[House Hearing, 113 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
SUPPORTING THE DEMOCRATIC AND EUROPEAN ASPIRATIONS OF THE PEOPLE OF
UKRAINE, AND THEIR RIGHT TO CHOOSE THEIR OWN FUTURE FREE OF
INTIMIDATION AND FEAR; AND THE UNITED STATES-ISRAEL STRATEGIC
PARTNERSHIP ACT OF 2013
=======================================================================
MARKUP
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
ON
H. Res. 447 and H.R. 938
__________
JANUARY 29, 2014
__________
Serial No. 113-105
__________
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/
----------
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
86-467 PDF WASHINGTON : 2013
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
EDWARD R. ROYCE, California, Chairman
CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American
DANA ROHRABACHER, California Samoa
STEVE CHABOT, Ohio BRAD SHERMAN, California
JOE WILSON, South Carolina GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York
MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey
TED POE, Texas GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia
MATT SALMON, Arizona THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida
TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania BRIAN HIGGINS, New York
JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina KAREN BASS, California
ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois WILLIAM KEATING, Massachusetts
MO BROOKS, Alabama DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island
TOM COTTON, Arkansas ALAN GRAYSON, Florida
PAUL COOK, California JUAN VARGAS, California
GEORGE HOLDING, North Carolina BRADLEY S. SCHNEIDER, Illinois
RANDY K. WEBER SR., Texas JOSEPH P. KENNEDY III,
SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania Massachusetts
STEVE STOCKMAN, Texas AMI BERA, California
RON DeSANTIS, Florida ALAN S. LOWENTHAL, California
TREY RADEL, Florida--resigned 1/27/ GRACE MENG, New York
14 deg. LOIS FRANKEL, Florida
DOUG COLLINS, Georgia TULSI GABBARD, Hawaii
MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas
TED S. YOHO, Florida
LUKE MESSER, Indiana
Amy Porter, Chief of Staff Thomas Sheehy, Staff Director
Jason Steinbaum, Democratic Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
MARKUP OF
H. Res. 447, Supporting the democratic and European aspirations
of the people of Ukraine, and their right to choose their own
future free of intimidation and fear........................... 2
An amendment in the nature of a substitute to H. Res. 447
offered by the Honorable Eliot L. Engel, a Representative in
Congress from the State of New York.......................... 7
An amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to
H. Res. 447 offered by the Honorable Eliot L. Engel.......... 18
H.R. 938, United States-Israel Strategic Partnership Act of 2013. 26
An amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 938 offered
by the Honorable Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, a Representative in
Congress from the State of Floria, and the Honorable Theodore
E. Deutch, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Florida...................................................... 35
An amendment to H.R. 938 offered by the Honorable Christopher
H. Smith, a Representative in Congress from the State of New
Jersey....................................................... 49
APPENDIX
Markup notice.................................................... 54
Markup minutes................................................... 55
Markup summary................................................... 57
The Honorable Albio Sires, a Representative in Congress from the
State of New Jersey: Prepared statement........................ 58
The Honorable Tom Cotton, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Arkansas: Prepared statement.......................... 59
The Honorable Lois Frankel, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Florida: Prepared statement........................... 60
The Honorable Doug Collins, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Georgia: Prepared statement........................... 61
SUPPORTING THE DEMOCRATIC AND EUROPEAN ASPIRATIONS OF THE PEOPLE OF
UKRAINE, AND THEIR RIGHT TO CHOOSE THEIR OWN FUTURE FREE OF
INTIMIDATION AND FEAR; AND THE UNITED STATES-ISRAEL STRATEGIC
PARTNERSHIP ACT OF 2013
----------
WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 29, 2014
House of Representatives,
Committee on Foreign Affairs,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:41 a.m., in
room 2172, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Ed Royce
(chairman of the committee) presiding.
Chairman Royce. This meeting will come to order. We will
ask all members to take their seats.
And pursuant to notice, we meet today to mark up two
strongly bipartisan measures. Without objection, all members
may have 5 days to submit statements for the record and also to
submit any extraneous materials on any of today's business. And
I am going to remind members that we will soon face votes on
the floor.
We now call up House Resolution 447, the ranking member's
Ukraine resolution. The clerk will report the title of the
bill.
Ms. Marter. H. Res. 447, Supporting the democratic and
European aspirations of the people of Ukraine, and their right
to choose their own future free of intimidation and fear.
``Whereas a democratic, prosperous, and independent Ukraine
is in the national interest of the United States;
``Whereas closer relations with the European Union through
the signing of an Association Agreement will promote democratic
values''----
Chairman Royce. Without objection, the measure is
considered read.
The Engel amendment in the nature of a substitute that was
provided to your offices Monday morning is considered base text
for the purposes of the markup.
[The information referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Royce. It is open for amendment at any point, and
after my brief remarks, I am going to recognize the ranking
member and then any other member seeking recognition to speak
on this resolution.
Ukraine is a country of quite strategic significance for us
in the United States. Its stability, its continued economic
development are very important to our national interests. The
Ukrainian people's determination to ensure basic human rights
and freedom for themselves and their country has been
inspiring. It is a country with a long tortured history.
The determination that we have seen there is being
demonstrated by the hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian citizens
who have peacefully taken to the streets in defense of their
rights. This protest movement began with the decision by
President Yanukovych not to deepen economic engagement with the
European Union, but it has since become a struggle between
those who want a democratic future based on the rule of law for
Ukraine and those who are prepared to use violence to turn back
the clock. And in this particular resolution, we call upon all
factions to ratchet down the use of any violence.
