[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 38 (Thursday, March 6, 2014)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1353-S1357]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                          AFFORDABLE CARE ACT

  Mr. MURPHY. Mr. President, we now are in about the sixth month of the 
implementation of the Affordable Care Act. We have over 11 million 
people who have received health care--who previously had not been able 
to receive it--either through the private exchanges, which have signed 
up 4 million people all across the country; through the expansion of 
Medicaid, which has reached millions more; or through all of the young 
people who are able to stay on their parents' plans until they are 26 
years old.
  Taxpayers are saving money. In fact, CBO has redone their estimates 
for the 10-year period after the passage of the Affordable Care Act to 
suggest that we are now going to save $1.2 trillion on Federal health 
care spending, in large part because of the reforms in the Affordable 
Care Act.
  Across this country millions of Americans who had been kept out of 
the ranks of the insured because of a preexisting condition now have 
access to health care, and tens of millions of seniors are paying less 
for their health care because they get checkups for free and they are 
able to access prescription drugs for 50 percent or less than the 
original cost when they reach that doughnut hole. So the Affordable 
Care Act is changing lives.
  When you reorder one-sixth of the American economy, there are going 
to be bumps along the road. No one should come to the floor--even those 
of us who are the most vocal proponents of the law--and suggest there 
are not going to be some people who are not going to have the perfect 
experience. Of course there is no excuse for the way in which the Web 
site operated for the first several months. But it is time for 
proponents of this law to tell the real story, and the real story is 
that the Affordable Care Act is working. It is working for millions of 
Americans who now have access to health care. It is working for 
taxpayers who are spending less than ever before as you look at annual 
rates of growth in Federal health care spending.
  Today and this week my colleagues and I are focusing on the benefits 
for one specific group of patients, one specific set of families all 
across this country, and those are patients and families dealing with 
cancer diagnoses.
  So I will start this off--I will be joined later by Senator Stabenow 
and some of my other colleagues--and I want to talk first about a 
family in Indiana. I will talk about some families in Connecticut as 
well, but the Treinens have a story that is, frankly, not unique. They 
had insurance and they thought they had really good insurance. They 
didn't pay too much attention to the lifetime cap of $1 million that 
was in their insurance policy because they just figured, as a 
relatively healthy family, there was no way they were ever going to 
spend $1 million on health care over the course of their time on that 
insurance plan.
  But as millions of families across this country know, cancer can 
interrupt your plans, and that is what happened to the Treinens. Their 
doctors diagnosed their teenage son Michael in 2007 with an aggressive 
form of leukemia. The treatment called for ten doses of chemotherapy 
that cost $10,000 per dose. A 56-day stay in an Intensive Care Unit 
alone cost about $400,000. So Michael and his family reached that $1 
million lifetime maximum in less than 1 year, and it was then left to 
this brave family to go out and raise money in solicitations in their 
neighborhood, in their community and all across the country, which 
miraculously allowed them to bring in $865,000 in 6 days to keep their 
son's treatment going.
  Needless to say, that avenue is not available to every family. But 
due to their ingenuity and their passion, the Treinens were able to 
raise almost $1 million from private donors in order to keep their 
son's treatment going. But the story doesn't end well, however, for the 
Treinens. Even though money came in from all over the United States, 
and as far away as places such as Germany, Michael's cancer eventually 
stopped responding to chemotherapy and he died May 25, before he could 
receive the transplant they all hoped would save his life.
  The reality is that insurance companies have been getting away with 
this practice for years--lifetime or annual limits that for 105 million 
Americans were preventing them from receiving care when they really got 
sick. That is what insurance really is supposed to be for. For those of 
us who buy insurance, we get it in the hopes that should we get very 
sick, that insurance plan will be there to help us. But with annual and 
lifetime limits, when people got really sick, especially with cancer 
diagnoses, that help wasn't there.
  Tom Bocaccio, who is a retired police officer in Newington, CT, is 
still dealing with the consequences of lifetime caps. His wife past 
away after an 8-year struggle with adrenal cancer. After her death, the 
husband she left behind was saddled with a $1.5 million bill because 
the Bocaccios, over that 8-year period of fighting cancer, had exceeded 
their lifetime cap. That changes Tom's life in a myriad of ways. He has 
lost his wife, and there is no way to describe the pain that comes with 
that, especially after that brave, courageous battle of almost a 
decade, but now his entire life is upended by the fact that he has a 
$1.5 million bill he has to pay, and he doesn't have the resources to 
do that.
  So first and foremost, for cancer patients all across this country, 
105 million Americans no longer face lifetime limits on health care 
benefits. For cancer patients, not only does that deliver financial 
security, but it delivers mental and psychological security as well--to 
know in the midst of dealing with this diagnosis and all the pain that 
comes with confronting this disease head on, they do not also have to 
worry about skimping on treatments, about cutting back on hospital 
stays that might harm the recovery or treatment of the patient simply 
because they are trying not to get above that annual or lifetime limit.
  The benefits to cancer patients extend beyond just that protection on 
lifetime and annual limits. In addition, cancer patients are going to 
be able to keep their health care because of the ban on discrimination 
against families and individuals with preexisting conditions.
  I have spoken about the Berger family many times on this floor. They 
are a family that explains exactly why we need this protection. The 
Bergers, from Meriden, CT, had a son who was diagnosed with cancer 
during the 2-week period in which the husband, through which the family 
had insurance, didn't have a job. He switched jobs, and during that 2-
week period in which he was waiting to get insurance through his new 
job, their son was diagnosed with cancer. The new insurance policy 
decided it was a preexisting condition. The Bergers had to pay every 
dime of that treatment and they lost everything. They lost their 
savings, their home. Their lives were transformed because of the 
misfortune of having a cancer diagnosis at the wrong time.

