to 

Ukraine by the United States without a large-scale anti-corruptive 

strategy.’’ These aren’t my words, these were their words. ‘‘The 

Parliament of Ukraine has yet to pass any law enabling new leaders of Ukraine to counteract corruption and change the system in 

their departments starting from now.’’So far, there are no guarantees that money received by new Ukrainian authorities before Presidential election for reforming and actual reloading of the state will 

be used transparently and for their designated purposes.’’

And the last one, ‘‘Ukraine must not receive a single cent from 

foreign partners until necessary anti-corruptive legislation will be 

adopted and we taxpayers who will repay these debts, Ukrainian 

taxpayers who will repay these debts often sufficient instruments 

of control over budget expenditures.’’ Those are all quotes from the 

Ukrainians. 

Mr. GRAYSON. I’ll reclaim my time. Does the gentleman from 

South Carolina seriously believe that there is no anti-corruption 

legislation in existence in the Ukraine, that corruption is, in fact, 

legal in Ukraine at this point? 

Mr. DUNCAN. I believe corruption is rampant in Ukraine. 

Mr. GRAYSON. Not rampant. I’m asking do you think it’s legal or 

illegal? 

Mr. DUNCAN. For the Parliament or——

Mr. GRAYSON. I’m asking you whether you think the act of corruption is legal or illegal presently in the Ukraine? 

Mr. DUNCAN. Well, I’m not sure whether it’s illegal or legal in 

Ukraine. 

Mr. GRAYSON. Okay. I’m going to go out on a limb and say that 

it’s illegal. 

Mr. DUNCAN. But in most countries it is illegal. 

Chairman ROYCE. Could the gentleman from Florida yield? 

Mr. GRAYSON. Yes. 

Chairman ROYCE. I would just make a point, and this would be 

an example of what was legal and what they’re attempting to 

change. If you are well connected to the prior President in the 

96

Ukraine you could get loans at 3 percent. If you were a farmer you 

were getting loans at 17 percent. The consequences of that was 

that oligarchs close to the previous President were, in fact, using 

this. It was legal, and the EU was straining every sinew to try to 

get the Parliament in Ukraine to move on these types of reforms. 

In this case, I think Mr. Duncan has a very real point. If we can 

join with the EU in pressing the Parliament to take concerted action, there is no question that there are going to be some interests 

in the Ukraine that are going to resist this, mainly those who are 

oligarchs. But those are the people that we’re trying to target here 

in order to bring about the Rule of Law. 

So, at the end of the day, I think this amendment is helpful for 

the reason that I’ve explained. And, in fact, certain things which 

we would consider illegal are, in fact, legal under their system because they have not been reformed. That’s why I think it’s in order, 

but if we could go to the vote. 

Mr. GRAYSON. I’d like to reclaim the remainder of my time. 

Chairman ROYCE. Yes, absolutely. 

Mr. GRAYSON. I appreciate the chairman’s comments and I find 

them very helpful. I think that these decisions should be factbased, and the chairman has offered facts that actually have a direct impact on my view of the situation. 

I remain concerned about the provision in this amendment that 

says that one means of fighting corruption in the Ukraine is to 

pass legislation that promotes the greater protection of private 

property. To me that remains a non sequitur and I am concerned 

about that provision. 

I will yield to the gentleman from South Carolina if he can explain why the protection of private property somehow reduces corruption the Ukraine. 

Mr. DUNCAN. I will have to look that particular section up real 

quick in comparison to the bill, but——

Chairman ROYCE. I’m going to suggest that time has expired for 

the gentleman. Because of time constraints I am—are there any 

other members that seek time on this? If not, I’m going to suggest 

we go to a vote on the gentleman’s amendment. 

Hearing no further request for recognition the question occurs on 

the amendment. All those in favor say aye. 

All those opposed, no. 

Mr. GRAYSON. No. 

Chairman ROYCE. In the opinion of the Chair the ayes have it. 

The amendment is agreed to, and we go to Mr. Castro for his 

amendment. Does the member have an amendment to the desk? 

Mr. CASTRO. Yes, number 23. 

Chairman ROYCE. The clerk will report the amendment. 

Ms. MARTER. Amendment to H.R. 4278 offered by Mr. Castro of 

Texas. Page 5, strike line 23 through page 6, line 2 and insert the 

following: (2) supporting Ukrainian efforts to foster greater unity 

among people and regions of the country, combat anti-Semitism 

and discrimination, and promote respect for religious freedom. 

[The information referred to follows:]

97

Chairman ROYCE. The Chair reserves a point of order and we 

recognize the author to explain the amendment. 

Mr. CASTRO. Mr. Chairman, it’s a very simple amendment. All 

I’m adding is two words ‘‘and discrimination’’ into that sentence. 

That’s it. 

Chairman ROYCE. The Chair is in support of this amendment. Do 

any members seek recognition? 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman ROYCE. Yes, the gentleman from California. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I strongly support my friend in his amendment. Thank you. 

Mr. CASTRO. Thank you very much. 

Chairman ROYCE. I thank the gentleman from California. Hearing no further requests for recognition the question occurs on the 

amendment. 

All those in favor say aye. 

All those opposed, no. 

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

is agreed to. 

Mr. POE. of Texas. 

Mr. POE. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk, number 46. 

Chairman ROYCE. The clerk will report the amendment. 

Ms. MARTER. Mr. Poe, I have Amendment 74. 

Mr. POE. I’ll take that one. 

Ms. MARTER. Amendment to H.R. 4278 offered by Mr. Poe of 

Texas. At the end of title I, add the following: Section 110. Report 

on geopolitical impact of energy exports. (a) Report required. Not 

later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the 

Department of State’s Special Envoy and Coordinator for International Energy Affairs shall submit to the appropriate congresVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:54 Jul 02, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00101 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\_FULL\032514M\87333 SHIRL

87333i.eps
98

sional committees a detailed, quantitative, and substantive report 

on the potential short, medium, and long-term impacts of increased 

United States natural gas and oil exports on Russia’s economic and 

political influence over Ukraine and other European countries. 

(b) Definition. In this subsection, the term——

Chairman ROYCE. Without objection the Chair is going to consider the amendment as read and recognize the author to explain 

the amendment. 

[The information referred to follows:]

99


87333j.eps
100

Mr. POE. Thank the chairman. We’ve had much discussion about 

energy and the influence that it has had in the region. We disagree 

on what we should do regarding natural gas exporting. 

This simply requires that the State Department use its resources 

to prepare a study and report back to Congress whether it’s a good 

idea or not for us to make a decision later on whether or not we 

should export energy to the region. So, basically, the amendment 

is very simple. Let’s have some information given to us by the 

State Department. 

Chairman ROYCE. Would the gentleman yield? 

Mr. POE. Certainly. 

Chairman ROYCE. I support this amendment. There were a number of amendments that Mr. Poe was considering offering. We 

worked with him on this amendment. This amendment is important, I think, to the Congress and to the administration that we 

have a strategic understanding of the potential for increased U.S. 

natural gas and oil exports to reduce Putin’s stranglehold over 

Ukraine and Eastern Europe. And I think it speaks to just that 

issue. Mr. Engel. 

Mr. ENGEL. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I want to commend Mr. Poe. I support his amendment. I think 

it’s important. I think this is something that is very relevant with 

the matters of discussion today, and I would urge my colleagues to 

support it. 