Events are changing by the hour, at times threatening a
dissent into chaos and at others offering the possibility of a
peaceful resolution to the crisis. This resolution comes at a
decisive moment in that contest.
I commend the ranking member for his efforts to ensure that
the Congress clearly state our support for a peaceful outcome
to this crisis. He is an individual who has had a great deal of
focus since the fall of the Berlin Wall, frankly, on the
Ukraine, and knows from personal experience the costs of the
tortured history of the Ukraine. His own grandmother
disappeared there during those turbulent times, and many, many
Americans now turn their focus on what they can do in order to
try to bring some order out of this chaos so that the hopes and
aspirations of the people of the Ukraine for democracy can
truly be realized.
Mr. Engel.
Mr. Engel. Mr. Chairman, thank you so much for holding this
markup today and, as I always like to point out, for working
with us in a bipartisan manner on both of the measures under
consideration.
I strongly support H. Res. 447, a bipartisan resolution I
authored that supports the democratic and European aspirations
of the people of Ukraine and their right to choose their own
future.
As a longstanding advocate of a democratic, prosperous, and
independent Ukraine, I was very disappointed by the Ukrainian
Government's decision last November to reject an offer from the
European Union for closer economic and political ties. This
decision derailed years of hard work as well as the prospects
for long-term economic growth and stronger democratic
institutions that would result from enhanced relations with the
European Union. More immediately, it sparked massive
demonstrations in Kyiv and throughout the country. Hundreds of
thousands of Ukrainians have come out in the streets to show
their support not only for closer relations with Europe but
also more fundamentally for democracy, more accountable
government, human rights and basic human dignity.
The fact that the protests have been overwhelmingly
peaceful makes them all the more impressive. Unfortunately,
there have been exceptions, including police violence on
several occasions in November and December, the beatings and
abductions of journalists and civil society activists, and the
most recent and tragic violence following the January 16th
passage of antidemocratic laws by Ukraine's Parliament. I
strongly condemn all acts of violence. It is imperative that
all sides exercise restraint and avoid confrontation.
My sympathies are certainly with the demonstrators, but I
think we have to monitor the situation carefully because
allegations of anti-Semitic acts and plays coming from some of
the demonstrators is very disturbing, and of course, we will
not stand for that. Individuals must behave responsibly, and
the authorities in particular must respect and uphold the
democratic rights of all citizens. And those who authorize or
engage in violence should be held personally accountable for
their actions, including by targeted sanctions, if appropriate.
That is why I welcome the recent actions by the Department of
State to revoke the visas of several individuals linked to the
violence. Following the dramatic increase in tensions this
month, the most recent developments in Ukraine give some cause
for hope. I welcome the repeal of most of the antidemocratic
measures and the fact that meaningful talks appear to have
begun between the government and opposition leaders, but the
situation in Ukraine remains very volatile and more needs to be
done.
I have a particular interest in Ukraine since my four
grandparents were born there. They left for America 100 years
ago and more, and again, I think that a number of us are very
concerned with some of the anti-Semitic rants we have heard
from some of the demonstrators who otherwise seem to be well-
intentioned.
I commend the efforts of the administration and our
European partners to de-escalate tensions and believe that we
must remain engaged, and once again, at this critical moment of
Ukraine's history I urge all parties to continue the
substantive and sustained dialogue that is essential to resolve
the crisis and address the desire of millions of Ukrainian
citizens for a democratic European future.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Royce. We thank the ranking member not only for
his long engagement and leadership on this issue, but also this
legislation.
Do any other members seek recognition? Mr. Smith?
Mr. Smith. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much, and I wanted
to thank you for again bringing up in a very bipartisan way
resolutions that reflect very deeply held convictions on the
part of Members of both sides of the aisle.
I want to thank Mr. Engel, the ranking member, for
sponsoring this. I think it really raises an issue at an
extremely important time. I was in the Ukraine last year. I was
in Kyiv. There are areas where we have had cooperation with the
Yanukovych government, especially with his Foreign Minister,
who was the chair at office for the OSCE (the Organization for
Security Cooperation in Europe). I was actually there on an
anti-human-trafficking effort, and it was like I said,
tremendous cooperation, but on the whole list of human rights
concerns, the Yanukovych government has fallen far short, and
the people who are demonstrating, as you pointed out so
correctly, Mr. Chairman, on the Maidan, this isn't just about
European integration or taking steps in that direction. It is
far larger. Basic fundamental human rights need to be
respected, freedom of the press. We still have a number of
outstanding political prisoners that need to be released, so I
think, again, this raises the issue at a very timely time that
we stand in solidarity with the people who are on the streets,
and I want to especially note and underscore with emphasis how
strong the church is and the churches and the other parts of
the faith community in saying no violence. They have literally,
many of the bishops, the metropolitans and others, stood right
in the crosshairs of what could have been a very violent
situation to admonish the leadership and the guys with the guns
not to shoot. So that shows tremendous courage. Wonderful
resolution.
Chairman Royce. Thank you, Mr. Smith.
Mr. Cicilline.
Mr. Cicilline. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you
and Ranking Member Engel for your leadership and for the
bipartisan manner in which we are marking up these bills today.
In particular, I would like to thank the committee for this
vote on House Resolution 447, Supporting the democratic and
European aspirations of the people of Ukraine and the right to
choose their own future free of intimidation and fear.
