[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 42 (Thursday, March 13, 2014)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1633-S1643]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
LEGISLATIVE SESSION
______
SUPPORTING SOVEREIGNTY AND DEMOCRACY IN UKRAINE--MOTION TO PROCEED--
Continued
The Senator from Oklahoma.
Flood Insurance
Mr. COBURN. I will try to make my remarks short. I know several of my
colleagues have places they need to be and have a time schedule they
are on. I was involved in a committee hearing this afternoon and could
not contribute to the debate on the floor on the Flood Insurance
Program.
I have about 8 months left in the Senate. I just want to remind us of
what we have just done. We have solved a very short-term problem and
made a long-term problem significantly worse. We did not really do our
work because we were in such a hurry to take the political pressure off
of the increases in the flood insurance rate.
Addressing that issue was important, and I agree that we needed to
make some adjustments. But what we did is we chose politicians to win
and the future to lose when it comes to flood risk mitigation and flood
risk cost for the American public. Are there some positive things in
the bill? Yes. But what we did once again is we put our political
positions ahead of the best interests of this country.
The Biggert-Waters bill was a great reform bill. What happened is
when we passed it, we did not recognize the tremendous rate increases
many people would have. In the last 5 years in this country, we spent
$1.6 billion at FEMA reevaluating all of the flood plains in this
country. The whole purpose behind that was to really put a risk of what
is out there based on what we have and slowly get to a point where we
are actually measuring the risk.
What have we actually done when we just passed this bill and sent it
to the President? What you did is you asked everybody in the future to
continue to pay an exorbitant amount of money for their insurance so
people who are at risk will not have to pay ultimately what is due
them. The only time we are going to see that actually happens now is
when a property sells. That is when we are going to see it. Vacation
homes are excepted. I understand that. We are not going to give rebates
to people. I understand that. But the big problem is we undermined the
incentive to mitigate for risk. We undermined it.
So we now have a new flood insurance program. We have $18 billion
worth of problems. We are getting ready to go to $26, $28 billion worth
of problems, and that is on the heads of our kids. So we once again
chose a position that put our kids at risk so we politically can be
better off because we are going to alleviate the parochial scream.
Rather than actually fix the scream, we are going to alleviate it, and
we have eliminated all of that.
So my disappointment is not that we responded to parochial requests;
it is that we did not do the hard work of actually fixing the problem
and addressing some of the parochial problems and anecdotal notes of
massive increases in flood insurance. We could have done both, but we
chose not to.
It is so heartbreaking to me and to this country that we continually
choose the politically expedient path that will bury our kids when we
do not have to. That is a function of a lack of real leadership, of
solving the real problems rather than treating the symptoms of the
problems, which is what we did. We have wasted $1.6 billion now,
essentially. We might recover it 30 years from now. But the Flood
Insurance Program is now not in any better shape and will not be in any
better shape 20 years from now than it is today.
So I hope we are happy that we have solved the parochial problems,
but when you go to sleep tonight think about who is going to pay that
bill. It is not the people who are getting the benefit from the very
large subsidized flood insurance. It is the kids of this country and
what is not going to be provided for them. It is those on the really
low rung of the ladder economically. We are not going to have the
finances to actually care for those who need the care from us the most.
Really, it is the well-healed or the more well-healed and the more
well-connected. They won again. The builders and the developers won.
The real estate firms won. Less than two-tenths of 1 percent of this
whole thing, without even modifying Biggert-Waters, applied to people
in the lower 40 percent of income in this country. Less than two-tenths
of 1 percent. Seventy percent applied to the top 20 percent of the
people. So we gave a break to the most well off people. Those are the
numbers. You cannot dispute those numbers. So because they screamed and
do not want to pay their fair share, we have now damaged the future
potential for our children.
I would say congratulations. We continue to do the same thing. No
wonder the American people say: What is up with Congress? They do not
have the courage to make a difficult, tough decision. What they do is
they always make the politically expedient one.
That is exactly what we did today. That is what the House did today.
To me, it is sickening.
The majority leader.
Mr. REID. Madam President, what now is the pending business?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion to proceed to S. 2124 is the
pending business.
Mr. REID. What is the subject matter of that bill?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Ukraine bill.
Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent that at a time to be determined by
me, after consultation with Senator McConnell, the motion to proceed be
agreed to; that there be 1 hour of debate equally divided between the
two leaders or their designees; that upon the use or yielding back of
that time, the bill be read a third time and passed, with all of the
above occurring with no intervening action or debate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. McCAIN. Reserving the right to object--I will not object--Madam
President, the majority leader has asked that we move and pass this
legislation which was considered in the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee. It was open for amendment. Several amendments were adopted.
Several were rejected. By a vote of 14 to 3, the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee reported out this bill.
Why should we care about this legislation? I will try to be as brief
as possible, but I urge my colleagues' attention to the latest New York
Times report today: ``Russia Massing Military Forces Near Border With
Ukraine.'' Russian forces are massing near the border with Ukraine.
Airborne; ground capabilities; the parachute drop was on a scale not
seen since the collapse of the Soviet Union; the units involved
artillery batteries, assault helicopters, and at least 10,000 soldiers.
In other words, right now as we speak, Vladimir Putin is either
planning on or contemplating an invasion of eastern Ukraine. We have
seen the movie before: provocateurs, people having to come and restore
order, and there is no order, so then we see military intervention, and
then there is going to be another referendum such as is supposed to
take place on Sunday in the Crimea, which I predict 80 percent of the
vote will do so when that is clearly not what the will of the people of
Crimea is.
So, incredibly, incredibly, there will be an objection from this side
to this legislation when the people of the Ukraine are crying out for
our help and our assistance.
My friend Senator Barrasso will now be proposing the House bill that
has not one single sanction in it--not one sanction. I am surprised
that the Senator would want to propose a bill that does not have any
punishment for the Russians for what they are doing right now.
Then another one of my colleagues will probably come out and object
to us taking up and passing the bill that was put through the Senate
Foreign Relations Committee--open to amendments--in a process that
could not be criticized by anyone.
So what is the message we are sending to the Ukrainian people? What
is the message we are sending them? That we have a problem with a fix
for the IMF.
Then also there are some who are demanding changes in the regulation
by
[[Page S1634]]
the Treasury Department concerning campaign contributions. What has
happened? Where are our priorities? Is the IMF--no matter whether it is
fixed or not fixed with this legislation--more important than the lives
of thousands of people? Is that what we are talking about?
You know, I will say to my friends who are objecting to this--and
there are a number of them on my side--you can call yourself
Republicans--that is fine--because that is on your voter registration.