  No family anywhere in the country dealing with a cancer diagnosis 
will ever have to go through what the Bergers went through because here 
ever after the law of this land says that if you have a preexisting 
condition, you cannot be discriminated against.
  There are all sorts of other benefits that matter, whether it be the 
fact you don't have to pay for preventive health care any longer so you 
can get a checkup without cost or clinical trials are now covered which 
many cancer patients enjoy the benefit of. Life changed for cancer 
patients and families dealing with cancer when the Affordable Care Act 
passed.
  Senator Stabenow, myself, and others had a press conference earlier 
this week in which we heard the story of David Weis, a senior at 
Georgetown University who was diagnosed days before his 19th birthday 
with thyroid lymphatic cancer. David talks about the difference the 
Affordable Care Act makes for him, not only in financial terms but in 
terms of how he thinks about his future. David now can go out and get a 
job, search for and pursue a career based on what he wants to do with 
his life rather than based on what job will provide him with adequate 
benefits to treat his cancer should it reoccur.
  I have a constituent who talks about it the same way. He was 14 when 
he was diagnosed with a form of leukemia. He went through treatment for 
over 3 years. His family now knows that with the Affordable Care Act--
because he is only covered on his mom's policy until he is 26--after he 
ages out of his mom's plan, he will be able to pursue his dreams no 
matter what kind of insurance plan his prospective employer has.

[[Page S1354]]