The resolution stresses the importance of the adoption of
democratic social norms in Ukraine and in the region and
supports the democratic aspirations of the people of the
Ukraine. Over the past several years, we have seen some
impressive improvements in human rights. However, the situation
for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender individuals
continues to be a cause for concern. The rampant and
unacceptable state-sponsored homophobia we are witnessing in
neighboring Russia is slowly invading Ukraine as well. Russian
President Putin's allies in Kyiv have sought to introduce
similar legislation in the Ukrainian Rada to ban so-called
homosexual propaganda, which does nothing more than limit the
fundamental freedoms of association, speech, and assembly for
all Ukrainians, regardless of sexual orientation or gender
identity.
Ukrainian authorities have a clear choice to make. They can
move closer to the European Union, toward openness, prosperity,
and the rule of law or they can return to the old days when the
only rule that mattered was the rule from Moscow. I commend the
committee for bringing this important resolution forward. The
citizens of Ukraine, including her LGBT citizens, deserve much,
much better, and they should know we stand with them. I again
thank you, Chairman and Ranking Member, for moving this
important piece of legislation forward. I look forward to its
passage.
I yield back.
Chairman Royce. Mr. Rohrabacher.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Well, I hate to be the only one opposing
this, but I think that honesty requires us sometimes to step
forward and say that certain things aren't true that everybody
seems to accept.
We are talking about the rule of law. Who won the last
election in Ukraine? The people who won the last election in
Ukraine are the ones who should be making policy in Ukraine.
Our resolution here suggests that the people are very upset
because their President abruptly suspended negotiations when
talking about joining the EU or going in that direction.
How do we know what demands were made on that President?
Are we backing up some big European banking system that made
some demand on the Ukraine? Is that what we are doing? We don't
even know why they abruptly ended that negotiation, and all we
know is that that government was elected by the people of the
Ukraine, and now we are siding with people who want to
superimpose their positions on Ukraine.
If they don't like the policies of this government, they
should elect another government the next time they get a chance
and reverse the policy, and instead they have been in the
streets trying to use brute force, and who says that the
government was the first one to use violence in this? We don't
know that. I have been watching this situation as closely as
anybody. And for all we know, the demonstrators, there were
people in the demonstrations, and Eliot has already mentioned
that there are some rogue elements in this whole confrontation.
On the side of the demonstrators, there are pretty unsavory
people, just as we know in the government they have got a bunch
of unsavory people there as well.
The question is, should the United States Government be
telling them that joining the EU is what is good for them, no
matter what demands the EU is making on Ukraine? Let's quit
trying to tell these people what to do. You want the rule of
law? Let's talk about the rule of law. I mean, how can we pass
a thing on the rule of law when the rule of law has that
elected government making the decision, and we are trying to
tell them not to let the elected government make the decision;
let demonstrators in the street do it instead.
Now, if we were calling on the Government of Ukraine to
have a referendum on the EU, I would be supporting that
resolution. That, indeed, would be a democratic solution to
that, and whoever is opposing it, I would think they are making
the wrong decision in Ukraine, but let's be for the rule of
law. Let's not try to superimpose our vision, yeah, Ukraine
should be more aligned with the EU than with some Russian
economic federation. Let's--we can't superimpose our values
like that, our decisions on them. If we do, we are
contradicting our own basic concept of the rule of law and the
democratic process.
We need to do a lot of thinking about this resolution, and
I am sorry to have to put this in everybody's face because I
can see everybody wants to do this, this is the popular thing,
this is what makes you look, look, I am so concerned about
freedom when, in fact, the substance of what we are doing is
against the rule of law and against permitting the people of
Ukraine to make their decisions through the democratic process.
And we should condemn violence on both sides, which I imagine
this does. I will be opposing this resolution.
Chairman Royce. If I could respond as chairman because the
gentleman from California has raised some points that, indeed,
you have a duly elected government in the Ukraine, but at the
same time, one of the questions before us is if a government
does not go through regular order but, instead, suspends the
rights or the liberties of people through a process whereby
that government takes the executive branch and utilizes the
executive branch for what should have gone through the
Parliament in order to strip citizens, from their perspective,
of their basic rights--in other words, if you have
antidemocratic measures that are put in place by executive fiat
or by promulgation only from the Presidency and they are not
ratified by the Parliament, you can see why this becomes a more
confusing issue, and that is why I think at the end of the day,
the fact that the resolution calls for restraint on all
factions, basically the thrust of the resolution is to try to
get back toward leverage for a resolution based upon
nonviolence, based upon consultation, based upon not going out
into the streets, either the military or the protesters in
order to get back to some semblance of an environment in which
perhaps the Parliament can again begin to make the decisions
and do it in a democratically inclined way is to set a
framework here, and this is what Mr. Engel, I believe, is
trying to do, a framework whereby we can have reason prevail.
So from that standpoint and especially since the powers of the
Parliament have been usurped arguably by the executive branch
with these antidemocratic measures, I think it is appropriate
for the House to urge a potential solution here.
Any other members seek recognition?
Mr. Keating. Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Royce. Mr. Keating.
Mr. Keating. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank you and Ranking Member
Engel for working together with myself and other people on this
bipartisan resolution. Further, I would like to thank the
members of the European Subcommittee that have signed on, which
include each minority member of that subcommittee. As ranking
member of the Subcommittee on Europe, Eurasia, and Emerging
Threats, I believe that it is indeed essential for the United
States to show our strong support for the democratic
aspirations of the Ukrainian people. Many of us have been
deeply troubled by the developments in Ukraine in the wake of
President Yanukovych's decision not to sign an association
agreement with the European Union and the resulting activities
that followed.