Do not call yourself Reagan Republicans. Ronald Reagan would never--
would never--let this kind of aggression go unresponded to by the
American people.
We are not talking about troops on the ground. We are talking about
responses that impose sanctions and punishment for Vladimir Putin, who
clearly has said that his goal--the greatest disaster of the 20th
century was the dissolution, the collapse of the then-Soviet Union. We
know what Vladimir Putin is all about. We know what he understands.
So now because of an IMF fix or a campaign finance fix, we are now
going to reject a piece of legislation that was done on a bipartisan
basis with the leadership of the chairman, whom I see on the floor, of
which I am proud, and with the ranking member, Senator Corker of
Tennessee. We are going to say no.
Do you know what the most ridiculous thing about all of this is? That
the majority leader has filed cloture. We have well over 60 votes. So
we are going to be back in about 11 or 12 days, whatever it is, and
cloture will have expired. We have well over 60 votes. We will pass
this.
Instead, our signal to the people of Ukraine today, as Russian
military forces are massing on their border: Wait a minute. It is more
important that we get our campaign finance regulations fixed. It is
more important that we have the IMF fix as a higher priority than the
lives of the men and women in the Ukraine.
I have been embarrassed before on the floor of the Senate, I will
tell the Presiding Officer, but I have not been embarrassed this way
about Members of my own party. One of the proudest aspects I have
always felt of our Republican Party and the leadership of Ronald Reagan
is we stood up for people. We stood up for people when the Iron Curtain
was there. We stood up for Natan Sharansky. We said, ``Tear down this
wall.'' Now we have a guy who is trying to reinstate the old Russian
Empire, which he has said himself, and what are we saying? No. A
shameful day. I will not object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, reserving the right to object--and it
is not my ultimate intention to object but hopefully to persuade my
colleagues not to object.
I have been watching my colleagues on television, in committee, and
on the Senate floor rail about what is happening in Ukraine and about
the lack of action from their perspective. We are at a moment--that
after a very considered process in the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee, which I am privileged to chair, working alongside the
ranking member Senator Corker and with Senator McCain, another
distinguished member of the committee--with a very strong bipartisan
vote on a major piece of legislation, that, in fact, when it comes time
to act, we have those who say no, even though they go on TV and bemoan
the lack of action.
I find it incredibly difficult to suggest that what the House passed
can be the only response to what is happening in Ukraine. Yes, it is a
loan guarantee which we include in our legislation, but everything we
do we pay for. So for those who are fiscally conservative and are
concerned about it, we have paid for what we seek to do. That cannot be
said about the House.
Secondly, we go beyond a loan guarantee. As important as that loan
guarantee is to making an expression to the Ukrainian Government, to
the Ukrainian people, to our partners in Europe and in NATO, we say
there has to be responsibility taken for those who corrupted the
Ukrainian Government, for those who undermined its sovereignty, for
those who undermined its security.
We have provisions, both permissive and mandatory, to sanction
individuals who have been found to have, in fact, corrupted the
circumstances and/or affected the territorial integrity or sovereignty
of Ukraine. One of them was sponsored by Senator McCain, which was
adopted unanimously, a mandatory provision.
If we want to be doing something about Russia, we can't do it with
the House bill, we can only do it with the Senate bill. Then, yes, the
IMF. I respect people who for some reason have an ideological
difference about international monetary institutions, but if we want to
talk about security, we will not have security in Ukraine if we cannot
stabilize it economically, and a $1 billion loan guarantee isn't enough
to make that happen.
It is the IMF that is going to be the singular force to create the
opportunity for economic stability inside of Ukraine, which is
fundamental to meeting our security challenge as well.
To hold IMF reform hostage to the question of whether unlimited
campaign money can go into our elections without deciding whether that
is being done appropriately under the law as it exists is outrageous.
There is a reason we care about Ukraine. It is not simply because we
want to do the right thing by a country that has been invaded in the
Crimea and for which thousands of Russian troops and equipment are
amassing along its border in Eastern Ukraine, it is because this has a
global consequence.
If the West doesn't act what will China say when it is looking at its
territorial desires in the South China Sea? What will Iran say as we
are negotiating with them about nuclear weapons?
What will others in the world, in North Korea--whose march to nuclear
weapons on a greater scale is in play--all of them will be looking at
what we and the West do as it relates to Ukraine and making a decision:
How far can I go? What can I get away with?
To be able to stabilize Ukraine, we need to ultimately have the
International Monetary Fund. To hold that hostage because of
investigations going on--wherever they may lead and however they may
lead to the question of campaign finance moneys may be inappropriately,
ultimately, being used in violation of law--is outrageous.
What is at play is our national interests, our national security, the
sovereignty of the people of the Ukraine, the message that we will send
across the world about what we stand ready to do. That should not be
hostage to political interests that have nothing to do with those
issues.
For all those who have been standing and making speeches, for all
those who have been going on TV with plenty of criticism, this is your
opportunity to act and act now. There is no reason we cannot do that at
this moment.
I withdraw my reservation and I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
Mr. CORKER. I will be brief. I wish to say first to the leader, we
certainly have had some discussions regarding operations on the Senate
floor and the speed with which we deal with things and the amount of
debate, but I thank him for trying to bring this issue to a vote today.
I thank him for what he is going to do in a moment; that is, to file
cloture on this piece of legislation that passed out of our committee
with strong bipartisan support, so that immediately when we get back we
will take up the bill.
I wish we could do it tonight. We have a group of seven or eight
Senators on their way to Ukraine. Nothing would be better than for them
to know we passed this strong piece of legislation this week, while
there is going to be a referendum that is going to take place early
next week in Crimea, while we have Russian troops on the border, while
we have a Prime Minister who was here last night showing extreme
courage, as a 39-year-old young man, in dealing with the issues he is
facing today.
I lament the fact that we are not going to have the opportunity as a
body--the most deliberative body in the world, some say--to take action
on this issue.
I do wish to say that whenever we bring up the bill--it appears it
will not be tonight; hopefully it will be as soon as we get back--this
is a strong piece of legislation. It deals both with giving Ukraine a
bridge to the future while
[[Page S1635]]
they are dealing with economic issues internally; it deals with
sanctions to isolate Russia, which is what we all know needs to happen
to keep them from continuing this activity; and it puts in place
reforms our country has already agreed to that Congress has not taken
action on--and that makes the IMF more fully able to deal with this
issue, which is a poster child for why we would want the IMF to operate
in a responsible and strong manner.