  What we have learned over the years is there is a connection between 
the mind and the body. If you are stressed out about things such as how 
you are going to pay for treatment of your disease, it does have an 
effect on your body's ability to fight that disease. Unfortunately, for 
millions of families dealing with cancer, their treatment has been 
restrained, their body's recovery has been curtailed because they are 
obsessively--and appropriately--always worried about what will happen 
if their insurance runs out.
  The ACA says never again. No family will have to worry because that 
will be guaranteed, and discriminatory policies of annual and lifetime 
limits disappear.
  I will end with the notion that it is important to remember every 
time our Republican friends come down to the floor and talk about how 
awful they believe the Affordable Care Act is, their proposal is to 
return cancer patients and families dealing with cancer back to the 
reality in which they had lifetime limits which ended their coverage--
for this family I talked about from Indiana, after only several 
months--and they want to go back to the days in which families such as 
the Bergers lose everything, their savings, their home, because of a 
mistimed cancer diagnosis.
  This week the House of Representatives voted for the 50th time to 
repeal all or part of the Affordable Care Act. I was a Member of that 
body for 6 years, and I probably participated in about 40 of those 
votes. Despite the fact I heard lots of my Republican friends come down 
to the floor and say: We are voting to repeal and replace, they never 
voted once to replace the Affordable Care Act because their agenda is 
not to replace it. Their agenda is simply to repeal it and go back to 
the days in which cancer patients were treated with this kind of 
carelessness.
  Our colleagues on the Democratic side who voted for the Affordable 
Care Act understand there are places where it can be better. We 
understand there is a process of perfecting it. But we understand--
because of families such as the Barrows, because of families such as 
the Weises, the Treinens, and the Bergers--for cancer patients and the 
families who love them, they know the ACA is working, and they know 
they never want to go back to the days in which their lives were put in 
jeopardy by a health care system which didn't work for them.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I thank my friend and colleague from 
Connecticut for his passion and his wonderful advocacy for people who 
just want to know they have health care for themselves and their 
families, which is pretty basic. I thank Senator Murphy for his 
vigilance, for speaking out and being here and talking about what is at 
stake.
  There is an ad on TV which says something like: New car, $30,000; new 
house, $150,000; peace of mind, priceless. What we are talking about in 
terms of access to affordable health care, getting what you are paying 
for, knowing you can't get dropped just because you get sick, knowing 
your child with juvenile diabetes can get care even though it would be 
viewed as a preexisting condition, is peace of mind.
  I can't imagine how scary it must be to sit in a doctor's office and 
have a doctor come in and say: You have cancer. You have leukemia. You 
have breast cancer. This is happening to people every single day, and 
there are many thoughts going through their minds at that time. At some 
point they will turn to the doctor and want to talk about: What kind of 
treatment do I need? Is it going to be covered? How do I get it? What 
is going to happen?
  One in every eight women in America will develop invasive breast 
cancer during their lives. It is not a statistic. These are real women, 
such as my sister-in-law, such as many other people I know. They are 
our daughters, our sisters, our mothers. Men as well are being given 
diagnoses of breast cancer--our friends. They now have the peace of 
mind of knowing they are going to be able to get the care they need at 
an affordable price and they can't be dropped. There is no cap on how 
long they are going to be able to get treatment, and that is priceless.
  I will share a true story about a cancer survivor whose life has been 
changed thanks to the Affordable Care Act. Her name is Chris G.
  Chris found a lump in her breast. Every woman can imagine the 
thoughts which must have gone through Chris's mind. The fear must have 
been unimaginable. It was even worse for Chris because her husband lost 
his job and they didn't have insurance--the worst of all possible 
situations. Because she didn't have insurance, she couldn't see a 
doctor to get the tests she needed. Chris didn't ignore her lump. You 
can't ignore something like that. It is on your mind every single 
minute of every single day. But at that moment she didn't feel she 
could do anything about it because without insurance, if Chris went to 
a doctor, her breast cancer of course would count as a preexisting 
condition and then she would never be able to get insurance.
  But now, thanks to the Affordable Care Act, Chris and millions of 
women like her can get the affordable insurance they need, and 
marketplaces where insurance companies now have to compete for her 
business give their best price for her business. These are good 
policies which cover treatment women need to beat cancer and survive. 
But before the Affordable Care Act, cancer would haunt these women for 
the rest of their lives as insurance companies labeled their survival a 
preexisting condition--no more.
  Thanks to the ACA, millions of cancer survivors similar to Chris have 
peace of mind--priceless. Thanks to the Affordable Care Act, millions 
of women have access to mammograms and other preventive services. 
Thanks to the Affordable Care Act, millions of women similar to Chris 
will never have to worry about annual or lifetime limits on their 
coverage, not being told: OK, cancer. You have eight visits. That is 
it. I hope it works. That is it. No more.
  In fact, the ACA flips that around. It says cancer patients such as 
Chris will never be asked to spend more than a set amount of money in 
total on their treatment. Once they hit that number, the insurance 
company has to pick up the rest of the cost of the treatments. For 
women fighting cancer, this law is a lifesaver.
  There are 7,000 women in my State of Michigan alone who will be newly 
diagnosed with breast cancer this year. This is why it is so important 
for women to get covered, to sign up before March 31, so they can have 
the health care they need this year. This is literally a lifesaving day 
on March 31.
  Once you are covered, you get no-cost preventive services. So you can 
go in, get the checkup, get the mammogram, get other cancer screenings, 
and not have out-of-pocket costs. You get again the peace of mind of 
knowing you are not going to go broke because of health care. Even if 
you get diagnosed with cancer, it is not: Do I get the treatments I 
need for breast cancer or do I have a home for my family? Do I go 
bankrupt or do I try to survive through treatments? Those are not the 
choices available to women and families anymore, and there is access to 
your doctor instead of using the emergency room.
  One of the fallacies of health care reform is this idea of somehow we 
ignore when people get sick and somehow we don't pay for it. Yet we all 
know people who don't have insurance use emergency rooms. I think it is 
interesting to note there is a proposal, in Georgia, where the Governor 
has said: The way to fix the problem with emergency rooms is to say you 
don't have to treat people. That is one way to do it, to say we are not 
going to treat people who are sick, who are in a car accident or have a 
heart attack.
  The other way is through the Affordable Care Act, where we say: 
Instead of people using emergency rooms without insurance and then 
shifting all the costs onto everybody with insurance--which is what 
happens now--we pay for it. We all pay for it. Instead of that 
happening, we will set up a way for people to take personal 
responsibility for their health care and create a way to make it as 
affordable and competitive as possible. Then people will be able to go 
to their doctor instead of the emergency room and be able to get the 
treatment they need on an ongoing basis.
  As women such as Chris can attest, cancer sneaks up on you. You can't 
predict it. You can't avoid it. This is not one of those events where 
you can