We have been troubled, but we have also been inspired by
the thousands of nonviolent protesters and journalists who have
taken to the streets, despite subzero temperatures and bitter
wind chill to peacefully demonstrate and demand in a more
democratic way for an open society.
We have been disappointed in the Ukrainian Government's
repeated refusal to engage in substantive dialogue with these
protesters, and we have been deeply dismayed at reports of
violence, especially the deaths, beatings, and disappearances,
illegal arrests, and hospitalization of peaceful protesters,
social activists, and journalists. I applaud the
administration's decision to revoke the U.S. visas of the
Ukrainian Government officials who were responsible for
ordering or committing acts of violence against peaceful
protesters. I believe additional sanctions should be
considered, especially in the event of further violence.
On Tuesday, Ukraine's Parliament voted to repeal five of
the repressive measures enacted on January 16th, and this is an
important first step. Another hopeful sign was the resignation
of the Prime Minister and his cabinet. This creates an opening
for serious dialogue between the government and the opposition.
Quite appropriately, this resolution urges all parties to
refrain from violence, all parties, and to engage in
constructive, sustained dialogue in order to find a peaceful
solution to the current crisis. To facilitate that process,
this resolution underscores to protesters, to the government,
and to all Ukrainians that the United States will continue to
defend Ukraine's sovereign right to chart its own course and
build its own future. It also makes clear not just to the
protesters, but to President Yanukovych as well, that the
United States will continue to support the Ukrainian people's
aspirations to build a strong and prosperous democracy, one
that is firmly rooted in Europe.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back.
Chairman Royce. Given our time constraints, I am going to
go ahead and ask unanimous consent that the brief Engel
amendment No. 84 sent around to all offices yesterday updating
the text to reflect events in the last couple of days be
considered en bloc with the base text.
Without objection, so ordered.
[The amendment follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Smith. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman Royce. Yes?
Mr. Smith. Might I ask a question of the bill sponsor?
Chairman Royce. Absolutely.
Mr. Smith. Thank you.
And I would ask Mr. Engel, you know, we don't define any
country or government as to how we look at their work on
democracy or human rights as to who they associate with, in
this case the European Union. In reading your ``be it resolved
clauses'' and that the House should do this, the House should
do that, I don't see anything in this that says they should
join the European Union; is that correct?
Mr. Engel. I believe that is correct.
Mr. Smith. So you would leave it exclusively up to the
Ukrainian people to decide when and if, if ever, they would
like to become part of the European Union?
Mr. Engel. Yes.
Mr. Smith. Okay. So this focuses on the human rights abuses
and the violence that has taken the lives of several people and
our concern for their lives and that the aspiration of the
Ukrainian people be properly respected?
Mr. Engel. Absolutely.
Mr. Smith. Thank you.
Mr. Engel. Thank you.
Chairman Royce. Without----
Mr. Rohrabacher. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman Royce. Yes, the gentleman is recognized.
Mr. Rohrabacher. I would like to ask Mr. Engel some
questions as well.
Chairman Royce. The gentleman from California is
recognized.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Mr. Engel, doesn't this resolution say,
``Whereas the Government of Ukraine has declared integration
with Europe a national priority and has made significant
progress toward meeting the requirement of that association
agreement,'' isn't that basically a ``whereas'' saying that is
what we believe they should do? And ``Whereas, on November 21,
2013, following several months of intense outside pressure, the
President of Ukraine abruptly suspended negotiations on the
association agreement 1 week before it was due to be signed at
the EU's Eastern Partnership Summit in Lithuania.'' Isn't that
our suggestion, then, this President, who was elected to
represent his people, and we have no idea what demands are
being made of him to become part of the EU, aren't we then here
condemning him for suspending those negotiations when we don't
even know what demands were being made on his country?
Mr. Engel. Well, first of all, Mr. Rohrabacher, the
``whereas'' clauses just simply state the facts, and the facts
as we know them is that there were negotiations going on with
the European Union and also lots of pressure from Russia to not
join with the European Union but instead to join a Russian
customs union. And it has been obvious to anyone who has
watched the situation that that was a very unpopular move with
the people of Ukraine. That is why you have these spontaneous
demonstrations. So the ``whereas'' clauses were just simply
laying out the facts as we see them.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Well, Mr. Engel, it is hard for me to
suggest that we know exactly what the view of the majority of
the people of Ukraine is by the number of demonstrators that
certain groups can put in the streets. Now, by the way, several
years ago, I was out in the streets in Ukraine camping out with
protesters, and but basically, they were calling for a new
election, et cetera, and I thought that was justified.
We are not even asking people here to call for a referendum
on this issue. We are just basically saying that the Government
of Ukraine doesn't have the right--or at least we are
condemning them for making a decision that we disagree with
them on.
Mr. Engel. Well, I----
Mr. Rohrabacher. This is--you know, this is a slippery
slope here, folks.
Mr. Engel. Well, I do think that----
Mr. Rohrabacher. We are talking rule of law. Rule of law
means the guy who wins the election makes the decisions.