I strongly support this legislation. I thank the chairman for working
with us the way he did. I thank Senator McCain for his leadership on
these issues.
Again, I thank the majority leader for placing this in an urgent
manner before the Senate today. I lament the fact that we will not vote
on it today, but hopefully we will pass it broadly when we return.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
Mr. DURBIN. Reserving the right to object, I am going to be brief,
but I wish to make this point, that it is rare we take an action in the
Senate that is watched around the world, and that is happening tonight.
That is happening tonight because the crisis in Ukraine and in the
Crimea has focused the attention of the world on Russian aggression,
aggression by a country which hosted the Sochi Olympics--a charm
offensive so we could see the new Russia--and then the final day of the
ceremonies they sent their troops into Crimea.
That isn't the new Russia. That is the old Russia. It is a Russia
many of us are familiar with, a Russia for those of us who have
Lithuanian blood. My mother was born there and remembered full well
what the Soviets did in the Baltics and what it meant to those poor
people for such a long time.
We remember and we know that the ambitions of Vladimir will only be
stopped with the resolve of the West. The resolve of the West starts in
this Chamber tonight. It is an opportunity for Members on both sides of
the aisle to stand and approve the measure which passed the Senate
Foreign Relations Committee yesterday 14 to 4, with the great
leadership of Senator Menendez of New Jersey and Senator Corker of
Tennessee.
It was a bipartisan effort to say that what the Russians have done is
wrong; that if they continue this course we will initiate political and
economic sanctions; and that we will join the international community
in strengthening the Ukrainian economy so it can prosper, embrace
democracy, and the Western values which we treasure. That is what is at
stake with this request this evening.
To hear people say let's not do it because we should debate the
future of the IMF--for goodness' sake. Can't we save that for another
day.
For the people in Ukraine, for those in America of Ukrainian descent
who have family in Ukraine, can't we say we will save the debate on the
IMF for another day.
Others have suggested there is another course of action. They say if
we want to help Ukraine, we have to say the U.S. Department of Treasury
cannot investigate violations of 501(c)(4) organizations.
What does that have to do with Ukraine? Nothing.
This is what it boils down to. Those who are making that demand are
saying we cannot protect Ukraine unless we are prepared to protect the
Koch brothers from the possibility of investigation and prosecution for
wrongdoing. That is what it comes down to. That is an outrage. If we
submitted that as a plot line to ``House of Cards,'' they would reject
it and say nothing could be so outlandish. We have heard it not once
but many times.
Let's stand tonight in the Senate and send a message to Russia and to
Ukraine that we stand behind those people whose lives are at stake as
they try to move forward toward democracy and as they move forward
toward a free election. Let's stand behind them tonight and not hide
behind some procedural effort.
I object to this measure and I hope the unanimous consent request is
agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
Mr. BARRASSO. Madam President, reserving the right to object, today
Russia's Defense Ministry announced new military operations in regions
along the Ukrainian border, a disturbing development that comes 1 day
after Ukraine's interim Prime Minister visited President Obama and met
with Members of this body.
We are now faced with the inescapable reality that the Senate is
about to enter a recess week, having taken no meaningful action to aid
the interim government in Kiev. We are left with one option, taking up
and passing the House-passed bill, which authorizes $1 billion in loan
guarantees. We can pass that measure now by unanimous consent and
assure our friends in Ukraine that they are not forgotten.
The Senate Foreign Relations Committee bill contains provisions
related to the International Monetary Fund that are unrelated to the
crisis in Ukraine and not needed immediately and must be debated by
this body.
The bill also contains sanctions, cuts to the Department of Defense,
and other appropriations provisions.
The Foreign Relations Committee bill touches the jurisdiction of
several committees and is certain to be met with opposition and perhaps
a protracted conference with the House where, were we to take it up
today, in the face of Russian armored vehicles, we are offering
rhetoric, despite the fact that the committee bill addresses
jurisdiction within the Armed Services Committee, the Appropriations
Committee, and cuts Defense Department spending.
The chairman of the committee refused yesterday to allow me to offer
amendments concerning the export of natural gas to markets in Europe.
The Senate should debate whether helping Ukrainians through the export
of natural gas is in our interest, as dozens of newspapers around the
country talk about Moscow tightening the squeeze on Ukraine over
energy.
The Washington Post says: ``Europe needs an alternative to Russian
natural gas.''
The Wall Street Journal: ``West Tries to Loosen Russia's Gas Grip.''
The New York Times: ``U.S. Hopes Boom in Natural Gas Can Curb
Putin.''
The Senate should debate whether helping the Ukrainians through the
export of natural gas is in our interest. It should have that debate
and pass sanctions, but none of those matters can be addressed today--
none of them.
The only bill that can get to the President quickly is the House-
passed bill, and we should pass it now.
I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Unanimous Consent Request--H.R. 4152
Mr. BARRASSO. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the
immediate consideration of Calendar No. 328, H.R. 4152.
I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read a third time and passed
and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
The majority leader.
Mr. REID. Madam President, reserving the right to object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
Mr. REID. I was talking to my friend, the senior Senator from
Arizona, a little while ago. He and I came to the Senate together many
years ago from the House of Representatives.
We came to the Senate together. We were separated because Arizona has
more people and Nevada seniority. During those many years that we have
been together, we have had some experiences in the Senate that are
memorable. I don't know as much--and that is an understatement--about
military preparedness and the military as John McCain does. That is a
gross understatement. He is somebody we should listen to when it comes
to things dealing with aggression and military operations.
Ukraine is kind of personal to me. A baby was born. His parents named
him Israel Goldfarb. He, with his parents, came to the United States.
His name was changed. That man is my wife's dad, my father-in-law. He
was born in Ukraine. My wife Landra and I have been to Ukraine. But
this is dealing with more than someone's father-in-law, may he rest in
peace; it deals with 45 million freedom-loving people who are being
threatened by the big bear wanting to return to the days of the Soviet
Union.
[[Page S1636]]
So for my friend, the Senator from Wyoming, to come here and say
there is nothing we can do about this today, that is absolutely wrong.
There is plenty we can do about it today. But we are not going to do
that. Why? Well, my friend says there are committees who are concerned
about jurisdiction.
How do the people in Ukraine feel about that one? How do they feel
about that--that the bipartisan heavy vote we got out of the markup in
the Foreign Relations Committee may have stepped on someone's toes
dealing with the jurisdiction of a committee? This is much more
important than that.
The International Monetary Fund is very much related to Ukraine, and
my friend from Wyoming knows that. He is on the committee. He knows
about the importance of the IMF.