[[Page S1355]]

say just buck it up and don't get cancer. We don't want those costs, so 
just don't get sick.
  We all know how ridiculous that is. Yet in some ways this is sort of 
what we keep hearing in some fashion.
  The reality is you can't predict it. You can't avoid it. The only 
thing you can do is survive it, which millions of women are now doing 
who have access to the treatments and health care they need. This is 
why this new health care reform law is so important.
  It is two things. It is health insurance reform, making sure those of 
us who have insurance are getting what we are paying for--as we have 
said before, can't get dropped, don't put artificial limits on the 
number of treatments. So it is insurance reform, so you are getting 
what you are paying for--what you thought you were paying for. It is 
also creating a way for more affordable insurance by creating a 
marketplace where insurance companies then have to bid for your 
business and provide you the best bed possible. We have competition to 
bring the costs down. I know for Chris, I know for women in my own 
family, and I know for people across Michigan, the peace of mind that 
comes with that is, in fact, priceless.

  The debate on the other side is about taking that all away--not 
making it better, not fixing it. Medicare over the year has been 
improved. Medicaid has been improved. Social Security has been 
improved. Everything that is worth doing gets started and then has to 
be worked on to get improved. We are committed to doing that. But there 
are 50 votes now happening in the House to take it all away and to go 
back to saying good luck. If you are a woman, good luck. By the way, 
being a woman is probably viewed as being a preexisting condition. 
Trying to find insurance? Good luck. Good luck trying to get what you 
need from the insurance companies. Peace of mind is worth fighting for, 
and that is what the Affordable Care Act is all about.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.