Mr. Engel. Well, I think that any objective observation of
what has been happening in Ukraine seems clear to me that this
government is going against the will of the people. We saw that
happen in Egypt, and we were able to make some conclusions,
even though in Egypt, you had the Muslim Brotherhood duly
elected. I mean, most of us didn't like that government, but it
was duly elected, but it became clear that it no longer seemed
to represent the wishes of the people. I think it is a similar
situation here in Ukraine. That would be my opinion. I
understand we have a disagreement, and I respect your view, but
I think it is pretty clear that the people of Ukraine are fed
up with the decisions that were made by the current leaderin
Ukraine.
Mr. Rohrabacher. And Mr. Engel, immediately after Mr. Morsi
was removed from a government in Egypt, the people involved in
that immediately put in process a road map for elections, and
they did so. So, basically, we were talking about leading up to
elections, and frankly, I don't see that this is being aimed at
the democratic process. I see what we are doing here as being
something aimed at forcing a country to join the European
Union. And we have no idea what demands are being made of them
to be part of that union.
Mr. Engel. Well, let me just say that I think that the
demonstrators in the streets of Kyiv are asking the President
to resign so that new elections can be held. I think that is
their goal, and I, for one, certainly am sympathetic to that
goal.
Chairman Royce. Hearing no further amendments----
Mr. Grayson. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman Royce. Mr. Grayson?
Mr. Grayson. Listening to the debate that has been going
on, I am wondering how the propounders of this measure would
feel about deleting the second ``whereas'' clause, the 12th
``whereas'' clause, and the 13th ``whereas'' clause, leaving
the rest of the bill intact. I will read the three clauses. The
first one reads, ``Whereas closer relations with the European
Union through the signing of an association agreement would
promote democratic values, good governance, and economic
opportunity in Ukraine.'' The 12th ``whereas'' clause, which is
at the bottom of page 2, says, ``Whereas on January 16, 2014,
the Ukrainian Parliament passed and President Yanukovych signed
legislation which severely limits the right of peaceful
protest, constrains the freedom of speech and independent media
and unduly restricts civil society organizations.'' And the
third ``whereas'' clause reads, ``Whereas the passage of these
undemocratic measures and President Yanukovych's refusal to
engage in substantive dialogue with opposition leaders
precipitated several days of violence and resulted in several
deaths and hundreds of injuries as well as numerous allegations
of police brutality.''
I think that deleting these three ``whereas'' clauses
avoids the implication that we are somehow suggesting or
implying that the Ukraine needs to join the EU, whether or not
it does so voluntarily, and also avoids the implication that we
believe that the actions taken through color of law in the
Ukraine are somehow undemocratic. Thank you.
Mr. Engel. Well, let me, if I might, Mr. Grayson. I
certainly, you know, respect your counsel in going through the
resolution, but I think, at this time, I really would not feel
comfortable with eliminating certain clauses. I can speak for
myself. I think that, personally, obviously, it is up to the
Ukrainian people, but I happen to believe, as the demonstrators
do, that the country would be far better off working out a
partnership with the European Union than with the Russian
customs union.
Obviously, we as Americans don't have the right to make
that decision, but I certainly think that it is not off base or
out of line to express our feelings in that regard. Russia has
been putting lots of pressure on a number of countries in the
region, not only Ukraine but Moldova, Georgia, and some of the
other countries to try to blackmail them or bully them into
joining the Russian customs union rather than the EU
partnership, and I think that the majority of people on this
committee and in the Congress think or would like to see these
countries have the opportunity to join the EU. So I just worry
about starting at this late date as we are marking this up to
pull out various paragraphs would be detrimental, so I
certainly respect what you have tried to do, but I really think
that I would decline to chop this up at this date.
Chairman Royce. Ms. Frankel wanted recognition.
Ms. Frankel. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I have a question of the sponsor. I have enjoyed this
debate. What is the potential impact of this resolution?
Mr. Engel. Well, like so many other resolutions like this,
it is essentially a sense of Congress talking about how we
feel. I would think that if word got back to the demonstrators
in Ukraine that the U.S. Congress had passed such a resolution,
it would give a boost to them in their efforts psychologically,
if nothing else, and I don't think there is anything wrong with
the Congress stating how we feel about democratic aspirations
of people.
You know, the United States, the European Union are allies,
and I think they share common values with us, democratic common
values, and I don't think it is wrong of us to express that we
are sympathetic to those democratic common values.
Chairman Royce. Mr. Sherman?
Mr. Sherman. I share Mr. Rohrabacher's concern that it is
not for us to tell the Ukrainians what to do and that just the
number of demonstrators on the streets may not show where the
majority opinion lies.
But in this case, this President of the Ukraine ran on a
platform that he would join and go forward with the European
Union. Of course, his opponents ran on a similar platform. This
is a fundamental decision. This isn't like, you know, changing
your opinion on a minor matter, and for the President to reject
the European Union without going back to the people of his
country seems unfair.
As to whether there are unreasonable demands being made by
the Europeans at these negotiations, if so, the President of
the Ukraine should share that information with his people, and
so I do think it is appropriate for us to assume that, while
there is substantial opposition to going forward, that the
President of the Ukraine should not be rejecting European
membership and association without going back to his people.
As to the text of the resolution and Mr. Grayson's
comments, I think that the second ``whereas'' clause does seem
to imply that we are telling the people of the Ukraine they
would be better off with the European Union, but it contains
the word ``should'' rather than ``would,'' so it says ``signing
the association agreement should promote democratic values.''