But 45 million people are desperate for help. They are afraid. They
are afraid. Russia has deployed paratroopers to the border with
Ukraine. They didn't drive in; they were dropped from the air. These
are Russian Cold War tactics.
I want to make a suggestion to President Putin, and that is this. He
is going to have this plebiscite on Sunday in Crimea. Why doesn't he
have one in Chechnya? What would happen there? Would they support
Russia? No. They are an oppressed people because of Vladimir Putin. If
he wants to have a vote on what the people of the Russian Federation
want to do, let him have a vote in Chechnya and see how that vote would
turn out. This is so transparent what he is doing--illegally.
These are Cold War tactics to try to intimidate the 45 million people
in Ukraine. That is just what it is--intimidation. The entire world
condemns what he has done with rare exception, and they are going to
condemn it even more if he goes further because action will have to be
taken to isolate Russia and its economy. This robust bill which was
passed by the Foreign Relations Committee and sent to the floor is
important.
I don't throw around a lot of accolades, especially for my Republican
colleagues. I should do more, but I don't, and I have to get better at
that. But I have told him personally, and I tell the people of
Tennessee and the people of this country and the people around the
world that the speech that was given yesterday by the ranking member of
that committee, the junior Senator from Tennessee, was historic. It was
a wonderful speech that set aside all partisanship and directed its
attention to what is going on in a part of the world that must concern
us.
This measure that comes from the House of Representatives, I can't do
better than what the senior Senator from Arizona said. How could we
send eight of our Senators to Ukraine and say: Yes, we decided to do
something, but we are not going to do anything to suggest in any way
that what Russia has done is wrong. There is not a sanction that would
cause anything to happen with what the House has done. I can't
imagine--I can't imagine--how anyone in good conscience, after what has
gone on in the last few days--how anyone could agree that our great
country should go to Ukraine and tell them that we have passed
something that helps you, although we don't condemn Russia in any
fashion in the resolution. We are being asked to agree to that? I don't
think so.
The role of the IMF in stabilizing Ukraine's economy and keeping
Ukraine free is important. But it is important not only for the
Ukrainians; it is important for this country. It is a part of our
national security interests.
So we know people are upset about committee jurisdiction, and we know
because it is out in public. I have kept this to myself for quite some
time because it was done when we were doing other things, such as the
omnibus. Efforts were made at that time to give up on the
investigations of the Koch brothers and all the others. Remember,
Treasury is not investigating only Republican super PACs. They are
investigating super PACs, as they should--Republican super PACs, tea
party super PACs, libertarian super PACs--all of them. If that isn't
something that should be investigated, I don't know what is.
I have talked about Senator McCain's efforts in recognizing and
identifying for us, and we listen because of his experience in the
military. But we should also listen to what he says about campaign
spending. I am sorry to take so long. I know people are wanting to
leave, but I want to say this. I have been a part of raising money here
in Washington for a long time--more than three decades. When I first
came here, for the only money you could get you listed where they
worked, their address, and everything about them. Then we all will
remember both parties found a way to sneak stuff through. We did it
through corporations. We funneled the money through State parties, and
I remember that. I felt so unclean, for lack of a better description.
People would give you these big checks to give to the State party. Then
McCain-Feingold passed. For the next election it was as if I had taken
a bath--a bath after having run a marathon.
John McCain understands why we need to investigate all this soft
money--the super PAC money. When he says it, we should listen. Maybe
our colleagues don't want to listen to me, but they should listen to
John McCain because he has a record of substantiating his efforts in
that regard.
So this thing is being objected to--what we are trying to do here to
protect the 45 million in Ukraine--because of this investigation of the
Koch brothers and others. I am not going to get into the details about
social welfare organizations and all that, but we all know they are
political front groups that spend millions of dollars in misleading
ads, and it is unfortunate.
So it is too bad we have this. It is hard to believe that some are so
wedded to the Koch brothers and others that they would torpedo a bill
that is vital to the national security of this country and the freedom
of tens of millions of Ukrainians and the birthplace of my wife's dad.
This is wrong, and I am very disappointed in my friend from Wyoming
that he would come forward and do this. I have to tell you it takes a
lot of courage because there isn't a lot of academic integrity in that.
Strike the word integrity. There isn't a lot of foundation for what he
has done. It is unreasonable. It is unfair and it is without
substantiation, and I object.
Mr. McCAIN. Madam President.
Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. McCAIN. I know the Senator from Alabama wants to speak, and I
assure him I will not remain on the floor to hear it because I know
what the Senator from Alabama is going to say that has something to do
with paying for it out of defense spending. I will match my record with
the Senator from Alabama on defense spending anytime, day or night.
The fact is, this money is taken out of programs that were already
canceled and were going to be returned to the Treasury. If they had
been used for defense, then it would have busted the budget agreement
the Senator from Alabama has so stoutly defended time after time. So in
a bit of preemption of the Senator from Alabama, his argument is wrong
that this is taking money out of defense. He is dead wrong.
So all I would say to my colleagues is that the Senator from Wyoming
came down and wants us to take up and pass a bill passed by the House
of Representatives which has not a single binding sanction in it--not
one. Not one binding sanction in it. Not one strong message to the
people of Ukraine that we are supporting them.
Russia's defense ministry announced: New military operations in
several regions near the Ukrainian border on Thursday. Even as
Chancellor Angela Merkel warned the operations came as Ukraine's Acting
President Oleksandr V. Turchynov--the Acting President of the Ukraine
was quoted by Ukrainian news media as saying Russian forces amassed
near the border were ready to invade.
So we now have Russian forces ready to invade a sovereign nation, and
what are we talking about? An IMF fix. Suppose the Senator from Alabama
was right and this sum of money is being taken out of national defense.
How much money are we going to have to spend on national defense if
Vladimir Putin goes unchecked throughout Europe?
The next target, by the way, will be the Baltic countries because
they have Russian speaking populations as well, and we may have to have
provocations
[[Page S1637]]
there; Moldova, where Russia occupies Transnistria; Georgia, where
Russia occupies Abkhazia and South Ossetia. But what are we arguing
about? Whether the IMF fix is appropriate or not. What are we arguing
about? Whether it is in dispute as to whether this is actually some
reduction in defense spending. Where in the world are our priorities?
Where in the world is our sympathy and our concern and our need to
support the people of Ukraine in this hour of need?
I don't want to go on too long, but the issue of natural gas, we all
know that is the way out of it long term. Does anybody think including
a provision on natural gas is going to have any effect whatsoever on
events that are now happening and will happen in the next few days? Of
course not. I am a strong supporter of getting natural gas to these
countries, but it is not going to happen in the next days, weeks,
months or maybe even years. So to use that is an excuse, of course,
again.