Chairman ROYCE. I yield back to Mr. Poe, unless you want to go 

to vote. 

Mr. SHERMAN. I commend the gentleman for his amendment and 

the ranking member for her statement. 

Chairman ROYCE. Thank you. Without objection we’ll go now to 

a vote. Hearing no further request for recognition, the question occurs on the amendment. Who seeks recognition? 

Mr. STOCKMAN. Right after this, I do. 

Chairman ROYCE. Oh, okay. 

All those in favor say aye. 

All those opposed, no. 

In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it. The amendment is 

agreed to. 

Recognizing the gentleman from Texas. 

Mr. STOCKMAN. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the 

desk. 

Chairman ROYCE. The clerk will read the amendment. 

Ms. MARTER. Amendment to H.R. 4278 offered by Mr. Stockman 

of Texas. Page 10, beginning on line 10, strike ‘‘services to Russia’’ 

and insert ‘‘that promotes democracy and government transparency 

in Russia.’’

[The information referred to follows:]

101

Chairman ROYCE. I’m going to recognize the gentleman to explain his amendment. 

Mr. STOCKMAN. This is just an amendment which will help facilitate. I think all countries should want this amendment for transparency and to promote democracy. And I’m going to yield to my 

friend from California briefly. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I thank the gentleman for yielding to me, 

and I would just suggest that we’ve had a very good exchange of 

views here today. And I appreciate the leadership of the chair. And 

while I disagree with the bill, I certainly respect everyone’s opinion, and respect the leadership of the chair. Thank you very much. 

Mr. STOCKMAN. I want to add one other thing in reference to one 

of our colleagues who mentioned that China does not occupy territory or has invaded. I just want to point out in 1991 this House 

adopted a resolution that said Tibet is an occupied territory. I 

thought that would be relevant for the record. I yield back the balance of my time. 

Chairman ROYCE. All right. So, the language ‘‘promotes democracy and government transparency in Russia when doing international broadcasting.’’

Any other members seek recognition? If not, the question occurs 

on the amendment. 

All those in favor say aye. 

Opposed, no. 

In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it. The amendment is 

agreed to. 

Ms. Gabbard, I believe, is next. 

Ms. GABBARD. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I have an 

amendment on the table. 

Chairman ROYCE. The clerk will read the amendment. 

Ms. MARTER. Amendment to H.R. 4278 offered by Ms. Gabbard 

of Hawaii. Page 8, after line 3, insert the following (and redesignate subsequent paragraphs accordingly): (5) promoting a robust, 

independent and impartial judiciary, due process, and uniform application of laws. 

Page 13, line 5 after ‘‘law enforcement’’ insert ‘‘and the judicial 

system.’’


87333k.eps
102

Page 13, after line 12, insert the following and redesignate subsequent paragraphs accordingly. 

Chairman ROYCE. The amendment will be considered read, and 

we recognize the author to explain the amendment. 

[The information referred to follows:]

Ms. GABBARD. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

There’s been a lot of conversation today and in previous days 

about anti-corruption efforts, our intent to offer assistance in bringing stability back to Ukraine in a variety of ways. This amendment 

highlights our intent to offer assistance in a necessary way, I believe, in forming a robust independent, impartial judicial system. 

There are a lot of things that we can do to try to assist Ukraine 

in reforming their government, banking, energy in sector arenas 

but without an ability for them to hold people accountable, and for 

the people of Ukraine to feel a sense of confidence in their judicial 

system, and that there is a Rule of Law, then I’m afraid that these 

reforms will not be meeting their direct intent. I yield back. 

Chairman ROYCE. I thank the gentlelady for yielding. And I do 

think that one of the things we often miss is the importance of an 

independent judiciary, sort of this concept of the locust effect of 

what happens when you do not really have enforcement of law, because you have a judiciary and law enforcement that are ineffectual. So, we support enhancing democratic institutions in the 

Ukraine, and I think this amendment does a lot in that direction. 

I think a member here seeks recognition. Mr. Duncan of South 

Carolina, to speak on this amendment? 


87333l.eps
103

Mr. DUNCAN. Yes. I just wanted to applaud the gentlewoman 

from Hawaii because in countries where even they have the Rule 

of Law, if they don’t have the courts that are necessary, or the noncorrupt courts necessary to prosecute then you see laws being 

avoided and the continuation of bad practices. I think this is spot 

on, and I applaud you for going down that trail, and I support the 

amendment. 

Chairman ROYCE. Any other members seeking recognition? If 

not, the question occurs on the amendment. 

All those in favor say aye. 

All those opposed, no. 

In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it. The amendment is 

agreed to. 

We’re going to go first to Mr. Salmon of Arizona. 

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

at the desk. 

Chairman ROYCE. The clerk will read the amendment. 

Ms. MARTER. Amendment to H.R. 4278 offered by Mr. Salmon of 

Arizona. At the end of title I, add the following: Section 110. Sense 

of Congress on suspension of all activities and meetings of the 

NATO-Russia Council. It is the sense of Congress that the United 

States should work to suspend all activities and meetings of the 

NATO-Russia Council until Russia ends its aggression against 

Ukraine, including by removing forces from, and reversing its illegal annexation of, Crimea. 

[The information referred to follows:]


87333o.eps
104

Chairman ROYCE. The gentleman is recognized to explain his 

amendment. 

Mr. SALMON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

It’s common sense that if Russia is going to practice these renewed aggressions and engage in expansionist activities then 

NATO’s previous mission of Russian containment may need to be 

reinvigorated if Russia insists on foregoing its opportunity to be in 

the room. 

We all know the history of NATO. It was created as an alliance 

of allies to counter Warsaw Pact countries led by expansionist Russia. But since the collapse of the Warsaw Pact, NATO was expanded to include several of the former Warsaw Pact countries. 

And while security remains key in the mission, in recent years the 

focus has shifted to the fight against terrorism and against global 

destabilization. 

In 1997, NATO countries signed the NATO-Russia Founding Act 

which provided the formal basis for bilateral cooperation with the 

goal of easing Moscow’s concerns about NATO’s expansion being a 

threat. Five years later in 2002, the NATO-Russia Council (NRC) 

was established. 

My amendment is very simple. All it will do is call on NATO to 

suspend all former NRC, NATO-Russia Council, activities until 

Russia stops its aggression against Ukraine, removes its troops 

from Crimea, and reverses its annexation of the sovereign territory. 

It is important to note that this does not cease dialogue. And, in 

fact, follows the example of NATO’s actions after Russia invaded 

Georgia in 2008. At that time, all formal activities were suspended 

for a period. 

I understand that engagement is still critical, and we have to 

have dialogue. There is an avenue for that continued dialogue at 

the United Nations. But as the President has began escalating 

sanctions and looking for all the tools in the toolbox, I think that 

this would be a good addition. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield 

back. 

Chairman ROYCE. So, if I understand the gentleman, the language is to work for, or work toward suspension. I notice the NATO 

Secretary General Rasmussen raised the possibility of suspending 

the NATO-Russia Council saying, ‘‘It can no longer be business as 

usual with Russia.’’ I agree with that. I think Russia must understand that aggression will not extend its influence but will, instead, 

lead to economic and political isolation. That’s the sense of the 

amendment. 

Do any other members seek recognition? Mr. Grayson. 