Everything we do should support democratic values and promote
democratic values, but I do think the resolution would be
improved by removing that ``whereas'' clause so that we can say
we are in favor of a democratic decision. Ordinarily democracy
takes place through just electing a President and a Parliament,
but when you elect a President and a Parliament on a platform
to do this, and they decide to do that, then it is time to go
back to the people----
Mr. Rohrabacher. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. Sherman. And as to the other two ``whereas''--I will
yield in a second. Whereas the other clauses that Mr. Grayson
objects to, I would not join him in that concern because it is
simply true that this government in Kyiv has adopted, through
parliamentary means, restrictions on peaceful protest that
clash with the democratic values, and throughout the world, we
oppose antidemocratic, anti-free-speech provisions, even if
adopted by a duly elected Parliament. So I think it is up to
the author to decide whether to perhaps satisfy some of us and
eliminate that second ``whereas'' clause. I think as long as it
has the word ``should'' in it, it is not as objectionable as it
would if it had the word ``would'' promote democratic values.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Would the gentleman yield for a question?
Mr. Sherman. And I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Wouldn't you say that if we were really
suggesting that the democratic process be followed that we
should--that instead, the people of Ukraine should unelect this
government and elect a government that does follow through on
its commitments, and are we calling for--if we are calling for
a referendum here or something like that, I think I would be
less hesitant because we really don't know about these type of
negotiations that go on between--Margaret Thatcher was
attacked, by the way, let me be very clear: There were riots,
and there were major demonstrations against Margaret Thatcher
for not wanting to go into the EU. And I am sorry, she was
elected at that time, and she--of course, she lost her
position, but it was good that--anyway----
Mr. Sherman. Just to reclaim my time. I don't think the
resolution has the specificity of saying what mechanism the
Ukrainian people should use to make their views known on this
important issue, whether that is new elections for a new Chief
Executive or whether that is a referendum, either would take
the same approach, which is allowing the people of the Ukraine
to make this important decision. The resolution doesn't deal
with that, and so maybe some steps could be----
Mr. Rohrabacher. That might be a better resolution. Thank
you.
Mr. Sherman. I yield back.
Chairman Royce. Mr. Engel.
Mr. Engel. Yes, I want to ask Mr. Grayson, was that one of
the paragraphs that you had suggested we remove? That
``whereas,'' the second ``whereas''?
Mr. Grayson. Yes. Also, it might accommodate Mr.
Rohrabacher's concern if you simply changed ``should'' to
``might'' or ``may.''
Mr. Sherman. I would just take it out.
Mr. Engel. Mr. Chairman, since there seems to be some
concern with that paragraph, let me make an amendment to remove
it. Ask unanimous consent to remove that paragraph.
Chairman Royce. Without objection.
Mr. Engle. All right. Then might I suggest----
Yes, the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. Connolly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I know we are
trying to move this along.
Chairman Royce. We have one more resolution.
Mr. Connolly. I know. I just want to say, I think Mr.
Rohrabacher actually brings up a good point. There is some
danger when we do things like this that we are the new
imperium, deciding for others all over the world what our
version of legitimate democracy is for them.
I have enormous respect for the ranking member, but he
cited Egypt as an analogy. We replaced an elected government
because or, I should say, an elected government was replaced by
a military junta that has slaughtered people in the streets
because we think, we think the elected government lost its
legitimacy. Where will that end if we go down that road, even
if we don't like the particular government that got elected?
That is the warning Mr. Rohrabacher is laying in front of us
beyond the specific wording, and I just, I want to join with
him in expressing that concern because I think we are all,
frankly, going to regret the change that occurred in Egypt,
even though what it replaced was something most of us were
probably not all that comfortable with. And we need to take
care, as the House Foreign Affairs Committee and as the
Congress of the United States, to show a little humility and
respect for others' sovereignty and others' processes, even if
they are not always ours.
And I just wanted to say that, Mr. Chairman, because the
analogy to Egypt is to me a very troubling one. I thank you.
Chairman Royce. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. Connolly. Of course.
Chairman Royce. But getting back to the actual ``resolved''
clauses, and I would just repeat for the members here the basic
concept here, ``urges the Government of Ukraine, Ukrainian
opposition parties, and all protesters to exercise the utmost
restraint and avoid confrontation and calls on the Government
of Ukraine to live up to its international obligations to
respect and uphold the democratic rights of its citizens,
including the freedom of assembly and expression as well as the
freedom of the press.'' It condemns all acts of violence. In
other words, what I don't want to be lost here in the debate is
the fact that in the body of the ``resolved'' clauses, which is
the main portion of this document before us, this resolution,
is the intent to convey exactly that, and I think that is the
spirit with which the resolution was offered.
I want to recognize Mr. Keating for a minute.
Mr. Connolly. Mr. Chairman, if I could just reclaim my time
before, Mr. Chairman, because I yielded to you. I just want to
say I agree with you; I support the resolution as amended, but
the word of caution coming from our friend from California I
think is worthy of note.
Thank you.
Chairman Royce. Right, right.
Mr. Keating.
Mr. Keating. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Just briefly, because we are up against a timeline. Just a
few weeks ago, this committee unanimously passed, no opposition
that I am aware of, a resolution concerning the eastern
partnership that dealt with Ukraine aspirations just like this.
We are already on record on that. So you are going to have to
go back and put the genie back in the bottle.
This committee has already done that. Now this resolution,
any fair reading of it, the substance is just to say we want a
dialogue. We are encouraging a dialogue. That is all we are
doing.