I have watched in the last few months two fool's errands. One was
when we shut down the government. We were all so proud we shut down the
government, turned away 600,000 people from our national parks, took
$27 million out of the economy of my State on a fool's errand that was
not going to succeed. Now we see another fool's errand because the
majority leader will file cloture and there will be well over 60 votes,
and 10 or 11 or however many days from now we will pass it and these
sanctions will be enacted.
In the meantime--in the meantime--the first message to the people of
Ukraine, who have Russians--in the view of the Ukrainian President--
ready to invade, is that we are telling them no, because we don't agree
with an IMF fix or we think the money may be or may not be coming out
of defense.
Mr. MURPHY. Will the Senator yield for a brief question?
Mr. McCAIN. I will be glad to.
Mr. MURPHY. I thank the Senator.
Senator McCain and I were in Ukraine at the end of last year. We had
the privilege to speak on the Maidan in front of about half a million
people, maybe even a million people who were there protesting the
current government, the corruption that had reined free, their decision
to move away from an orientation towards Europe. After Senator McCain's
remarks, the crowd rose up with the chant of ``Thank you, USA. Thank
you, USA.''
Wherever we went during that trip, as we heard also from the new
prime minister yesterday, they were desperate for the help of the
United States. They are grateful for the fact that both the House and
the Senate are moving forward on the issue of providing loan
guarantees--loan guarantees that aren't nearly enough. That is why we
need to have the IMF reforms, so they can deliver the bulk of the
assistance. But they feel as though they are standing virtually alone
as Russia marches across their borders, and desperately want the United
States to lead an international consensus to make it clear to the
Russians there is a price to be paid.
The Russians marched into Crimea in large part because they didn't
believe the United States and Europe would enact the crippling
sanctions which would have otherwise caused them to make a different
decision. What this moment could be about, right now on the floor of
the Senate, as we head back over to Ukraine to again express our
support, is there is bipartisan consensus in the Senate and the House
that we are not only going to stand with them on the question of
economic support, but we are going to enact a set of sanctions which
will make Russia consider a different decision.
My question to Senator McCain is: As important as economic support
is, that is not what they are asking for here. They are not asking for
passage of the House bill. They are asking for the United States, as we
have time and time again, to lead an international consensus to send a
strong message to Russia. We are going to go over there and I believe
have a good series of meetings this weekend, but we could have had a
much stronger message brought to them if we had answered their call
ultimately to provide them economic support and stand with our partners
in Europe, sending a strong message to the Russians.
Mr. McCAIN. I thank my friend from Connecticut. I say if we take up
and pass the House bill, it does one thing: It gives them loan
guarantees for $1 billion. There is not one other single binding
provision in the House bill which my colleague from Wyoming wanted to
take up and pass, instead of this bill, which went through the
committee--with the input, by the way, of the administration. There is
bipartisan and administration cooperation on it.
I urge my colleagues to read the provisions of this bill. They are
tough. They are tough, enforceable provisions which will make Vladimir
Putin and his kleptocratic oligarchy uncomfortable.
And, by the way, one of the reasons why Vladimir Putin is doing what
he is doing is he is afraid a free, independent, and noncorrupt Ukraine
on his border might send a message to the Russian people who are sick
and tired of him anyway.
Sanctions on persons in the Russian Federation, complicit in or
responsible for significant corruption, are a major provision of this
bill; Sanctions on persons responsible for violence or undermining the
peace, security, stability, sovereignty, or territorial integrity of
Ukraine. There are many other provisions in this bill which are binding
which will make life very uncomfortable.
Instead, my dear friend--and he is my dear friend--from Wyoming wants
to take up and pass a bill which has one thing, and one thing only, and
that is a $1 billion loan guarantee. By the way, the EU has just given
them $15 billion.
So all I can say is we will pass this legislation, and we will go and
we will assure our Ukrainian friends that this bill will be passed and
we will act.
I hope people at home who know Ukraine and know the people of Ukraine
and know the friends and relatives and others will make it known to
their elected representatives that for us to sit by and not help these
people would be writing a disgraceful chapter in American history.
I thank my colleague.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
Mr. CORKER. Madam President, if I could add to the comments of
Senator McCain.
Last night we all met with the Prime Minister. They don't even need
this economic aid today. They have to sign an IMF agreement first. It
is weeks before they even need what the Senator from Wyoming wished to
pass.
On the other hand, what we are trying to do is push Russia back. As
the leader mentioned, this bill has tough sanctions. And, by the way,
Europe is meeting on Monday to begin looking at the sanctions they want
to put in place. So if we were to pass the sanctions which we have in
this bill--which are tough sanctions, sanctions which we have never
imposed before, sanctions on economic extortion, sanctions on
corruption--what that would do is help boost the European community
along to do the same thing, and our goal here is to isolate Russia to
keep them from continuing to put pressure on Ukraine.
So I couldn't agree more. Why would we pass a bill which does no good
as it relates to trying to push Russia back and isolate them, when we
have an opportunity right now to pass a bill which shows we are willing
to isolate Russia and actually give strength to what the European
community is getting ready to do hopefully this next week.
So I agree. I wish we were taking up the bill which we all worked on
together and passed by a huge bipartisan majority, and I wish we could
send you all with the sanctions in hand, passed out of the Senate, to
show the people of Ukraine that while militarily there may not be
involvement, we stand together with them to do everything we can to
isolate Russia, to isolate Putin, and to make sure economically they
pay a huge price if they try to take any other actions in this area. So
I agree with the Senator.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Gillibrand). The majority leader.
Mr. REID. Madam President, there has been an objection. I think
unfairly, there has been an objection. Everyone should understand, the
first legislative matter we will take up when we get back here is going
to be this. There is nothing I know of at this time that is more
important.
[[Page S1638]]
So Senators should be aware, this is nothing we are going to run
from. We are going to act on it as soon as we get back. It is really
too bad we haven't been able to move forward. We should have. We could
have. We are not going to. But we are going to move to it as soon as we
get back.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, what has happened in Ukraine is a real
disaster. It should never have happened. It is so bad, and it reflects
a weakness in American foreign policy which goes deep. The American
people understand that. I think the whole world is baffled at the lack
of clarity in American foreign policy. I would say, if John McCain had
been elected President and were President today, we would have never
had this invasion by the Soviet Russians into Ukraine and Crimea.
This is a big problem. It is not going away. It is a very deep and
serious problem.
