As the crisis in Ukraine continues to escalate and U.S. officials issue sharp words for Russian President Vladimir Putin, some members of Congress are laying down markers for what they want to do next. Here’s a roundup of what they’re saying:
New Economic Sanctions
Congress has long been a fan of passing economic sanctions as a way to influence U.S. foreign policy. Senators, such as Connecticut Democrat Chris Murphy and the top Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Bob Corker, are calling for just that. “The United States and our European allies should immediately bring to bear all elements of our collective economic strength to stop Russian advances in Ukraine,” Corker said in a statement. “Congress will consider targeted sanctions against Russian persons and entities that undermine the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine.”
Unlike a proposed set of sanctions against Iran, which has received a lot of pushback from the White House, the administration hasn’t issued any veto threats or harsh words to Congress, urging it not to pass sanctions against Russia. Senior officials told The Wall Street Journal that the administration has begun discussions with Congress about potential economic and financial sanctions on specific Russian companies and leaders.
Expanding the “Magnitsky List”
The new targeted sanctions that some want could also come in the form of expanding a round of sanctions already in place. The Magnitsky Act bans U.S. travel and freezes American bank accounts of certain Russian human-rights violators.
“Living in Miami, I have seen in recent years the wave of Russian tourists coming to our city and state to spend money and buy property,” Rubio said in a Politico Magazine op-ed. “Many are government officials or allies whose wealth stems from allegiance to Putin, and we should limit their ability to travel here.”
Some top-ranking members pushed the Obama administration to add additional names earlier this year. The initial 2012 passage of Magnitsky spurred a blowback from Russia in the form of a ban on Americans adopting Russian children.
Senate Armed Services Chairman Carl Levin said that one of the first steps the U.S. and allies could take is to “place a significant number of international observers on the ground in Ukraine, if requested by the Ukrainian government.”
“The presence of international observers on the ground could reduce the risk that Russia would make a false claim of provocative acts by Ukraine as an excuse for further violation of Ukrainian sovereignty, and thereby help avoid a conflict that nobody should want,” the Michigan Democrat said in a statement.
Aid to Ukraine
Many Republicans and Democrats want to see more aid going to Ukraine right now. The top Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Eliot Engel, is pushing for “a robust international economic assistance package and the administration’s proposal to provide U.S. loan guarantees and other assistance to Ukraine.”
Members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee also endorsed loan guarantees to Ukraine. Secretary of State John Kerry has already pledged that the U.S. will provide $1 billion in such loan guarantees, which could come with even more aid after consultation with Congress.
Don’t Respond Militarily
Unlike in recent crises, such as in Syria, no members are calling for the U.S. to use military force in the Russia-Ukraine conflict.
“We do not seek confrontation with President Putin and his government, but simply [want] to ensure that Russia abides by its commitments and adheres to core principles of international law,” a bipartisan group of senators who sit on the Foreign Relations Committee wrote in a letter to Obama.
Even hawkish McCain emphasized, “There is a range of serious options at our disposal at this time without the use of military force.”
What We're Following See More »
The Commission on Presidential Debates put out a statement today that gives credence to Donald Trump's claims that he had a bad microphone on Monday night. "Regarding the first debate, there were issues regarding Donald Trump's audio that affected the sound level in the debate hall," read the statement in its entirety.
"A video of Donald Trump testifying under oath about his provocative rhetoric about Mexicans and other Latinos is set to go public" as soon as today. "Trump gave the testimony in June at a law office in Washington in connection with one of two lawsuits he filed last year after prominent chefs reacted to the controversy over his remarks by pulling out of plans to open restaurants at his new D.C. hotel. D.C. Superior Court Judge Brian Holeman said in an order issued Thursday evening that fears the testimony might show up in campaign commercials were no basis to keep the public from seeing the video."
No matter that his recall of foreign leaders leaves something to be desired, Gary Johnson is the choice of the Chicago Tribune's editorial board. The editors argue that Donald Trump couldn't do the job of president, while hitting Hillary Clinton for "her intent to greatly increase federal spending and taxation, and serious questions about honesty and trust." Which leaves them with Johnson. "Every American who casts a vote for him is standing for principles," they write, "and can be proud of that vote. Yes, proud of a candidate in 2016."
"By all means vote, just not for Donald Trump." That's the message from USA Today editors, who are making the first recommendation on a presidential race in the paper's 34-year history. It's not exactly an endorsement; they make clear that the editorial board "does not have a consensus for a Clinton endorsement." But they state flatly that Donald Trump is, by "unanimous consensus of the editorial board, unfit for the presidency."