Chairman Royce. Yes.
Mr. Keating. And there is nothing more democratic than
that.
I yield back.
Chairman Royce. Well, I think the legislation that is now
before us is the underlying House Resolution 447, as amended,
first by the en bloc amendments and secondarily by the
amendments just offered, suggested, and by unanimous consent
accepted, removing that one particular clause. So if we might--
--
Mr. Rohrabacher. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman Royce. Yes?
Mr. Rohrabacher. Let me just note that I accept your
explanation of the resolution condemning all acts of violence,
not just government on the people but any violence that may
have occurred by demonstrators trying to force their will
through that type of violent demonstration. I accept that
explanation. I accept that we have amended the bill to try to
at least acknowledge that we are not telling these people that
joining the EU is what we are insisting on, and I believe that
that, you have amended it, and we have explained it enough that
I will be supporting the resolution.
Chairman Royce. We thank the gentleman from California, and
the question now occurs on agreeing to House Resolution 447, as
amended, by the Engel amendment.
All in favor signify by saying aye.
All opposed?
The ayes have it.
The amendments that are in the underlying bill are agreed
to, and without objection, the resolution, as amended, is
ordered favorably reported and will be reported as a single
amendment in the nature of a substitute. Staff is directed to
make any technical and conforming changes.
And I now call up H.R. 938 for consideration. The clerk
will report the title of the bill.
Ms. Marter. H.R. 938, To strengthen the strategic alliance
between the United States and Israel and for other purposes.
Chairman Royce. Without objection, the measure is
considered read.
The Ros-Lehtinen/Deutch amendment in the nature of a
substitute that was provided to your offices Monday morning is
considered base text for purposes of markup.
[The information referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Royce. It is open for amendment at any point, and
after brief remarks by myself and the ranking member, I am
going to recognize the chairman emeritus, and I want to thank
Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, our chairman emeritus here, and the
ranking member, Mr. Deutch, as well as Ranking Member Engel for
their leadership and hard work in authoring this bipartisan
legislation that I think is quite important.
Two years ago, the Congress passed the U.S.-Israel Enhanced
Security Cooperation Act, which provided a clear, concise
demonstration of support for the U.S.-Israel relationship. The
legislation before us today builds on that work, and it does so
by making additions to Israel-based defense stockpiles, by
authorizing cooperative activities in a range of fields,
including energy and water, homeland security, agriculture,
civil space, and provides for a framework to expedite licenses
for Israel to acquire U.S. goods and services critical to the
defense.
The bill also requires more timely assessments regarding
Israel's qualitative military edge. Today, as Israel is
surrounded by threats in every direction, this legislation is
an important symbol of U.S. support. This is a strong
bipartisan measure. I urge its expeditious consideration by
this body and passage by this committee.
And given our time constraints, I am going to go ahead and
ask unanimous consent that the brief Smith amendment No. 99,
sent around to all offices last night, the sense of Congress on
cooperation to combat anti-Semitism, be considered en bloc with
the base text.
Without objection, so ordered.
[The information referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Royce. Mr. Engel, would you like to be recognized?
Mr. Engel. Yes, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I strongly support H.R. 938, the Israel Strategic
Partnership Act. Israel is one of our closest and most reliable
allies, and this important legislation seeks to further
strengthen and broaden our mutually beneficial relationship.
I want to commend Ms. Ros-Lehtinen, the chairman of the
Middle East and North Africa Subcommittee, Mr. Deutch, the
ranking member, for authorizing this legislation.
Israel, as we know, faces a growing array of threats in the
Middle East and around the world and is the target of vicious
delegitimatization campaigns by international institutions,
universities, and others that seek to undermine Israel's right
to self-defense. And Israel would face an existential threat
from a nuclear armed Iran, and the legislation before us today
is critical because it sends a clear and unmistakable message
to Israel's foes: America stands with Israel.
So now is the time to reaffirm the importance we place on
the U.S.-Israel relationship and to pursue new ways to improve
our partnership at every level. The bill will expand our robust
defense cooperation, increase U.S.-Israel collaboration on
cybersecurity, reaffirm our commitment to Israeli missile
defense programs, which have saved many innocent lives.
And this legislation also includes the text of H.R. 1992,
the Israel QME (Qualitative Military Edge Enhancement) Act,
which passed the House in December. I also, again, in
conclusion, would like to thank the authors of that important
bill, Mr. Collins of Georgia, Mr. Schneider of Illinois, for
their hard work on this issue, so I am very pleased to support
this and urge our colleagues to support it as well.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Royce. Thank you, Mr. Engel.
I will remind members, you may put statements into the
record.
We are going to go to Ms. Ros-Lehtinen for any statement
she may wish to make.
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman, and I
will be brief.
Thank you for an excellent summary that you and Ranking
Member Engel gave about the bill. There is a memo that explains
the bill in your folder. I also had given to members yesterday
or the day before an explanation about an erroneous campaign of
misinformation about the bill that said that the bill would
somehow allow Israel to discriminate against Arab Americans,
and that is not true, and I hope you had the chance to read
that memo.
But thank you, Mr. Chairman, to all of your staff for
helping us work on this bill, especially I would like to point
out Matt Zweig, who--I don't know if Matt is here--but worked
so hard on this bill in its many forms.
And thank you to Mr. Collins for the qualitative military
edge section, and it has been a pleasure to work with my
wonderful colleague, Ted Deutch, and I won't delay it further,
but there is a good explanation of the bill in your folder.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, again, for your staff
and Mr. Engel's staff for working with us.