The fundamental thing we can do today--and we should do today--is
move forward with what the United States can contribute to this
situation, which is to pass the $1 billion loan fund. The European
Union is doing their $15 billion through the IMF. Why don't we do that?
Why don't we do that?
The reason is, this leadership is determined to push forward a policy
change in the International Monetary Fund which has been up here before
the Congress since 2010 and has not been passed and does not have to be
passed today. They have insisted on that.
They have placed Ukraine in second place through their reforms which
they have been pushing for with the IMF, and there are serious problems
with that. It gives Russia more clout, among other things; not a lot,
but it gives them more clout in the International Monetary Fund. And it
costs money and violates the budget.
I am the ranking member on the Budget Committee. It is subject to a
budget point of order. There is no doubt about that. Anybody can
suggest otherwise if they want to, but it violates the budget, and we
ought not to be doing this in violation of the budget. We don't have
to.
But this administration negotiated with Senator McCain and Senator
Corker and the Democratic leadership in the Senate and they agreed this
would be the policy. Not what the House passed. But they would add more
to it, they would reform the IMF, and then we are all just supposed to
accept it.
I told the Senator from Tennessee--a very fine Senator--I am ranking
member on the Budget Committee. He knows that. We have worked together
to try to adhere to the spending limits Congress has imposed on
ourselves. We just voted on this. Ten weeks ago the President signed
this reform which raised the spending but limited it, and they want to
spend more in a way which is not legitimate. So I am baffled.
Why in the world would we not take advantage of the--yes, what the
House has sent to us, pass this legislation, and allow us to make our
individual contribution of $1 billion? And, by the way, we are scoring
it at about $350 million because it is unlikely we will be fully paid
back.
So why don't we do that? Is it pride? Is it pique? Is it politics? I
can't imagine. So you don't get everything you want, colleagues. Take
what you can get. It is really the only thing which amounts to anything
now. The IMF has put up $15 billion. They don't need this reform to do
their loan, their aid to Ukraine. They don't need this legislation for
that. Why is it so important?
Senator Durbin said: Well, why can't we debate this another day.
Right. Why can't we debate the IMF another day? But if his bill were to
pass, the debate is over; the law the President wants to pass would
pass, without congressional involvement in it.
Members of Congress have been dealing with these issues for a long
time. It is a serious question. It does not need to be here today on
this legislation. It just does not.
I have warned our colleagues that we do not need to be passing
legislation which is not paid for in this fashion, and I would object
to it. They had time here to fix it, but no attempt was made to fix it.
It is a little disturbing to me to see our colleagues, who have
themselves decided what the best solution is, come to the floor and
attack those of us who have a good-faith objection to it, when we are
perfectly prepared to support the fundamental thing which needs to be
done--and that is the $1 billion loan package the United States has
agreed to fund, the House has agreed to support, I support, virtually
every Member of Congress supports. But not this big reform package of
IMF which is not justified.
I feel deeply this is a big mistake. Why in the world we wouldn't act
today and take yes for an answer, I can't imagine. It goes beyond what
I think is realistic.
I would conclude by saying again, something is very wrong with the
foreign policy of the United States of America. Whether we reform the
IMF is not going to send a message to Russia. The idea that somehow we
are going to affect them by exactly what has passed here today I
believe is incorrect. I believe fundamentally this package is what we
can do, what we should do, and we should do it today. Then we should
come back and be prepared to impose serious sanctions or whatever the
President asks for.
Finally, I am disappointed the President of the United States is not
more consultative with Congress in order to determine what legislation
we need to pass and would continue to insist on passing reform
legislation of the International Monetary Fund, which, in all
likelihood, will be rejected by the House.
I feel as though we are through the looking glass here. I hate that
tensions are so high. But if we would take yes for an answer, pass this
House bill, come back and have a full evaluation of reform of IMF, and
pass sanctions as we go forward, that would be the right thing for us
to do.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
Mr. CRUZ. Madam President, I commend the Senator from Alabama and the
Senator from Wyoming for their leadership on this important issue.
The crisis in Ukraine has riveted our attention for the last 4 months
as we have seen brave men and women standing in freezing cold, standing
for freedom, standing for their desire to stand with the West, to stand
with Europe, to stand with America, and to be free from the domination
of Putin's Russia.
We all strongly support the efforts of the Ukrainian people to choose
a different path from subjugation to Russia, to choose a path toward
economic and political liberty and toward a close friendship with the
West.
Madam President, all of us on both sides of the Chamber are united in
decrying the military aggression of Russian strongman Vladmir Putin, as
he has invaded a sovereign nation with military force, committing an
act of war. No one should be confused as to what Mr. Putin is
attempting to do. Indeed, acting Ukraine Prime Minister Yatsenyuk said
very clearly that Putin is trying to reestablish the borders of the old
Soviet Union. He is expanding, sadly, into a vacuum of leadership the
United States has not been filling. Russia is filling that vacuum, and
the seizure of Crimea is only the beginning of Putin's aggressiveness.
He will continue, I would predict, to be aggressive unless and until he
meets significant resistance.
We are also united in believing there is an important role for the
United States to play in responding to this crisis. I believe we should
take concrete actions to respond to Russia's invasion of Crimea.
No. 1, we should press to expel Russia from the G8.
No. 2, the administration should immediately begin enforcing the
Magnitsky Act--which he has failed to do up to this point--designed to
punish human rights atrocities by Russian Government officials. Indeed,
we should expand it to include Ukranian human rights abusers.
No. 3, we should immediately install the ballistic missile batteries
in Eastern Ukraine that were scheduled to go in that President Obama
mistakenly canceled in an effort to appease Mr. Putin. That effort did
not succeed, and we should go forward with allowing eastern Europe to
defend itself.
Additionally, there is a great deal we can do to aid the people of
Ukraine.
[[Page S1639]]
The President should immediately offer the Government of Ukraine a
free-trade agreement indicating that their goods are welcome in the
United States and our goods in their country.
We should explore other options to assist them in economic recovery
consistent with free market principles, including moving as
expeditiously as possible to allow them access to U.S. energy exports
and in particular liquidified natural gas. Russia uses natural gas and
energy as a tool of economic blackmail. It is critical to the source of
Russia's power not just over Ukraine but over much of Europe. The
United States is blessed with abundant supplies of natural gas. It is
only foolhardy government policy that stands in the way of our
exporting that natural gas, meeting the need and helping Ukraine be
free of the economic blackmail. We should move immediately in that
regard not just because it would help Ukraine, not just because it
would represent a serious blow to Russia when Russia relies on the
revenue from those energy exports--if the United States steps up and
provides it to them instead, that would be a serious economic blow to
Russia--not just that but because it makes perfect sense from the
perspective of the United States of America, our economic interests at
a time when we have the lowest labor rate participation since 1978.