Mr. GRAYSON. Mr. Chairman, I think that this is a mistake. 

What the NATO-Russia Council actually does is, among other 

things, make it less likely that we go to war against Russia. And 

I think that that is still a valid goal regardless of what Russia has 

done in the Crimea. I think most members of this committee would 

agree that we should try to avoid war with Russia. 

In addition to that, the NATO-Russia Council serves many purposes that are in our direct strategic interest as a country. For instance, through the NATO-Russia Council we have obtained 

logistical support for our war in Afghanistan from the Russians. 

Because of the NATO-Russia Council, the Russians have provided 

105

us with logistical support for that war which, apparently, will continue at least through the end of this year. 

Secondly, through the NATO-Russia Council we have joined with 

the Russians to fight terrorism. Up to this point, the Russians have 

a very positive and helpful record with regard to fighting terrorism. 

They have been the victim of terrorism just as the United States 

has been the victim of terrorism. 

The way that we accomplish that cooperation is through the 

NATO-Russia Council. Withdrawing from the NATO-Russia Council or forbidding Russia to participate in the NATO-Russia Council 

will actually, in a sense, promote terrorism. 

In addition to that, the NATO-Russia Council has served to help 

prevent proliferation of nuclear weapons in other countries. Obviously, we need the Russian’s cooperation if we’re going to have any 

hope of preventing Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. That cooperation comes through the NATO-Russia Council. If we disband 

the NATO-Russia Council we are, in effect, making it more likely 

that Iran will obtain a nuclear weapon. 

Therefore, for these reasons and among all the other things that 

the NATO-Russia Council accomplishes that are in our direct strategic advantage, I don’t think that we should withdraw from the 

NATO-Russia Council. I don’t think that we should attempt to disband it. I don’t think that we should do anything to harm the productive accomplishments of that Council. I yield my time. 

Mr. SALMON. Mr. Chairman, may I respond? 

Mr. GRAYSON. I’ll yield to the gentleman. 

Mr. SALMON. Thank you very much. There is nothing in the language that says that we would disband it. It says it suspends it for 

a time until they pull back from their hostile invasion of Crimea. 

It doesn’t say that it would be disbanded, or that it would be done 

away with. It would be suspended. 

The President has talked about a lot of red lines. I’m trying to 

make that line just a little bit redder. 

Mr. GRAYSON. I’ll reclaim my time. At this point, it is equally 

likely that the Russians will withdraw from their so called hostile 

invasion of Crimea, and that the United States will withdraw from 

its so called hostile invasion of Texas in the 1840s. It’s not going 

to happen. 

If we pass this amendment and, in fact, we do suspend all activities and meetings that take place of the NATO-Russia Council we 

are, in effect, disbanding the Council. That’s the reality of the situation. The reality of the situation is that doing this hurts ourselves, 

hurts our strategic interests, hurts our role in the region and 

throughout the world. That’s a bad thing to do. 

Mr. SALMON. Will the gentleman yield? 

Mr. GRAYSON. Yes, I’ll yield. 

Chairman ROYCE. Let me recognize Mr. Keating first, and then 

we’ll go to Mr. Sherman. Oh, the gentleman still has time. Yes, absolutely. So you’ve yielded——

Mr. GRAYSON. I’ll yield to Mr. Keating, I think. No? Mr. Sherman. 

Mr. KEATING. Mr. Chairman, no. I have my own amendment 

pending. That’s all. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Chairman. 

106

Chairman ROYCE. The gentleman will be recognized. 

Mr. SHERMAN. I think we could achieve the purpose of this 

amendment by stopping it at the word ‘‘Council’’ and eliminating 

the words ‘‘until Russia ends its aggression against the Ukraine.’’ 

Then you would simply say, ‘‘suspend our involvement in this 

Council.’’ And I think we need to do that for an appropriate amount 

of time. Obviously, if Russia withdraws from Ukraine I’d be the 

first to want to visit the Council, but to say that we are going to 

suspend our activity really forever goes beyond what we ought to 

do given the importance of the Council. 

Chairman ROYCE. Will the gentleman yield? Yes, Mr. Sherman, 

I had marked up a suggested amendment here just before we went 

to you thinking about doing exactly that, because I think if we just 

go to the issue of the meeting of the Foreign Ministers which is the 

Council and we drop the other reference, I think it’s much more 

likely that we’re going to have unanimous consent of this body behind this resolution. 

And I’m going to suggest that at this time to the gentleman from 

Arizona that you look at taking the sentence, ‘‘It is the sense of 

Congress that the United States should work to suspend all activities and meetings of the NATO-Russia Council,’’ and then that’s 

the end of the amendment. 

Mr. SALMON. Yes, that sounds great. 

Chairman ROYCE. I ask unanimous consent——

Mr. GRAYSON. Will the gentleman—well, I’m not sure whose time 

it is right now, Mr. Chairman, but may I address that? 

Chairman ROYCE. Reclaiming my time, I recognize the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Grayson. 

Mr. GRAYSON. All right. With all due respect, and I appreciate 

the chairman’s efforts to make something good out of this effort by 

the gentleman from Arizona, it sounds to me like the amendment 

that’s being offered suspends all activities, would suspend all activities and meetings of the NATO-Russia Council forever. And, in 

effect, disband it. 

If the chairman were to offer an amendment that would do so for 

a limited period of time, a limited defined period of time, then I 

think that that, in fact, would be constructive. But to go from ‘‘will 

suspend the activities and meetings of the NATO-Russia Council 

until Russia withdraws from Crimea’’ to ‘‘will suspend the activities 

and meetings of the NATO-Russia Council forever’’ does not seem 

to me to be a step in the right direction. In fact, respectfully, 

maybe a step in the wrong direction. I yield back. 

Chairman ROYCE. Mr. Sherman. 

Mr. SHERMAN. I would say the word ‘‘suspend’’ means you suspend for a while. This is a sense of Congress. I would think that 

we would allow the gentleman, give him his unanimous consent to 

change his amendment, and then if people want to vote for it——

Chairman ROYCE. Would the gentleman yield? 

Mr. SHERMAN. Yes, I will, to the chair. 

Chairman ROYCE. The word ‘‘temporarily suspend’’ would probably satisfy the members of the committee. 

Mr. GRAYSON. Will the gentleman yield? 

Chairman ROYCE. Yes. 

107

Mr. GRAYSON. I find that it would satisfy me. However, the 

grammar police might be upset because of the split infinitive. 

Chairman ROYCE. That is true. However, for government work I 

think it’s close enough, Mr. Grayson. If it secures the support of 

the members of this committee, and I think this is the one way to 

do it, so I’m going to ask Mr. Salmon for unanimous consent that 

the Salmon amendment be read as follows: ‘‘It is the sense of Congress that the United States should work to temporarily suspend 

all activities and meetings of the NATO-Russia Council.’’

[The information referred to follows:]

Mr. SALMON. I would support that. 

Chairman ROYCE. All right. Any other members seeking—yes, 

the gentleman from California. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Let me just note that this is exactly the opposite direction that we should be going in, no matter even if we 

change the wording. 

The bottom line is, if we are going to—if we have major differences with a country as powerful as Russia, which we have to 

admit has its interest, and we have our interest, and there are people, other people in this game, as well, around the world who would 

like to see countries that, what was the Soviet Union but now Russia and the United States when they have a problem, it would be 

a good thing for us to talk things out. 