I yield back, sir.
Chairman Royce. Thank you.
Any other members seek recognition? Mr. Deutch?
Mr. Deutch. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I, too, will be brief,
but I would just like to thank you and Ranking Member Engel for
holding this markup, for your strong support of this
legislation. I would like to thank your staffs as well, and it
is an honor and a pleasure to work with my friend, the
deg.Chairman Emeritus Ros-Lehtinen, and I thank her for her
leadership on this legislation. I would only make one point
about this, the importance of passing this bill right now, and
it is that this bill offers a reminder to the international
community of the depth of the partnership between the United
States and Israel. Ultimately, at a time when there are very
few things that everyone in Congress can agree to, we are now
marking up a bill that has over 350 members of our Congress as
cosponsors. And at a time when many of our constituents think
that it is just impossible to agree on anything, this level of
support really is remarkable. It is precisely because,
precisely because of this support that the U.S. is able to send
a message to the rest of the world that our commitment,
America's commitment to Israel is unshakeable.
I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back.
Chairman Royce. Thank you, Mr. Deutch.
Mr. Smith, and then Mr. Sherman.
Mr. Smith. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
I want to thank Chairwoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen for this
very fine--and Mr. Deutch, the cosponsor--for this timely and
very effective piece of legislation. Couldn't come at a better
time, as was just noted. I just want to say, I have a full
statement, but very briefly, in 1995, I chaired the first
hearing on the rising tide of global anti-Semitism when we took
control of the House and have done more than 18 hearings on
that since and raised it in numerous, numerous fora, including
the OSCE. In 2004, I sponsored the amendment that became law
that created the Office to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism
with a special envoy.
What the amendment seeks to do is to better understand and
coordinate with the Israeli Government, particularly the
Netanyahu special adviser on anti-Semitism, the Ministry of
Foreign Affairs and the Ministry for the Diaspora, that much of
the violence on both the micro and the macro level is all about
the hatred of Jews. That is where the incitement leads to, and
it whips up people, even moderate Muslims, very often if they
are not on the same page in hating Jewish people are
ostracized. I had a hearing last year on it, and Dr. Jasser
made very telling points about how if you are not going along
with the anti-Semitic hate, you are then targeted yourself, so
I think this amendment seeks to say we need to see this in
security terms, not just in discriminatory terms, and I thank
the chair for yielding.
Chairman Royce. Mr. Sherman.
Mr. Sherman. I would like to join in support with the
author of the bill of the provisions dealing with making Israel
a visa waiver country and to say that, of course, that Israel
does not discriminate against Arab Americans. There has been
this effort by anti-Israel extremists to accuse Israel of that.
For example, one case they bring up is that someone they
questioned at the airport, and it turned out this individual
had played on an Islamic jihad-sponsored sports team but said,
well, since I wasn't a real member of Islamic jihad, they
shouldn't have asked me any questions.
Israel does have unique security needs, so does the United
States. We have a no-fly list. They have a no-enter list, and
those associated with Islamic extremism tend to find their
names on both lists.
The provision in this bill simply says that Israel would
become a visa waiver country when it satisfies all the
requirements, including nondiscrimination requirements. My hope
is that in conference, this bill will be amended to help Israel
achieve the full participation in the visa waiver program.
Along with Ted Deutch, I introduced the Visa Waiver Act for
Israel in May 2012. We reintroduced it in January 2013. There
are now 76 cosponsors. Not everyone on this committee has
cosponsored the bill, but there is still an opportunity. What
that bill would do is allow Israel to become a visa waiver
country, even if in over 3 percent of the cases our counselor
personnel fear that those who were applying for a tourist visa
may overstay that visa. The tradition has been to have a 3-
percent rule on that, but the fact is that we have gone up to 8
percent in giving visa waiver status to virtually every country
that was between 3 percent and 8 percent. Israel was left out
of that, but Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, and Hungary were all
included. All of them are over 3 percent, under 8 percent, as
Israel is today. So I hope that we would defend this provision
from outrageous attacks and strengthen it in conference so that
it will be as easy for Israelis to visit. When they want to see
Mickey Mouse, they should see the real one in Disneyland in
California, close to Mr. Rohrabacher's district, or the newest
imitation in Florida. Right now, Israel has a visa waiver
relationship, has a visa waiver relationship with the EU.
Israelis are free to travel to Europe without getting a visa,
where they see what we all regard as the complete impostor, the
Mickey Mouse at Euro Disney. So we need Israelis to bring those
shekels here. We need to expand person-to-person contacts, and
I hope that this provision is not only defended but
strengthened as it goes through the process.
I commend the author for all of the provisions of the bill.
I am one of the many cosponsors.
I yield back.
Chairman Royce. Are there any other amendments to the base
text? Hearing no further amendments----
Mr. Sherman. A point of personal privilege. I commend Ted
Deutch in every way, but the cosponsor of that visa waiver bill
is Ted Poe.
Chairman Royce. Ted Poe.
Mr. Sherman. Very good.
Chairman Royce. Well, hearing no further amendments to this
measure, the question occurs on agreeing to H.R. 938, as
amended en bloc.
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, this legislation is ordered
favorably reported. It will be reported as a single amendment
in the nature of a substitute. Staff is directed to make any
technical and conforming changes, and we stand adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 10:35 a.m., the committee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
Material Submitted for the Record
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]