When millions of people are out of work and hurting, we should be
developing and expanding our resources, and energy provides an
opportunity to transform the geopolitical playing field, to use our
abundant resources in a free market manner to respond and help liberate
the people of Ukraine.
There is also a financial component of the assistance for--Ukraine
that it makes a world of sense should come from the International
Monetary Fund, to which the United States is a contributor. That is
what the IMF was created to do, and the IMF today stands fully capable
of meeting that need.
My friend from Arizona has an admirable passion on this issue for the
people of Ukraine and for standing up to Mr. Putin, and I commend my
friend from Arizona for his passion in this regard. However, the reason
this bill has not passed today is because the majority of this
Chamber--the majority leader made a decision, the chairman of the
Senate Foreign Relations Committee made a decision to inject into the
aid and sanctions plan for Ukraine an extraneous issue, an issue of the
IMF that has nothing to do with the underlying issue. That was a
mistake. That was a mistake.
I would suggest that the so-called IMF reforms are misguided policy.
They don't make sense for four separate reasons.
No. 1, they are unnecessary. There is no need whatsoever for these
reforms. Indeed, the IMF is perfectly capable of managing the task on
hand, and estimates have shown that Ukraine aid would cost no more than
5 percent of its current resources. So the IMF portions are
unnecessary, extrinsic. I agree with the Speaker of the House, John
Boehner, who says these so-called IMF reforms are unnecessary and
extrinsic to this bill.
No. 2, these IMF provisions, if passed into law, would dramatically
expand the financial exposure of the United States of America,
effectively doubling our contribution, expanding our exposure. If that
is good policy, that should be debated on its merits. We should not be
opening the U.S. taxpayers to billions in additional financial
liability without a debate on the merits. It shouldn't be just tied to
Ukranian aid and forced through the Senate. That is the wrong approach.
No. 3, most inexplicably, these so-called reforms, if passed, would
diminish U.S. influence on the IMF; would reduce our ability to control
the decisions of the IMF; indeed, would move the funds from a fund in
which we have veto authority into one in which we no longer have veto
authority. We would have a smaller portion of influence over the IMF.
Astonishingly, No. 4, this bill would expand Russia's influence and
control over the IMF. Let me repeat that. A bill that is being
ostensibly introduced to punish Russia for their acts of war and
aggression would expand Russia's influence over the IMF and decrease
the influence of the United States of America.
I agree with my friend from Alabama who suggested moments ago that
this is ``Through the Looking Glass.'' This makes no sense. I would
challenge any of my friends here to stand here and explain why a
sensible response to what Russia has done is to expand Russia's
influence in the IMF and to diminish America's influence. That makes no
sense whatsoever.
Madam President, I wish to close with two points. No. 1, we could
pass aid for the people of Ukraine right now--today. The Senator from
Wyoming rose and asked for unanimous consent to pass the bill that has
already passed the House. Had the majority leader not stood up and
objected on behalf of Senate Democrats, that bill would have passed
into law. It would be already headed to the President's desk for
signature. It is only because the majority leader objected that we are
not sitting here today having already passed aid for the people of
Ukraine.
I would note, by the way, that the majority leader had extended
commentary about two businessmen, the Koch brothers, who I am beginning
to think are characters almost out of ``Dr. Seuss'' in the majority
leader's mind. They are the grinch who stole Christmas in his telling.
I would note that the majority leader focuses on the IRS rules--not
focusing on the abuse of power by the IRS, the Treasury inspector
general chronicles, but instead on the need for a vote to regulate the
IRS's abuse of power.
Let me say very simply that the House bill on Ukraine doesn't mention
the IRS at all, doesn't mention P4s at all. So when the majority leader
stood on the floor, this is all because of the nefarious Koch brothers.
Set aside the impropriety of the majority leader of the U.S. Senate
picking two private citizens--individuals engaged in political speech,
standing up for what they believe, and the majority leader using his
position of political power to lambaste them, to target them.
Interestingly enough, the majority leader does not seem to have a
problem with the California billionaire who has publicly pledged to put
$100 million behind Democrats to press them to pass climate change
legislation that would cost millions of jobs across this country from
blue-collar workers, from hard-working Americans. That billionaire, in
the majority leader's view, is perfectly free to spend $100 million in
the election, but the Koch brothers, because the two of them have stood
and expressed their views, are subjected to vilification and personal
attack from the majority leader.
The Senate rules allow a Member of this body, if his or her integrity
is impugned, to raise an objection. Let me ask you something, Madam
President. What Senate rule allows a private citizen to raise an
objection when his integrity is impugned by the majority leader?
Those two brothers are not Members of this body, so they can have
their reputation dragged through the mud. Yet they are denied a point
of personal privilege to come and defend themselves. That is not the
job of the U.S. Senate, to vilify private citizens.
I would note that the provision he is talking about is not in the
House bill, which means when the Senator from Wyoming stood and asked
for consent to pass the House bill, if the majority leader had simply
refrained from objecting, we would have passed aid to Ukraine tonight.
It has nothing to do with the Koch brothers, nothing to do with the
IRS. That is not in the House bill. The reason the majority leader
objected is that he wants to hold aid to Ukraine hostage to force
through these misguided IMF reforms. That is the wrong decision.
One final point I wish to make. The world should understand, Russia
should understand, the people of Ukraine should understand, and Mr.
Putin should understand that all of us are united in standing with the
people of Ukraine, that the United States will act. I am convinced it
will act decisively to impose sanctions and serious consequences on
Russia for this unprovoked act of war. We will act decisively to stand
with the people of Ukraine. There should be no doubt in any observer's
mind that this will unify both parties. We will stand together. We
would have done so tonight had the majority leader not made the cynical
decision to hold aid for Ukraine hostage to force a partisan bill that
does not enjoy sufficient support in this body to pass otherwise.
Politics
[[Page S1640]]
should end at the water's edge, and I think it is unfortunate to see
the majority leader trying to use the crisis in Ukraine for political
advantage. That is a mistake.
But there should be no ambiguity. We will impose sanctions. We will
stand with Ukraine. And the people of America understand that Mr.
Putin's aggression is reliving the days when the Soviet Union was an
evil empire. It is reliving those days Mr. Putin called the collapse of
the Soviet Union ``the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of modern
times.'' Well, all of us surely hope he does not succeed in his
intentions of restoring the Soviet Union, restoring that evil empire,
restoring the cloud of oppression across Europe and across the world,
and we stand united with the people of Ukraine and with the people
surrounding Russia in support of freedom and against his unconscionable
act of war.