87333p.eps
108

What we have here is an example also of what we’re doing internationally when you have the G–8 now has removed Russia from 

the G–8, now it’s going to be called the G–7. 

Mr. Chairman, this is the type of vehicle that we should be promoting. We should be promoting discussion between the top leaders 

of various powerful countries to see if we can overcome differences 

rather than suspending talks at a time when we need to be talking 

to one another. 

Look, Russia helps us in Afghanistan. They have since 9/11 

played a very positive role in helping us supply our troops. We 

need that cooperation. We need cooperation when it comes to—if 

we would have had a higher level of cooperation we probably could 

have averted the bombing at the Boston marathon. We need to cooperate where we can, and when we have differences we need to 

talk it out. And to kick Russia out of the G–8 and not to have a 

discussion among these top leaders goes against—is exactly the 

wrong direction to go. 

Mr. SALMON. Would the gentleman yield——

Mr. ROHRABACHER. What it does is give them the idea what we 

want is a hostile situation. We’re rushing in to a reigniting of the 

Cold War when we didn’t talk to one another. We should be, instead, suggesting that we all sit down and see if we can work 

things out at a table rather than simply cutting off all discussion 

with someone. 

Mr. SALMON. Would my good friend from California yield? 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I certainly will. 

Mr. SALMON. Thank you very much. 

I think that right now is the most appropriate time to isolate 

Russia. They have been increasingly with the activities in Georgia, 

now the activities in Crimea, they are emboldened by our weakness. And our standing in the world has diminished greatly over 

the last several years, and lots of red lines have been drawn. And 

every time a red line is crossed we draw a new red line. And I 

think that the international community has lost incredible respect 

for the United States and our standing needs to be bolstered. And 

we’ve got to draw a line that actually means something sometime, 

somehow, somewhere. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Okay, well let me reclaim my time and let 

me just say that I’ve heard the word ‘‘Georgia’’ over and over again. 

And I will have to say, I sat here in this room and I sat and listened to the reports on what had happened in Georgia, and we 

have this invasion, Russian invasion of Georgia, never mentioning 

that the Government of Georgia had initiated the military action 

2 days before the Russian retaliation. And that the Georgians had 

broken a 14-year truce with Russia dealing with Ossetia and 

Abkhazia which wanted to be—again, people who wanted to be 

independent and have their self-determination. 

Now, we can create this fantasy world where that didn’t exist. 

The Ossetia and Abkhazia, that the Georgians didn’t attack and, 

in fact, Russia had invaded Georgia on its own. And we can ignore 

the fact that the people of Crimea want their self-determination, 

and that Russia is being an aggressor, but we need to sit down and 

talk to them, and talk to each other, and be honest about it, rather 

than trying to be pushed headlong into another Cold War. 

109

And that’s what I see happening here. And believe me, I was a 

Cold Warrior, but that’s when it was the Soviet Union, and that’s 

when communism guided their decision making to try to put an 

atheist dictatorship in charge of the world. That’s not what Russia 

is today. It’s a very powerful country with its interests, but it is 

not the Soviet Union. 

Let’s seek peace with these people and seek cooperation, and it 

will make it a better world. And you do that through talking to 

somebody at a moment of crisis, not cutting them off and saying 

screw you. Pardon me. 

Chairman ROYCE. I’m going to recognize myself for a moment, 

because I think we should clarify the operations of the Council. It’s 

essentially a meeting of foreign ministers. It has no practical operation. This is a symbolic action to push back. It is not the case that 

we do not have conversations with the Foreign Minister from Russia on almost a daily basis now, as do the rest of the European 

Union. But the point is that we need to symbolically send a message that in terms of being part of that organization, they are suspended for conduct as we continue the dialogue. And the dialogue 

is certainly going to continue on a daily basis with Russia. 

This sends a signal to go back to the Secretary General of NATO, 

General Rasmussen’s comment that ‘‘it’s not business as usual.’’ 

And I think we do have to send that signal. 

Do any other members seek recognition? 

Mr. GRAYSON. Will the chairman yield? I’ve already claimed 5 

minutes of time. 

Chairman ROYCE. Yes. 

Mr. GRAYSON. But I’m asking for the chairman’s time. 

Chairman ROYCE. Yes, I will yield to the gentleman from Florida. 

Mr. GRAYSON. I understand the chairman’s point, but I respectfully disagree. You can’t have it both ways. Either we’re talking to 

them or we’re not talking to them, and we’re not talking to them 

by shutting off our conversation with them. 

The fact is that the NATO-Russia Council, the very institution 

that we’re discussing here, is the means by which we have obtained 

logistical support for our war in Afghanistan from the Russians. 

That’s a fact. 

The fact is that this institution is the means by which we cooperate with the Russians to fight terrorism, Islamic and other terrorism around the world. That’s a fact. This is the means by which 

we try to accomplish nonproliferation in the Middle East and elsewhere with the cooperation of the Russians. That’s a fact. 

Now, we have spent years on this committee, years trying to 

make sure that we do what we can to prevent Iran from getting 

a nuclear weapon. Either we can work with the Russians the way 

we have done in the past, or we stop that. If we turn them away, 

if we push them away, if we won’t talk to them, if we disband institutions like the NATO-Russia Council, the inevitable result of that 

will be that we no longer cooperate with the Russians, that there 

is, in fact a de facto second Cold War. And the result of that is that 

we lose the benefit to us that we get from cooperating with the 

Russians to fight terrorism for nonproliferation and otherwise. 

It is simply impossible to give you one example to have any effective institution of economic sanctions against Iran without the coVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:54 Jul 02, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00113 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\_FULL\032514M\87333 SHIRL
110

operation of the Russians. If the Russians do not cooperate with 

our institution of economic sanctions against Iran, the whole regime collapses. And I’m not talking about the Iranian regime, I’m 

talking about the institution of our economic sanctions against 

Iran. 

Without those economic sanctions we have no hope of preventing 

Iran by non-military means of getting a nuclear weapon. So, we 

have a choice. You can’t always have it both ways. You can’t have 

your cake and eat it, too. 

Either we talk to the Russians when it’s in our own interest, our 

interest as a country, with our own strategic objectives talk to the 

Russians and get their cooperation, or we don’t. And this amendment puts us in the direction of not talking to them, not getting 

the cooperation and, therefore, hurting ourselves. 

Chairman ROYCE. Reclaiming my time. Well, the first point, of 

course, would be that we continue those conversations with the 

Russians. But the second point, the more important point that I 

wanted to make is that I believe the reason the Russians cooperate 

with us on nonproliferation is because they perceive that as being 

in their own self-interest. The reason they cooperate with us on gas 

in Syria is because that is in their strategic interest. And that’s 

what nations do. 

And at the end of the day, we have so many forums in order to 

continue that conversation that I am convinced the conversation 

will continue. But at the same time, to temporarily suspend in 

terms of the G–8, or in terms of this action with NATO, it is warranted that we send some type of signal. And this is, I think, helpful in that regard. 

Any other members seek recognition? 

Without objection, the Salmon amendment is considered as read. 

During my earlier UC request we reference here ‘‘temporarily suspend’’ and stopping after NATO-Russia Council into the language. 

The question occurs on the amendment. All those in favor of the 

amendment signify by saying aye. 