                   Savannah Harbor Expansion Project

  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss promises made 
and promises broken, of hypocrisy and politics, of the difference 
between the photo op speeches, press releases, and real action.
  Let me start at the beginning, for those who are just joining us in 
this decade-and-a-half battle. The Panama Canal is about halfway 
through a $5.25 billion expansion which will accommodate the larger 
post-Panamax vessels that are too large to transit the current Panama 
Canal. These new post-Panamax ships are the length of aircraft 
carriers. From the waterline they are 190 feet tall, or nearly twice 
the height of the Lincoln Memorial. The ships can carry as many as 
12,000 containers, or translated into TVs, a million flat screen TVs.
  Thus, the United States must be prepared to accept these larger 
vessels by 2015, when the Panama Canal expansion is complete. The Port 
of Savannah in Savannah, Georgia, is the second busiest U.S. container 
exporter, handling 13.2 million tons in exports in 2012 alone. It is 
the busiest port on the East Coast. In order to accommodate the new 
larger ships at the Port of Savannah, the Savannah river must be 
deepened from its current depth of 42 feet to 47 feet.
  Georgia has been working on the Savannah Harbor Expansion Project for 
well in excess of a dozen years. Environmental studies have been 
completed, permits have been issued, and state funding has been secured 
for 40 percent of the project. It has the support of every Member of 
the Georgia congressional delegation and every single leader in our 
State, Republican as well as Democrat. This is a unifying bipartisan 
project for us, one that will support hundreds of thousands of jobs 
each year while generating billions of dollars in revenue for the 
entire southeastern United States.
  Until recently we had the support of the Obama administration as 
well. After all, this is exactly the type of project the President has 
been touting as the secret to our economic recovery. He even included 
the Savannah Harbor Expansion Project as one of the four port projects 
in his 2012 ``We Can't Wait'' initiative.
  Vice President Biden visited the Port of Savannah along with Senator 
Isakson, myself, and Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx last year, 
and in comments while at the Port of Savannah to the public that was 
gathered, he stated: ``We are going to get this done, come hell or high 
water.''
  Acting U.S. Deputy Secretary of Commerce Rebecca Blank visited the 
port in 2012, calling SHEP a national bipartisan priority for this 
administration. Former Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood visited 
the Port of Savannah in 2011 promising to find funding for the port 
expansion. In fact, in every conversation I have had with various 
administration officials since this project started in 1997, I have 
been assured that we would find a way to get this project done.
  So you can see how confused I was to learn this week that the 
administration is now stonewalling us on this project by not including 
the project in its 2015 budget. It is baffling to see this 
administration choose to ignore a congressional statute passed just 6 
weeks ago that cleared all remaining obstructions to moving forward 
with this project.
  The Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2014 gave clear direction to 
the administration to begin construction on the SHEP project and to 
request the necessary funding. The administration's position as 
evidenced by the Office of Management and Budget is that they will 
ignore the clear guidance from Congress and will instead request more 
funding for unnecessary additional studies this year. Apparently the 
administration would rather pay lip service to Georgians than deliver 
on their promises. The State of Georgia has done its part, and I 
commend Governor Deal and the Georgia legislature, who have committed 
$265 million to start construction. We just need the Federal Government 
to get out of our way so Georgia can begin construction on this very 
vital project.
  The administration can repair some of the damage that has been done 
by finalizing the agreement between the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 
and the Georgia Ports Authority so that they can begin construction 
with State money that under the leadership of Governor Deal is now 
going to be available. Without any Federal funding at this point in 
time, the State is willing to move forward.
  I urge the administration to move ahead with the securing of that 
agreement between the Army Corps of Engineers and the Ports Authority, 
and let's begin construction.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. MARKEY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Heitkamp). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. MARKEY. Madam President, I seek recognition to speak for 10 
minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                             Energy Policy

  Mr. MARKEY. Madam President, we have now engaged in a debate over the 
last couple of weeks over whether we should begin to expand a massive 
exportation of American natural gas--our own natural gas--to put it out 
onto the world market as a way of helping Ukraine deal with Russia.
  This whole notion is constantly being invoked, like an incantation--a 
talisman--that somehow or other this is some kind of a magic bullet 
that will help solve the problems in Ukraine. In fact, it really is 
nothing more than another aggregation encyclopedically of discredited 
notions, nostrums, that have no relationship to the reality of the 
global energy marketplace. These are actual arguments being made, false 
premises that do not, in fact, have any likelihood of having any 
substantial impact on the totality of the Ukrainian situation.
  Let me give a few facts as a way of dealing with where we are right 
now. The United States has already approved five export terminals that 
could send 4 trillion cubic feet of natural gas abroad. How much 
natural gas is that? Let me tell my colleagues: It is more than twice 
what Ukraine uses in a year. The United States has already

[[Page S1356]]

