Hoyer Introduces the Russia Sanctions Review Act

Press Conference

House Democratic Whip Steny H. Hoyer (MD) delivered remarks at a press conference this morning with Foreign Affairs Committee Ranking Member Eliot Engel and Intelligence Committee Ranking Member Adam Schiff announcing the introduction of bipartisan legislation, the Russia Sanctions Review Act. Below is a transcript of his remarks and the question and answer portion:

"Good morning, thank you very much for joining us. I am joined, as you can tell by Eliot Engel, Ranking Member on the Foreign Affairs Committee, and the Ranking Member on the Intelligence Committee Mr. Schiff. In addition, we are expecting Mr. Rooney and Mr. Kinzinger, from Illinois. They're both in committees, but if they can get out, they'll be joining us.

"Today, we are introducing bipartisan legislation to ensure that Russia does not receive any sanctions relief until it earns it. Clearly, there has been some confusion as to exactly what is the status of sanctions that exist with reference to actions that the Russians have taken in Ukraine and that they've taken with respect to hacking into American elections with the intent of having an impact on those elections.

"All of us were alarmed by Russia's illegal occupation of Crimea and its support for the armed insurgency in Ukraine. Along with Russia's brazen interference in last year's U.S. election, which ought to be of concern and is of concern in a bipartisan fashion, these actions have earned Putin and his cronies harsh sanctions. No foreign power, especially one so committed to thwarting American aims as Russia is, ought to be permitted to meddle in our democracy without repercussions.

"This bill allows the precedent set by the Iran Nuclear Agreement, called the JCPOA, by requiring Congressional approval for any sanctions relief provided by Russia. It gives Congress the responsibility to review any sanctions relief, to review that relief before it can take effect.

"This is not a partisan issue, which is why Senator Graham and Senator Rubio have joined with Senator Cardin and Senator McCaskill in introducing a mirror piece of legislation in the Senate. Exactly the same legislation. That is why Mr. Rooney, Mr. Kinzinger, and others with whom I have talked, but are not co-sponsors at this point in time, are carefully considering this action. It's not partisan.

"Every American, every Republican, every Democrat is concerned about Russia and what they have been doing to violate international law, not to mention the criminal behavior they may be pursuing and are pursuing, we believe, in Syria. It's a serious matter of national security, which is why both Democrats and Republicans are putting this bill forward.

"I want to thank all of the co-sponsors on both sides of the aisle for their hard work on this important and timely legislation. At this point I want to yield to my friend and the gentleman from New York and the Ranking Member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, Eliot Engel."

Question and Answer Portion

Mr. Hoyer: Again, let me emphasize there should be no difference and I think there is no difference between parties on the perception that what Russia has done and continues to do is of serious concern to all Americans. This is not an issue on which we have differed in the past, and do I not believe we differ at this point in time.

Reporter: Has there been any outreach to the Republican House leadership and any commitment that this will even move?

Mr. Hoyer: The answer is, certainly, we have talked to Mr. Royce. We have talked to others through our staffs. They have expressed interest. They are not, at this point in time, co-sponsors. I will be talking to Mr. McCarthy about this legislation. I would hope that he could join us. Again, I want to emphasize there should be no difference between Republicans and Democrats on this issue, and in my opinion there is not a difference on whether or not sanctions ought to be in place. As Mr. Schiff pointed out, when President Obama imposed these sanctions, there was broad-based bipartisan support and no opposition to those. So I'm hopeful, that, number one, we'll have broad bipartisan support and, number two, as Mr. Engel pointed out, that it will move quickly through the House of Representatives.

Reporter: To follow up. If it should get to the House floor, do you think it would be a veto-proof majority? Has there been any outreach from the White House or to the White House on this bill? Have they threatened to veto?