All those opposed, no. 

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

is agreed to. 

Are there any other amendments at the desk? 

Mr. KEATING. Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman ROYCE. Mr. Keating has an amendment. 

Mr. KEATING. Mr. Chairman, with Ukraine so clearly in the spotlight, we really don’t have to—we really should lose sight of the regional pressure from Russia, especially in——

Chairman ROYCE. Mr. Keating. 

Mr. KEATING. I’m sorry. 

Chairman ROYCE. The clerk will report Mr. Keating’s amendment. 

Ms. MARTER. Amendment to H.R. 4278 offered by Mr. Keating of 

Massachusetts. Page 4, after line 7, insert the following (and redesignate subsequent paragraphs accordingly): (10) to reaffirm the 

sovereignty, independence, and territorial integrity of other countries in the region, including Moldova and Georgia, and to condemn 

any Russian Federation political, economic, or military aggression 

against those countries in the region. 

111

[The information referred to follows:]

Chairman ROYCE. The gentleman is recognized. 

Mr. KEATING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

As I mentioned, Ukraine is clearly in the spotlight. We really 

can’t lose sight of the regional pressure from Russia, especially 

Moldova and Georgia. And that’s the reason Mr. Poe and I have 

put forward a resolution calling on allies to offer Georgia a membership action plan at the September NATO Summit. And it’s also 

the primary reason why this committee’s longstanding support for 

the European Union’s Eastern Partnership exists. 

Just as we condemn Russia’s illegal activities in Ukraine, we 

must also condemn Russia’s aggression, threats, and political and 

economic pressure on Georgia and Moldova. In Georgia, Russian 

troops are forcing communities apart by building illegal fences 

along the administrative boundary line. In Moldova, Russia has 

threatened to cut off trade and gas supplies if the government 

moves ahead with an Association Agreement with European Union, 

exactly the same thing they did in Ukraine. 

At the moment, Russian propaganda is fanning the flames of separate extensions in Transnistria. We must make clear to the Russians that their efforts to Balkanize Eastern Europe will not stand, 

and that any further acts of aggression in the region will also bring 

sanctions. 

This amendment does that. It also states clearly and unequivocally that the United States will continue to stand not just with 

Ukraine, but with Georgia and Moldova. And with that, I yield 

back, Mr. Chairman. 


87333q.eps
112

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I would like to ask the gentleman a question. 

Does—so this suggests that if the people of Abkhazia and Ossetia 

who were put under Georgian—in the same category of Georgia by 

Josef Stalin and he, of course, separated them from the other 

Abkhazia and Ossetia which remain part of Russia, that if those 

people determine, let’s say 90 percent of them voted to become—

they’d rather be part of Ossetia and Abkhazia, and not part of 

Georgia, that your amendment would be that we should not support their right of self-determination. And that Georgia should 

have the right to come in with armed force and keep them as part 

of Georgia. Is that right? 

Mr. KEATING. Will the gentleman yield for a response? 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Yes. 

Mr. KEATING. Clearly, as I stated in my remarks on the overall 

piece of legislation, that there’s legal means to do this internationally and through existing constitutions. What this provides a sense 

of is when those illegal acts occur, such as they did occur in Crimea, and that’s simply what this states. The distinction I’d make 

with your remarks is the difference between illegal actions and 

legal actions. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Right. So, do you believe the Georgian breaking of the truce with Russia and going—sending their troops into 

Abkhazia and Ossetia, which provoked—which at that time resulted in the retaliation, which we call an invasion of Georgia, that 

you would say that that was illegal or legal on part of Georgia 

sending their troops in and breaking the truce? 

Mr. KEATING. Will the gentleman yield back? 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Yes, sure. 

Mr. KEATING. Thank you. In fact, the occupation by Russia in 

Abkhazia and South——

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Ossetia and Abkhazia. 

Mr. KEATING. Yes. That occupation is, indeed, illegal. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Well, I was referring to what caused that situation to arise was that there was a truce between the—Abkhazia 

and Ossetia were trying to win their independence. They are 

friends of Russia, they want to be part of Russia. They don’t like 

the Georgians, they’re a different religion. They’re a different group 

of people. And in order to prevent violence from happening there 

was a cease fire in that area, and the Georgians broke that cease 

fire and sent their troops in 2 days before the ‘‘Russian invasion 

of Georgia.’’

Would you say then that the Georgians were violating law or 

they were in accordance to the law when they sent their troops in? 

Mr. KEATING. Will the gentleman yield back? 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Yes. 

Mr. KEATING. With all due respect, I think the statute of limitations on Josef Stalin has already passed. I think that this clearly 

deals with the actions that are happening right now, and that have 

happened in the recent weeks where Russia illegal aggression——

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I think it comes down—I’m reclaiming my 

time, and I’d just say that it does come down with an honest disagreement of whether or not people have a right of self-determination. And our Declaration of Independence makes it very clear that 

that’s one of the essential elements of what our country was supVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:54 Jul 02, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00116 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\_FULL\032514M\87333 SHIRL
113

posed to be about, is that people have a right through the consent 

of the government, and a right to rebel if their consent is not being 

adhered to, that we do believe in the right of self-determination. 

Right now what we’re hearing is that is not the case, not just 

from you, but from—as part of the general debate here. Mr. Grayson and I obviously plead that that should play a role in America’s 

decision making around the world when people feel that they are 

subjugated and if they want to, again, assert their right of independence, or to be part of another country. 

That’s, I think, part of the American experience. I’m sorry that 

that doesn’t seem to be a principle in which we are making our determinations now. And this is not—I don’t see this as just some 

matter of obviously Russian aggression, nor do I see that it was 

American aggression upon Serbia when we went and bombed Serbia in order to insure that the Kosovars had the right to independence from Serbia. So, then again, that’s a matter of consistency, but 

if you’d like to retort to that, please feel free. 

Mr. KEATING. Would the gentleman yield? 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Yes. 

Mr. KEATING. Thank the gentleman. I’ll try and stay within the 

38 seconds we have left and simply state that Russia has committed to withdraw its troops from Georgia, and they have not done 

that. And when it comes to the U.S., the U.S. also has a constitution. We’re a country where there is a Rule of Law. And my amendment as the overall legislation deals with the illegal actions of Russia in that region, specifically Ukraine, but also the impending actions, and the threatening actions with Moldova and Georgia. And 

that’s as clearly as I could state it. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Yes, thank you. 

Mr. KEATING. I am out of time. I’ll yield my second back. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you. 

Chairman ROYCE. Could I go to Mr. Sherman of California. 

Mr. SHERMAN. I rise in reluctant opposition to the amendment, 

because I think that this resolution, this bill should be narrowly 

tailored to meet the immediate needs of the Ukraine. The actions 

in Georgia are decades old, the actions in Moldova decades before 

that. And, in any case, Georgia is not the Ukraine; Moldova is not 

the Ukraine. 

And I have argued in this room that we should not put controversial energy policy into this resolution. And I think we have 

been successful in having only the minimal and the most least controversial statements about energy. 

There are those who would say that IMF reform should be in this 

bill, and I—you know, that’s an important cause, but it adds controversy. The IMF reform would have some applicability to the 

Ukraine, but it’s not immediate targeted, focused on today’s situation in the Ukraine. And as a news flash, a note was handed to 

me that Senator Reid has announced that he may remove the controversial IMF provisions from the Senate bill on the Ukraine. So, 

we ought to focus this on the Ukraine. We’ll have plenty of time 

in the weeks to come to focus on Moldova and Georgia. 