committed to doing that. More than a quarter of all of the gas Europe 
imports in a year would be ascribable to the amount of natural gas the 
United States has already approved. It would be nearly as much as every 
single U.S. home uses yearly. That is how much natural gas is part of 
the already approved export terminals in this country.
  The Department of Energy found that exporting 4.4 trillion cubic 
feet--a level we will reach within the next approved export terminal--
could raise the price of domestic natural gas up to 54 percent. That 
could mean that American consumers would pay $2.50 more per thousand 
cubic feet. That translates into--listen to this number, I say to my 
colleagues--a $62 billion energy tax every year on American consumers 
and businesses.
  What do I mean by energy tax? I mean that but for that exportation, 
consumers' bills, corporations' bills, would be $62 billion lower per 
year over the next 10 years. Can we imagine the debate here in the 
Senate over increasing $62 billion worth of taxes on Americans in one 
year? We would come to a standstill if we had that kind of debate. But 
because it is part of energy policy, people assume it is something that 
is outside the purview of what should be a great national debate which 
we are having.
  Let me tell my colleagues, low-cost domestic natural gas has allowed 
the United States to add--let me say this--530,000 manufacturing jobs 
since 2010, according to Dow Chemical. If low prices continue, we could 
add 5 million more jobs in the manufacturing sector by 2020. Who says 
this? America's Energy Advantage. Who is in that organization? Dow, 
Alcoa, Nucor, and other major corporations. To what do they relate the 
manufacturing revival in our country? Low prices. Energy that gives 
them a reason to return the manufacturing jobs from overseas.
  Except for the cost of labor, what is the single largest component in 
a manufacturing job? The cost of energy. The lower it is, the more 
likely the manufacturing company will have the jobs here in America. If 
we increase the price by 54 percent or more, which is what many people 
here are now proposing, we reduce the incentive for a manufacturer to 
create those new jobs here in the United States.
  Let me give my colleagues another fact. Every dollar invested in 
domestic manufacturing creates $8 in finished products. Manufacturing 
is at the heart of who we are as a country. This is something that 
right now is a discussion we should have in this country--the 
relationship between low-cost energy and the new manufacturing jobs we 
want to see. We can generate that economic value here in America, but 
if we send our natural gas overseas, that same kind of manufacturing 
future can be constructed in China. Let's have that debate here in our 
country.
  Last month the U.S. chemical industry topped $100 billion in new 
investments as a result of low-cost U.S. natural gas. According to the 
American Chemistry Council, those 148 new factories and expanded 
projects could generate $81 billion per year in new chemical industry 
output and 637,000 new jobs in manufacturing here in the United States 
by the year 2023.
  Now let's go to, in my opinion, some of the complete canards that are 
thrown out about where this natural gas will go if it is put out into 
the free market. First of all, let me say this: We are not Russia. We 
are not Venezuela. We are not a Communist country where the government 
controls where energy goes. No. We are a capitalist country. We are 
proud of it. The decision as to where natural gas is going to go is 
going to be made by the CEOs of oil and gas companies in our country, 
and they are going to send it to where they can get the highest dollar. 
Let me say this right now: The highest dollar is in China. The highest 
dollar is in South America. The highest dollar is not in Ukraine. So 
anyone who thinks that setting up these export terminals and sending 
our natural gas that could be helping our manufacturing sector overseas 
is going to help Ukraine's geopolitical situation doesn't understand 
the geo-economics of it, the geology of it, or the geopolitical 
implications of it. They have not thought through the totality of what 
happens when we take our precious resource and we start spreading it 
around the world.
  Some are going to argue that it helps Ukraine. Well, it is going to 
help China more than it helps Ukraine. It is going to help South 
America more than it helps Ukraine. It is for sure going to help the 
CEOs of big oil and gas companies. That is what this debate is really 
going to be all about. Because we don't captain those ships. ExxonMobil 
has a tiller for those ships, and those ships are going to steer toward 
where the highest price is on the world marketplace. When those LNG 
tankers set sail for Asia or South America, we should know what else we 
are sending abroad on those ships. American jobs will be on those 
ships. They will be sailing to other countries. Fighting climate change 
is on those ships, because we will burn more coal here in the United 
States rather than natural gas, which has half of the pollutants of 
coal. We will be increasing the greenhouse gases the United States of 
America is sending up into the atmosphere.
  When we are sending that natural gas overseas, we will be increasing 
the cost of a conversion of our large bus fleet and our large truck 
fleet over to natural gas as the fuel which makes it possible to drive 
them around our country. Here are the statistics. It is quite simple. 
If we move one-third of our fleet off of oil and on to natural gas as a 
way of fueling large buses and large trucks, then we back out 1 million 
barrels of oil--1 million barrels of oil--per day. That is a signal we 
should be sending to the Middle East. That is a signal that we are 
serious, that we are tired of exporting young men and women overseas 
and getting nothing in return.
  So let me summarize by saying this: No. 1, it is a $62 billion 
consumer tax. No. 2, it slows our conversion from coal over to oil in 
our utility industry. No. 3, it slows the conversion of vehicles over 
to natural gas. No. 4, it slows our manufacturing revolution. No. 5, it 
slows our economic recovery. Our real strength is in our strong economy 
fueled by this low-cost oil and natural gas in our country.
  We need a huge national debate in our country about the impact on our 
economy before we start putting it out on the high seas believing, 
erroneously, it is going to have some huge impact on Ukraine.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.