Mr. Hoyer: The White House is not necessarily focused on this matter at this point in time, I think it's fair to say. But I would think that if it comes to the Floor, as I hope it will in the near future, that it will enjoy overwhelming support, and I think the answer to your question is my supposition would be it would pass with a veto-proof majority. Because I believe Republicans and Democrats share the view that there ought to be no doubt in either Mr. Putin's mind or other Russian leaders' minds that the United States is very serious as it relates to the offenses that these sanctions deal with, including the illegal occupation of Crimea, the illegal activity that they are taking in Eastern Ukraine, and, clearly, the efforts that they took to affect the elections by their cyberattacks and hacking that occurred in the United States. I think both parties are concerned about that. And Republican leaders and Democratic leaders have both indicated how serious they view that activity.

Reporter: Can you comment on some of the reports from late last night that the Trump campaign were in contact with Russian officials during the campaign and did that change your calculus on the need for this?

Mr. Hoyer: This legislation is -- as the JCPOA was, which that legislation you recall was to give the Congress the authority to oversee and to express its opinion on the adoption of the JCPOA. I believe this legislation is a mirror of that in many respects. Now, with respect to what happened during the course of the campaign and the communications that occurred, my own belief is that we ought to have not only a very, very serious [investigation by] committees [in] the House and Senate, oversight hearings on that, and get to the bottom of that. Mr. Schiff has been a strong proponent and leader in that effort. The Intel Committee is undertaking an investigation. I hope that that investigation is a very serious, in-depth investigation, so that we can get to the bottom of what, in fact, happened. This is dangerous for our country -- not just for Republicans or Democrats. It's dangerous for our country. And it is important to know whether or not the Russians believe they have some agreement or some way to influence the Administration, which would not be healthy for our democracy and for our country.

Mr. Schiff: I'd like to add on to that, those allegations that there may have been collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia are at the heart of what we need to investigate in the House Intelligence Committee. We're certainly determined to do so. I will say this, I think the recent revelation of Flynn's secret conversation with the Russian Ambassador on the subject of sanctions makes this legislation all the more important. If there were either condoned discussions that Flynn had or he was acting as a free agent, in either scenario this President should not have the unfettered capability of eliminating Russian sanctions. There are just too many problematic issues concerning this Administration and Russia. I haven't read the transcripts yet, but if the public reports are accurate, it only underscores the necessity of this legislation.

Mr. Hoyer: I agree with Mr. Schiff and that's why I made the point that we want to have no doubt as to where we stand with respect to these sanctions. And our intention and conviction is that we will assure that there will be a vigorous response to the malfeasance, to the criminal behavior of Russia and its leaders.

Reporter: Yesterday, you said that your committee will be seeking transcripts and/or a tape recording of Flynn's conversation with the Russian Ambassador, and I was wondering is it your understanding that was intercepted because of the probe or was that part of the intelligence community surveillance program?

Mr. Schiff: That's not something I'm able to comment on. I know there have been a lot of public discussions about what routine surveillance may encompass, but that's not something that I'm in a position to comment on.

Reporter: Can you comment on who you are asking for transcripts?

Mr. Schiff: Well, we know from the public reports that the Justice Department has possession of evidence that Flynn did discuss the sanctions issue with the Russian ambassador, whether that is in the form of a transcript of an intercepted communication or taped communications. Sean Spicer said there were also text communications between Flynn and the Russian ambassador. I believe that our committee ought to receive any communications Flynn had with the Russian ambassador in whatever platform was used, whether it was by voice or text or any other means. We don't have those materials yet. We will be seeking those materials. and i think it will be a necessary part of our oversight. At this point, I can't tell you whether they were gathered as part of incidental collection or whether they were gathered as a part of FISA court order or another process. That's not something I can comment on.

Mr. Hoyer: I want to emphasize this is bipartisan legislation because I believe there is a consensus on assuring that the Russians have no confusion as to the commitment of this country to continue to sanction behavior which we believe to be both illegal and dangerous to the interest of the United States of America. What has happened with the NSC Advisor, either during the course of his short tenure as NSC leader or prior to that, while I agree wholly with Mr. Schiff saying this legislation is even more important because of that, but it is important to give clarity to the position of the United States of America for not only the Russians but others as well.