Mr. KEATING. Will the gentleman yield? 

Mr. SHERMAN. I will yield. 

Mr. KEATING. Thank the gentleman for yielding. 

114

If you look at this bill so far, we’re dealing with the internal politics of Russia, we’re dealing with Iran, we’re dealing with some energy issues. It’s not that narrow. In fact, the issues that deal directly with Moldova and Georgia that I referenced in this amendment is much more narrow, in my opinion, than the other issues 

that are already in this resolution. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Had the individual provisions been subject to a 

separate vote, an amendment process, I might have taken the same 

position. But we’re going to have a separate vote on whether to offend the principle of focusing on the Ukraine, and I would like to 

keep it as focused as possible, much as I commend the gentleman 

for offering the amendment. And he does make a good point. 

As to the issue of transfers of population, and whether the government to be established in the Ukraine or any part of it should 

reflect those who live there now, or those who lived there before 

Josef Stalin moved populations, I think that we have to institute 

governments to provide for governing those people who live in particular areas now. 

Obviously, the movements of population committed by Hitler and 

Stalin were wrong, and yet we moved an awful lot of Germans out 

of East Prussia, out of Silesia and created a new Poland on a substantial portion of German territory. 

The 1940s and prior to that populations were moved wrongfully, 

and whether it is today’s Poland, whether it is the United States 

built entirely on conquered on territory of the Native Americans, 

or whether it was the decision of Joshua to dispossess the Canaanites and lead to the creation of the State of Judea, those movements of population that occurred before or in the aftermath of 

World War II should not—we shouldn’t be trying to undo that. 

Those in my district I think recognize that California was built 

on territory taken from the Native Americans by the Spaniards and 

the Mexicans, and then taken by the United States. We’re not intending to leave. So, let’s—we can talk about how the population 

in parts of the Ukraine is the result of Stalin’s work, but those who 

live in any part of the Ukraine, including the Crimea, have a right 

to live there, and a right to vote there even if the presence of their 

ancestors there is a result of a crime of Josef Stalin. 

And, once again, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for 

his amendment, and my opposition is modest and reluctant. 

Chairman ROYCE. Mr. Grayson, the gentleman from Florida. 

Mr. GRAYSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am concerned that 

we are over-extending ourselves as a country by trying to guarantee the sovereignty, independence, and territorial integrity of 

Moldova and Georgia. I am in support of the sovereignty, independence, and territorial integrity of Moldova and Georgia, but I don’t 

even believe that we should be giving lip service to goals that we 

simply cannot control or attain ourselves. 

I heard some criticism earlier of red lines being crossed. Maybe 

we should be more selective in the lines that we do draw, whether 

they’re red or otherwise. 

In 2008, NATO promised that Georgia would one day be admitted into NATO. Moldova is already part of a sister organization of 

NATO. The fundamental purpose of NATO is to guarantee the sovereignty, independence, and territorial integrity of its members. If, 

115

in fact, NATO were to extend itself to Moldova and to Georgia 

given the fact that there are Russian troops occupying parts of both 

countries without the permission of the formal central government 

in both countries, again, for the purpose the Russians say, and I 

think this is to a large degree valid, of self-determination of those 

areas, as the Congressman from California has already pointed out. 

In fact, what we’d be doing is possibly blundering into war against 

Russia in much the same way that World War I occurred through 

a web of alliances on both sides causing one country after another, 

after another to say yes, fine, I’ll join in on that war. 

In this case there is a slope. It’s a slippery slope, and we start 

down that slope when we do things like reaffirming the sovereignty, independence, and territorial integrity of countries when 

we can’t guarantee the sovereignty, independence, and territorial 

integrity of those countries without going to war. 

And although I understand the impulse to say good things, to try 

to say things that give us all a warm and fuzzy feeling that we’re 

on the side of righteous and goodness, in this case it’s a real danger. So, I would say that the bill is better off without this amendment for the reasons that the gentleman from California and the 

other gentleman from California on the other side of the aisle have 

both expressed. I yield back. 

Chairman ROYCE. We have two other measures to consider and 

votes at about 1:30, so we need to keep moving. I’m going to ask 

the question on the amendment. 

All those in favor say aye. 

All those opposed say no. 

And the amendment is not agreed to. 

Mr. Duncan has an amendment. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment. 

Chairman ROYCE. The clerk will read the amendment. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Yes. I have an amendment in the nature of a substitute to Amendment 46. 

Ms. MARTER. Amendment offered by Mr. Duncan of South Carolina to H.R. 4278. In Section 2(8)—Following ‘‘increased natural 

gas exports and energy efficiency,’’ insert ‘‘in Ukraine, which could 

be enhanced by advances in new energy technologies.’’

[The information referred to follows:]


87333r.eps
116

Chairman ROYCE. The gentleman is recognized to explain his 

amendment. 

Mr. DUNCAN. I want to thank the minority for their work on this 

in conjunction with us. I believe the language is palatable to both 

sides, and with that I will just yield back and call the question. 

Chairman ROYCE. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and the 

language here is, following ‘‘increased natural gas exports and energy efficiency,’’ insert ‘‘in Ukraine, which could be enhanced by advances in new energy technologies.’’

And with that explanation, any other member seek time? Hearing no further request for recognition, the question occurs on the 

amendment. 

All those in favor say aye. 

All those opposed, no. 

In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it. 

Mr. Meeks of New York. 

Mr. MEEKS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment at 

the desk. 

Chairman ROYCE. The clerk will read the amendment. 

Ms. MARTER. Amendment to H.R. 4278 offered by Mr. Meeks of 

New York. Page 18, after line 2, insert the following: Section blank. 

United States leadership in the International Monetary Fund. 

Chairman ROYCE. The Chair reserves a point of order that we 

consider the amendment as read. 

[The information referred to follows:]

117


87333s-1.eps
118


87333s-2.eps
119


87333s-3.eps
120


87333s-4.eps
121

Mr. MEEKS. Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman ROYCE. I reserve a point of order and recognize the author to explain the amendment. 

Mr. MEEKS. Yes, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman ROYCE. Mr. Meeks. 

Mr. MEEKS. This is an amendment I fully intend on withdrawing. 

Let me state on the onset given the mood and everything else that 

you and Mr. Engel have worked on, I know that we don’t have jurisdiction, so it’s an amendment that I will withdraw. 

Chairman ROYCE. I thank the gentleman. 

Mr. MEEKS. What the amendment that I proposed, I guess partly 

being frustrated being on the Financial Services Committee, I wish 

would have jurisdiction, that we would have an opportunity to debate this and talk about this issue in the Financial Services Committee, of which I once was the chair of the International Monetary 

Policy and Trade Subcommittee that dealt with and had jurisdiction over the IMF. 

I believe that Congress as a whole needs to seriously consider 

passing the reforms to the IMF as an essential component of a 

comprehensive assistance package to the Ukraine. These reforms 

would not cost the United States taxpayers anything additional, 

they strengthen the IMF’s funding base and ability to lead during 

a financial crisis. And the reforms move funds from one account to 

another, but they do not change our overall financial commitment 

and position to the IMF. If we were serious in our intention to support the people of Ukraine, now is a critical time to strengthen the 

power of the IMF, in my belief. 