                                Ukraine

  Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, Russia's invasion of Ukraine is one of 
the most serious breaches of the OSCE principles since the signing of 
the 1975 Helsinki Final Act. These principles are at the foundation of 
the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe. Russia, as a 
participating state, agreed to hold these principles, including 
territorial integrity of states, inviolability of frontiers, refraining 
from the threat of use of force, peaceful settlements of disputes, and 
others.
  With this invasion, which is based, as Secretary Kerry has stated, on 
a completely trumped-up set of pretexts, Russia has shown its utter 
contempt for these core principles, indeed, for the entire OSCE 
process--not only the OSCE but the 1994 Budapest Memorandum signed by 
the United States, the United Kingdom, Russia, and Ukraine that 
provides security assurances for Ukraine, the 1997 Ukraine-Russia 
bilateral treaty, and the U.N. charter, and other international 
agreements. Russia's military invasion of Ukraine is also a gross 
violation of the Vienna Document's confidence and security building 
mechanisms which govern military relations and arms control.

  So let's examine Vladimir Putin's justification for this unprovoked 
invasion. He claims there is a need to protect Russian interests and 
the rights of Russian-speaking minorities. They characterize it as a 
human rights protection mission that it clearly is not. Russian 
officials fail to show any real evidence that the rights of ethnic 
Russians in Crimea--where they actually constitute a majority and have 
the most clout politically--and Ukraine at large have been violated. In 
fact, there is overwhelming evidence that the protests in some 
Ukrainian cities is being stoked by the Russians.
  Putin and other Russian officials make all sorts of unfounded 
accusations, including that masked militia are roaming the streets of 
Kiev, although the Ukrainian capital and most

[[Page S1357]]