Reporter: Congressman, you are introducing this bill right after the president started tweeting and talking in more strong terms about Crimea and Russia, I'm wondering if that changes things or complicates getting support for this. Since this is a bipartisan bill, I see three Democrats introducing it, where are the Republican colleagues?

Mr. Hoyer: I don't know the answer to that because both Mr. Kinzinger and Mr. Rooney said they were going to be here, but I knew they had committee. Maybe they are tied up in committee. But if you go and see the bill introduced today, their names are on it.

Reporter: On the other point that this is coming right after the president --

Mr. Hoyer: I think the fact that it's coming after the President's recognition of this as a significant problem, which should make it even more bipartisan. It should make it even less likely that a Republican would think in some way this was contrary to some political stance that the Administration has taken. We're hopeful that will expand it.

Mr. Engel: There are a couple things here. First of all, it's very important to mention, once again, that we're a co-equal branch of government and that there are checks and balances, and it is very important that the legislative branch show its priorities. This isn't something where the executive just decides and we just sit and accept. That principle is very, very important. Secondly, I think anybody knows that there was some hanky-panky going on during the presidential leaks with Russian hacking of the DNC and heaven only knows where else. That should concern all Americans. I would be just as concerned if the shoe was on the other foot and it was the RNC that was hacked and made public. That is a direct threat to our democracy. And finally, there certainly seems to have been or still is a cozy relationship between the President, the Administration, and the Russians. It's very, very disconcerting when you look at the behavior of the Russians when the Soviet Union collapsed in the 1990's, NATO expanded, the European Union expanded, and the United States was an integral part of that. And, suddenly, now we heard the President when he was running for office sort of belittled NATO as outdated. That's to the delight, I'm sure, of Putin and Russians. Putin has come in acting every bit the KGB boss he used to be and will do anything, it seems, to subvert American democracy or weaken the western alliance. So because of that and because of purported connections between the President and the Russians, I think it's even more important that Congress gets involved and Congress stays there and keeps it bipartisan, because this is a potential threat to our democracy. It goes way beyond democratic or republican politics.

Mr. Schiff: I can't resist one observation on that question. Forgive me if I'm one tweet behind. The tweet I saw this morning from the President blamed Obama for Russia's invasion of Crimea. Only Donald Trump could blame Obama, and not Putin, for Russia's illegal annexation of Crimea. That's hardly being tough on Russia, in my view.

Mr. Hoyer: I was responding to your premise that Trump was now saying the taking of Crimea was wrong. I'm not aware of the tweet where he blames President Obama, which is unfathomable that that assertion would be made.

Reporter: Two quick questions, the first for you, Mr. Hoyer. This morning on MSNBC, Speaker Ryan seemed to suggest that -- he was asked about sanctions on Russia and he said he would support codifying those sanctions in response to actions by the White House to lift them, which seems to be philosophically a different position to what you guys are taking here. You seem to want to act preemptively, and pick Congressional approval to require lifting of sanctions. Speaker Ryan this morning said he thought Congress should act to try to codify sanctions.

Mr. Hoyer: I don't think those are contradictory. In fact this legislation would affirm those sanctions, and then say those sanctions could not be repealed unless Congress had a time frame in which to do that -- 120 days and a fast track procedure in effect, similar to the JCPOA. I don't see those positions as contradictory. I haven't seen the Speaker's comments this morning, but if the Speaker said that they ought to be codified, frankly, then he's supportive of the sanctions. This legislation is supportive of the sanctions, not only that says the sanctions cannot be unilaterally [lifted]. Mr. Engel mentioned we're co-equal branches of government. Frankly, sanctions in the past on Russia or Iran or others have been in many respects done through the procedure considered by committees and adopted by the Congress of the United States. I don't know whether either one of you want to comment. I don't see his comments to the extent you characterize them as contradictory to the legislation.