87333s-5.eps
122

Christine Legarde, the Managing Director of the IMF, noted in 

a Wall Street Journal article yesterday that U.S. policy makers 

from Henry Kissinger to Condoleezza Rice believe that the current 

IMF reforms are necessary for the United States’ strategic interest 

in the world, and the United States would be steadfast, or should 

be steadfast in our support for democracy and economic growth, for 

helping the people of Ukraine. Reforming IMF quotas is a big step 

toward that gap. 

The IMF, I believe, is absolutely vital to our national security because a strong U.S. economy and a strong U.S. global economic 

leadership is critical to our strength around the world and to our 

national security. The IMF is also central, too, to provide economic 

policy to support to U.S. allies and governments whose failure 

would jeopardize the United States’ national security interest, and 

preventing financial crises makes for more capable partners in the 

fight against terrorism and the protection of human rights overall. 

And, again, just the—what we would not be giving up. We would 

not be giving up our veto power over the IMF decisions which provides us with a great deal of influence. Implementation of the 2010 

IMF reforms preserves the U.S. veto power and our leadership position without increasing our overall financial commitment of the 

IMF. And failure to pass IMF reform legislation more than 3 years 

after we helped design the reforms is undermining our international credibility. 

So with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time. 

Chairman ROYCE. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I do appreciate you withdrawing the amendment because, as you noted, Rule 

10 of the House would grant jurisdiction on this to the Financial 

Services Committee over this issue. So, by withdrawing we expedite the process of passing out the bill. 

Without objection the gentleman’s amendment is withdrawn. 

Hearing no further amendments to this measure the question occurs on agreeing to H.R. 4278, as amended. 

All those in favor say aye. 

All those opposed, no. 

In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it and the bill, as 

amended, is agreed to. And without objection 4278, as amended, is 

ordered favorably reported as a single amendment in the nature of 

a substitute. Staff is directed to make any technical and conforming changes. 

We now move to consideration of our two bipartisan Asia resolutions for today. As your offices were previously notified, the ranking member and I propose to consider en bloc both resolutions and 

their respective substitute amendments which were sent to your offices last night. 

So, without objection the following items will be considered en 

bloc, H.R. 418 urging the Government of Burma to end the persecution of the Muslim Rohingya people. And then Amendment 97 in 

the nature of a substitute to H.R. 418 offered by the Chairman on 

behalf of myself, Mr. Engel, Mr. Chabot, and Ms. Gabbard. 

H.R. 494 affirming the importance of the Taiwan Relations Act. 

And Amendment 94 in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 494 offered by the Chairman. This is on behalf of myself and Mr. Engel. 

[The information referred to follows:]

123


87333c-1.eps
124


87333c-2.eps
125


87333c-3.eps
126


87333c-4.eps
127


87333t-1.eps
128


87333t-2.eps
129


87333t-3.eps
130


87333t-4.eps
131


87333t-5.eps
132


87333b-1.eps
133


87333b-2.eps
134


87333b-3.eps
135


87333u-1.eps
136


87333u-2.eps
137


87333u-3.eps
138

Chairman ROYCE. I now recognize myself to speak on the en bloc 

amendments. 

H.R. 494 affirms the importance of the Taiwan Relations Act. For 

35 years, the Taiwan Relations Act has served as the legal framework governing the important relationship between the United 

States of America and the Republic of China-Taiwan. Since the Act 

came into force in 1979, there have been few other pieces of foreign 

policy legislation as consequential as the TRA. Indeed, it is the 

steadfast support of the United States Congress that has helped 

Taiwan become what it is today, a thriving democratic society, and 

a world leader in high tech innovation. 

Today we will consider H.R. 494, affirming the importance of the 

Taiwan Relations Act. This bipartisan legislation which currently 

has over 60 co-sponsors reinforces our nation’s unwavering support 

for Taiwan, and for Taiwan’s 23 million people. As chairman I led 

two bipartisan delegations to Taiwan to strengthen our bilateral relationship. Last year I introduced legislation that was signed into 

law to help Taiwan gain a seat at the International Civil Aviation 

Organization for the first time since 1976. Two weeks ago we held 

the first Taiwan hearing in this committee on this issue of the Taiwan Relations Act, and today we will pass this important legislation to reaffirm our support for Taiwan. 

The amendment in the nature of a substitute makes technical 

and clarifying edits to the underlying legislation. The amendment 

also includes bipartisan language offered by Mr. Connolly of Virginia to strengthen the underlying resolution. I want to thank the 

gentleman from Virginia for his suggestion, and I will recognize 

him in a moment to explain the language. 

Taiwan maintains significant bipartisan support in the U.S. Congress. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution. 

Let me speak for a moment about H.R. 418 before we go to Mr. 

Connolly and Mr. Engel. This resolution urges the Government of 

Burma to end the persecution of the 

Rohingya people and respect the human rights of all ethnic and 

religious minority groups within Burma. 

The Rohingya Muslim community of Burma are one of the most 

persecuted minority groups in the world. For over three decades 

the Government of Burma has systematically denied the Rohingya 

even the most basic of human rights while subjecting them to unspeakable abuses. According to Burma’s 1982 Citizenship Law, the 

Rohingya are prohibited from holding Burmese citizenship even 

though they have lived in Burma for generations upon generations. 

Since 2012, 140,000 Rohingya and other Muslims have been displaced by violence, hundreds have been killed. On January, 13 unknown assailants entered a village in Rakhine State and killed 48 

people while they slept. Sadly, this is what happens when a government refuses to recognize its own people. In fact, a non-governmental organization based in Southeast Asia recently disclosed 

credible documents detailing the full extent of state involvement in 

persecuting Rohingyas. Just a few weeks ago the Government of 

Burma expelled Doctors Without Borders from the country, thus 

denying once again the most basic of human rights. 

The Government of Burma cannot claim progress toward meeting 

its reform goals if it does not improve the treatment of Rohingya 

139

Muslims and other minority groups. The United States must 

prioritize the protection of human rights in its engagement with 

Burma. I urge the State Department to take off the rose-colored 

glasses and recognize that progress in Burma is, indeed, very limited in this regard. 

The bipartisan resolution offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. McGovern, calls on the Government of Burma to immediately end the State-sponsored persecution of the Rohingya 

Muslim people. I am a co-sponsor of this resolution. We cannot embrace diplomatic reconciliation with the Government of Burma 

while human rights conditions in that country have deteriorated. 

I am pleased to offer a bipartisan amendment in the nature of 

a substitute along with my good friend, Ranking Member Engel, 

Chairman Steve Chabot of the Asia Subcommittee, and Representative Gabbard of Hawaii who is also a sponsor and a member of 

the Asia Subcommittee. 

This amendment strengthens the underlying resolution by clarifying the legal status of the Rohingya Muslim people under the 

1982 Citizenship Law. It brings the resolution up to date by including information regarding the murder of 48 Rohingya earlier this 

year, and the expulsion of Doctors Without Borders. The amendment is further amended with language calling on the Government 

of Burma to immediately recognize the Rohingya as an ethnic minority, and to grant them citizenship. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution. I will now turn to the ranking member to 

speak on the en bloc measures, and then we will turn to the gentleman from Virginia. 