of Ukraine has been calm for the last few weeks. Mr. Putin claims there 
is a ``rampage of reactionary forces, nationalist and anti-Semitic 
forces going on in certain parts of Ukraine.'' Yet Kiev's chief rabbi 
and a vice president of the World Jewish Congress on Monday accused 
Russia of staging anti-Semitic provocations in Crimea.
  Mr. Putin accuses Ukraine's new legitimate transition government--not 
yet 2 weeks old--of threatening ethnic Russians. Yet there is a myriad 
of credible reports to the contrary. Indeed, although there has been 
unrest in some cities, there has been no serious movement in the mostly 
Russian-speaking eastern and southern regions to join with Russia.
  The clear majority of Ukrainians wants to see their country remain 
unified and do not welcome Russian intervention. All Ukrainian 
religious groups have come out against the Russian intervention and 
stand in support of Ukraine's territorial integrity and inviolability 
of its borders, as have minority groups such as the Crimean Tatars and 
the Roma.
  I submit that the real threat posed by the new government is that it 
wants to assertively move Ukraine in the direction of political and 
economic reforms and in the direction of democracy, respect for how 
human rights, the rule of law--away from the unbridled corruption of 
the previous regime and the kind of autocratic rule found in today's 
Russia.
  As for protecting Russian interests in Crimea, the Russians have not 
produced one iota of evidence that the Russian Black Sea Fleet, based 
in the Crimean city of Sevastopol, is under any kind of threat. Indeed, 
when the Ukrainians reached out to the Russians to try to engage them 
peacefully, they have been rebuffed.
  Russian authorities need to send their troops back to the barracks 
and instead engage through diplomacy, not the threat or use of force. 
The Russian actions pose a threat beyond Ukraine and threaten to 
destabilize neighboring states.
  I pointed out at a hearing we had this week in the subcommittee of 
the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and in a hearing of the 
Helsinki Commission, that if Russia can use force to try to change 
territories, what message does that send to the South China Sea, what 
message does that send to the Western Balkans?
  Just as Poland has already invoked article 4 NATO consultations, the 
Baltic States and others in the region are wary of Russian goals.
  As chairman of the Helsinki Commission and a former vice president of 
the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly, I am encouraged to see active and 
wide-ranging engagement of the OSCE to deescalate tensions and to 
foster peace and security in Ukraine. The OSCE has the tools to address 
concerns with regard to security on the ground in Crimea, minority 
rights, and with regard to preparations for this democratic transition 
to lead to free and fair elections.
  In response to a request by the Ukrainian Government, 18 OSCE 
participating states, including the United States, are sending 35 
unarmed military personnel to Ukraine. This is taking place under the 
Vienna Document, which allows for voluntary hosting of visits to dispel 
concerns about unusual military activities.
  Various OSCE institutions are activating, at the request of the 
Ukrainian Government, including the OSCE's human rights office, known 
as the ODIHR, to provide human rights monitoring as well as election 
observation for the May 25 Presidential elections. The OSCE High 
Commissioner on National Minorities, Representative on Freedom of the 
Media, and the head of the Strategic Police Matters Unit, among others, 
are all in Kiev this week conducting factfinding missions. A full-
scale, long-term OSCE Monitoring Mission is being proposed, and this 
mission needs to go forward.
  All of these OSCE efforts are aimed at deescalating tensions, 
fostering peace and stability, ensuring the observance of OSCE 
principles, including the human dimension, helping Ukraine in its 
transition, especially in the runup to the May elections.
  These OSCE on-the-ground efforts are being thwarted by the Russian-
controlled newly installed Crimean authorities. The OSCE Unusual 
Military Activities observers have been stopped from entering Crimea by 
unidentified men in military fatigues.
  Also, the OSCE Media Freedom Representative and her staff were 
temporarily blocked from leaving a hotel in Crimea where she was 
meeting with journalists and civil society activists. The U.N. special 
envoy was accosted by unidentified gunmen after visiting a naval 
headquarters in the Sevastopol.
  The blocking of international monitors--who were invited by the 
Ukrainian Government and who clearly are trying to seek peaceful 
resolutions to the conflict--is completely unacceptable and we should 
hold Russia responsible for their safety.
  Russia is a member of the OSCE--one of the founding members--and they 
are openly violating the core principles of the Helsinki Final Act. 
Russia signed on to the institutions that are available under OSCE for 
this exact type of circumstance--to give independent observation as to 
what is happening on the ground. Sending this mission, at the request 
of the host country, into Crimea is exactly the commitments made to 
reduce tensions in OSCE states, and Russia is blocking the use of that 
mechanism.
  The United States and the international community are deploying wide-
ranging resources to contain and roll back Russia's aggression and to 
assist Ukraine's transition to a democratic, secure, and prosperous 
country. Both the Executive and the Congress are working around the 
clock on this. President Obama has taken concrete action and made 
concrete recommendations.
  As the author of the Magnitsky Act, I welcome the White House 
sanctions announced today, including visa restrictions on officials and 
individuals threatening Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity 
and financial sanctions against those ``responsible for activities 
undermining democratic processes or institutions in Ukraine.''
  It was just a little while ago that we passed the Magnitsky Act. We 
did that in response to gross human rights violations within Russia 
against an individual named Sergei Magnitsky. What we did is say that 
those who were responsible for these gross violations of 
internationally recognized rules should be held accountable, and if 
they are not held accountable, the least we can do in the United States 
is not give them safe haven in our country, not allow the corrupt 
dollars they have earned to be housed in America--no visas, no use of 
our banking system. The President is taking a similar action against 
those responsible for the invasion and military use against 
international rules in Ukraine.
  These steps are in addition to many other actions, including the 
suspension of bilateral discussions with Russia on trade and 
investment, stopping United States-Russia military-to-military 
engagement, and suspending preparations for the June G8 summit in 
Sochi. Both Chambers are working expeditiously on legislation to help 
Ukraine in this delicate period of transition. We also need to work 
expeditiously with our European friends and allies, and I am encouraged 
by the news that the EU is preparing a $15 billion aid package.
  Ukraine has exercised amazing restraint in not escalating the 
conflict, particularly in Crimea. I applaud their restraint and their 
action. The people of Ukraine have suffered an incredibly difficult 
history, and over the last century they have been subjected to two 
World Wars, 70 years of Soviet domination, including Stalin's genocidal 
famine. They certainly do not need another senseless war. Nothing 
justifies Russia's aggression--nothing. Our political and economic 
assistance at this time would be a testament to those who died at the 
Maidan just 2 weeks ago and a concrete manifestation that our words 
mean something and that we do indeed stand by the people of Ukraine as 
they make their historic choice for freedom, democracy, and a better 
life.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.

                          ____________________