Reporter: Question for Mr. Schiff -- Senate Republicans said that they are expanding their investigation to cover General Flynn and some are talking about inviting him to testify before the committee. Others are saying they want to view the transcripts, but the House Intelligence Chairman has not gone that far. He doesn't seem interested in getting the transcript and is more focused on discovering who leaked the information and whether or not there were laws broken by the leakers. Are you confident that the House Investigation can move forward in a bipartisan way under the Intelligence Committee? Is there an effort to work --

Mr. Schiff: We have worked very diligently to work across party lines and make sure the investigation is thorough and complete. If it's going to be thorough, we're going to have to look at General Flynn, we're going to have to get those transcripts, and we're going to have to call him as a witness. I don't think the House Investigation can be cabined in a way that the Senate investigation is not. We have to follow the facts wherever they may lead. I'll be meeting with the Chairman later today where we'll certainly be discussing this, but it's certainly my hope that much as we're seeing in the Senate Intelligence Committee, we will have bipartisan agreement to follow these facts where they lead. To me, it makes little sense if we're already going to be looking at it as we are and we committed to any contacts between Flynn and the Russian government during the course of the campaign, it wouldn't make sense to artificially stop the day that campaign came to an end, particularly when we know that there was a very significant contact and, indeed, more than one contact in December.

Reporter: A follow up, can you say whether the gang of eight was briefed on the constant communications being discovered by the intelligence community?

Mr. Schiff: I can only say that we have received briefings. I can't tell you about the topic or subject matter of those briefings, so that's really not something I can comment on.

Mr. Hoyer: I want to follow up a little bit on your question. There is no doubt that the imposition of these sanctions, as Mr. Schiff has pointed out and Mr. Engel has pointed out, were supported overwhelmingly. And, frankly, when sanctions were levied during the Bush Administration, Republicans and Democrats were very supportive, for the most part, for those sanctions. The fact we now have a Republican president should not change that same bipartisan commitment to ensuring there is no confusion as to where America stands with respect to Crimea, with respect to Eastern Ukraine, and with respect to hacking. I mentioned Syria a couple of times because I feel strongly about that, as well. But having said that, we don't perceive there should be any substantive change in the position of either party, which had overwhelming majorities favoring actions being taken in response to the actions of the Russians.

Reporter: I wanted to follow up with Mr. Schiff if I could, sort of in relation to what the Republican chairman of the committee has said. He said he wants to get to the bottom of the leaker. Does that concern you as well? President Trump has been very critical of the leak, not so much the information. Do you share that concern about the intelligence community giving these details to the media?

Mr. Schiff: I don't favor investigation by leaks. I didn't favor it when the leaks were directed at Secretary Clinton during that investigation. I don't favor it now, so it is an issue. And, I think, part of the scope of what the Intelligence Committee has already agreed to is to look at the subject matter of leaks during the last Administration. We could certainly look at leaks during the present Administration. I wouldn't want that to obscure what the gravamen of the concern here is, and that is that Russia has interfered with our democracy and that Russia may have colluded with one of the campaigns. The question of leaks is certainly implicated here, but there are far bigger fish to fry, and I would hate to see us go off on a tangent and lose sight of the object. We're in a global struggle with Russia right now, which is trying to dismantle not only our own democracy but liberal democracy around the world. The threat that that poses to us ought to be kept front and center all the time, and that's why I think this legislation is so important.

Mr. Hoyer: In closing, let me say that there is no doubt that there is a tactic of diversion that we have seen used relatively extensively. I couldn't agree more with the remarks that Mr. Schiff has made about leaks. Clearly, there are matters of national security import that need to be kept close, need to be kept from public discourse because of the damage it might cause to the United States of America and to our security. However, that ought not to divert attention from even more serious breaches that may well have compromised the security of the United States of America. And I would urge members of the press, and I think you will, remain focused on the important and not be diverted not by the unimportant, but by the less important in terms of impact on national security. Thank you very much.

Source