Mr. ENGEL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I strongly support both measures, the H. Res. 418, a resolution 

introduced, as you mentioned, by Mr. McGovern, the co-chairman 

of the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission. 

The legislation calls on the Government of Burma to end the persecution of the Rohingya people and to respect the rights of all minority groups in Burma. 

The plight of the Rohingya gets very little attention, and I’m 

pleased that the committee is addressing the abuses they and other 

minorities have suffered in Burma. And let me quote something. 

According to the State Department’s 2013 County Reports on 

Human Rights Practices there were, and I quote, ‘‘credible reports 

of extra judicial killings, rape and sexual violence, arbitrary detentions, and torture and mistreatment in detention, deaths in custody, and systematic denial of due process and fair trial rights 

overwhelmingly perpetrated against the Rohingya.’’ This is a quote 

from the State Department’s 2013 Country Reports on Human 

Rights Practices. 

As the Government of Burma transitions from decades-long military rule to a civilian government, it’s important to hold them accountable for persistent human rights abuses. The killings, arbitrary detentions, and destruction of homes have caused 140,000 

people to be internally displaced, and hundreds of thousands have 

been forced to flee to neighboring countries, including Thailand, 

Bangladesh, and Malaysia. 

If Burma truly seeks to rejoin the international community then 

it must abide by the human rights principles of equality and 

140

human dignity. I support this resolution and encourage our colleagues to support it, as well. 

And, Mr. Chairman, I commend you for introducing H. Res. 494, 

a resolution that affirms the importance and relevance of the Taiwan Relations Act. And I’m very pleased to be the lead Democratic 

co-sponsor of that Act. 

Next month marks the 35th anniversary of the adoption of the 

Taiwan Relations Act, which is the cornerstone of the U.S.-Taiwan 

relationship. The Act has been instrumental in maintaining peace 

and security across the Taiwan Straits, and in East Asia, and 

serves as the official basis for friendship and cooperation between 

the United States and Taiwan. 

I’ve been to Taiwan many times. Taiwan is a flourishing, multiparty democracy of over 20 million people with a vibrant free market economy. Its impressive evolution from authoritarianism to one 

of the strongest democratic systems in Asia has transformed the 

U.S.-Taiwan relationship from one based solely on shared interests 

to one based also on shared values. For many years, I’ve been a 

strong supporter of the people of Taiwan, and I will continue to 

lead efforts in Congress to demonstrate America’s support for Taiwan. So, I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this markup and 

I want to thank you again for working with us in a bipartisan way 

to move these important resolutions forward. I yield back. 

Chairman ROYCE. Thank you, Mr. Engel. We recognize Ms. RosLehtinen for such time as she might consume. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. As one 

of the strongest supporters of Taiwan, I also support and have cosponsored the resolution before us, H. Res. 494, affirming the importance of the Taiwan Relations Act. 

With the significant increase in China’s defense budget, as well 

as the continued threats posed by an unhindered North Korean regime, there is no better time to strengthen relations with our 

democratic ally, Taiwan. It is in our national security interest to 

support Taiwan, and I think the best way to illustrate that is to 

also bring H.R. 419, the Taiwan Policy Act, which passed this committee last year to the House floor immediately. And we must 

stand up for all people who are being suppressed by authoritarian 

regimes. 

H. Res. 418 calls for an end to the persecution of Muslim minorities and respect internationally recognized human rights for all 

ethnic and religious minority groups. The Muslim minority continues to suffer under the current regime. The continued prosecution and discrimination, as well as the brutal attacks against this 

minority must stop. And I hope that this resolution will help protect the fundamental rights of all ethnic and religious minorities. 

Thank you so much for the time, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman ROYCE. Thank you, Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. We go now to 

Mr. Bera of California. 

Mr. BERA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I want to speak in strong support of H. Res. 494, the Taiwan Relations Act. It’s incredibly important that we continue to emphasize 

and strengthen our relationship with our close friend and key trading partner, Taiwan. 

141

In 2013, Taiwan was the United States’ 12th largest trading 

partner. In my home state of California, according to the California 

Chamber of Commerce, we exported over 6.3 billion in products to 

Taiwan in 2012, incredibly important. California has the highest 

amount of exports to Taiwan within the U.S., and Taiwan is the 

seventh largest importer of California goods and services. They’re 

an incredibly important and valued partner with us. 

Taiwan also has a deep cultural connection to the United States. 

We have a vibrant and flourishing Taiwanese American community 

with almost half of them living in my home state of California. In 

fact, the majority of Taiwanese Americans also have college degrees 

and are making incredibly important contributions to our country. 

Therefore, I strongly support America’s commitment to insure that 

nothing jeopardizes the security, or social, or economic system of 

Taiwan’s people. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Chairman ROYCE. Thank you. I think Mr. Grayson is seeking 

recognition. 

Mr. GRAYSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I’d like to in support of the Taiwan resolution. Bismark said that 

politics is the art of the possible, and I think that foreign affairs 

should be the same way. It is not possible for us to reverse the 

Russian absorption of Korea, sorry, Crimea, the Crimea, nor should 

we try to defeat the aspirations of the Crimeans for self-determination. 

On the other hand, and by the same token, we should support 

and we should continue to support the desire of the Taiwanese to 

be a free and separate state, not being part of—absorbed by the 

larger country, it’s neighbor, China. 

There are 20 million-plus Taiwanese who have a separate culture, in many cases separate language, and certainly a separate 

history having been occupied by the Japanese for half a century. 

The Taiwanese are fundamentally different and recognize themselves as fundamentally different from their larger, in fact, 100 

times large neighbor. And, therefore, we can and should support 

their desire for self-determination. We’ve done so going back to the 

1940s, and I think that we should continue to do so. 

It is possible for Taiwan to be free and independent. It is possible 

for us to make that happen, and I think that we should continue 

to do so. 

I yield the balance of my time. 

Chairman ROYCE. We go now to Mr. Sherman of California. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Thank you. I’d like to associate myself with Mr. 

Bera’s comments complete with statistics about the greatest state 

in the nation, and its relationship with Taiwan. I want to support 

the bill on Taiwan. 

I’ve had a chance to travel to Taiwan with the chair and some 

other members of this committee where we met with President Ma, 

the leaders of the DPP. This is a vibrant democracy that deserves 

our support. 

I’m not sure I agree with the gentleman from Florida as to how 

separate the culture or language is of Taiwan as compared to 

China, but what it is clearly different is on the mainland people 

live in an authoritarian regime, and in Taiwan they have a vibrant 

142

democracy that deserves to be respected and helped. And I yield 

back. 

Chairman ROYCE. Are there any other members seeking recognition? Hearing none, the question occurs on agreeing to the measures considered en bloc. 

All those in favor say aye. 

All those opposed, no. 

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

items are agreed to. And without objection, H.R. 418, as amended, 

and H.R. 494, as amended are each ordered favorably reported as 

a single amendment in the nature of a substitute. The staff is directed to make any technical and conforming changes. 

And that concludes our business for today. I want to thank Ranking Member Engel and all of the committee members for their contribution and assistance with today’s markup, and this committee 

stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 1:36 p.m., the committee was adjourned.] 

(143)

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

144

f


87333n.eps
145


87333m-1.eps
146

f


87333m-2.eps
147

f


87333v.eps
148


87333w-1.eps
149

Æ


87333w-2.eps