Madam President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama
Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the Senator from Texas for his comments and for
his eloquence. I believe he has touched on the right issues.
I would just add one thing. I was in Ukraine about 3 years ago; a
delegation was there. We met with State Department people. We met with
Tymoshenko, the fabulous leader of the Orange Revolution. She had those
beautiful braids in her hair like peasants in the Ukraine wear, and she
was concerned that she would be put in jail. I just couldn't believe
it. The Ambassador told us she hadn't committed any crime, but she was
placed in jail and served 2\1/2\ years. They have released her now. She
was in a wheelchair, and you could tell she suffered from that.
I truly believe the people of Ukraine did a fabulous, wonderful thing
when they stood for their country, for democracy. We need to stand with
them. I stand with them just as I stood with and defended the people of
Georgia when the Russians invaded Abkhazia and Ossetia.
I want to say unequivocally, bipartisanly, that this Congress--House
and Senate--stands firmly with the people of the Ukraine. We want to
help them. The one thing substantively we can do today that would make
a difference for the people of Ukraine is to pass this bill that
provides $1 billion in help to them. I truly believe we should do that.
I am deeply disappointed that the majority insists that unless they get
their reform of the International Monetary Fund that they want to see
happen, which is unrelated directly to the needs of Ukraine, that they
won't accept the legislation the House has already passed. I think that
would be a mistake.
I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
Ukraine
Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, I return to the floor because I can't
let some of what has been said go unchallenged.
First of all, as it relates to the majority leader, the issue of the
connection that has been made between IMF reform and the C-4
investigation--the unlimited, undefined, not-known secret money that
goes into these entities in elections--was not first raised by the
majority leader. It was first raised by Senator Corker in an article.
It was subsequently raised today on the floor by Senator McCain. So
casting aspersions upon the majority leader and suggesting he is
ultimately impugning the reputation of anyone is pretty outrageous when
the Members of his own side of the aisle recognize that it was simply
wrong to connect IMF reform and the ability to help Ukraine in the most
powerful way now with some C-4 investigation.
Secondly, only in Washington could someone have you believe that IMF
reforms we are promoting means more power for Russia. Yes, we are
rushing in this Chamber--John McCain and Bob Corker are rushing into
this Chamber to give more power to Russia. Only in Washington could
anybody believe that.
Only in Washington could someone have you believe that our other
colleagues on the committee who voted for the legislation to have IMF
reform were actually voting--our Republican colleagues were voting--to
give Russia more power so they could continue to oppress people. It
stretches the incredulous nature of that argument.
On the contrary, why are we in the mess we are in? Because when
Ukraine was having serious economic challenges, it was Putin and Russia
that were coming with their money, not the IMF which--in a way--might
have ultimately been important because the IMF needs the resources and
the leveraging we create by virtue of this legislation.
You can't divorce it. If you really want to help Ukraine, you need to
have the resources of the IMF that ultimately guarantees the full
ability to bring Ukraine back into economic order, and from that, build
on all the other elements of security as well.
Thirdly, the budget point of order: The ranking member on our
committee made it very clear when he said, I want to be supportive, but
we have to have this paid for, and we did. People can disagree with the
pay-for, but it is paid for, which is something the House of
Representatives didn't do. Let me tell you what else the House of
Representatives didn't do. They didn't do anything about sanctions--
nothing, zero, nada.
The bottom line is, we would send a message that, yes, we want to
partially help Ukraine, but not in the most significant way we can,
which is with IMF reform and the leveraging of the resources and our
voice that we would bring to them in determining their future and the
next crisis in the world, which is unfortunately around the corner.
So for those who claim they are all for helping Ukraine and national
security, they should have allowed us to have this vote tonight.
Lastly, with reference to my dear friend and colleague, for whom I
have a great deal of respect, Senator Barrasso, who said I didn't
permit his amendment on LNG to move forward, his amendment was ruled
out of order because it was not within the jurisdiction of the
committee. The reality is on the merits of it, it is not about helping
Ukraine right now. Ukraine doesn't have the infrastructure for LNG.
They obviously don't have the resources to build the infrastructure for
LNG.
Turkey, which controls the Bosphorus Strait, has said they are not
going to let the LNG go through because of their concerns for security.
So the bottom line is that is not about helping Ukraine today. If all
of that can be accomplished--infrastructure, the resources to build it,
and getting Turkey on board--then maybe in the future that is part of a
further, longer term solution, but it is not about right now.
What it is about right now is the loan guarantees. It is about the
sanctions to make sure the Russians and those in Ukraine understand
they are going to be subject to real consequences by virtue of
corrupting Ukraine and undermining its territorial integrity. Lastly,
having the long-term ability through the IMF to achieve the goals of
stabilizing Ukraine economically and also preparing for the next
emergency, that is what was at stake tonight.
We will get there, but when you see movements of Russian troops and
the circumstances that are unfolding, and I hear colleagues say, ``We
are not doing enough,'' and then just want to do a fraction of what is
necessary to help the Ukraine, I begin to seriously wonder.
I hope the majority leader will have this as the first order of
business when we return. I think there is bipartisan support for the
package the way it is now. It is unfortunate that as our colleagues
travel to Ukraine, they can't go with the final message that this was
passed today, but it will pass.
As I said to the Prime Minister of Ukraine yesterday--an
extraordinary individual who met with members of the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee--in the long history of the world, only a few are
called upon to answer the call of freedom in some of its most dangerous
moments in history. He has been called upon to do that on behalf of his
country at this time. We are called upon to stand against the
aggression and to help a country be able to do so.
I hope we will be able to get past this issue of linking IMF reform
with the whole question of campaign finance issues so we can achieve
that goal.
With that, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
Defense Budget
Mr. BOOZMAN. Madam President, I very much appreciate the importance
of the discussion going on, but I would like to talk about another very
important issue that is facing us. One of the
[[Page S1641]]
biggest problems our country faces at the current time is one
Washington has created--the out-of-control spending and our lack of
fiscal discipline to put our country back on a path to fiscal
responsibly.
Last week President Obama released his budget proposal for fiscal
year 2015. That proposal continues Washington's reckless spending. It
offers little in the way of real help to the millions of Americans
struggling to get by in this very stagnant economy, which has not been
helped by the President's policies.
What is worse is that the President finds a way to support the
projects and priorities of his base but can't continue our country's
commitment to our men and women who served and are serving our Nation
in uniform.
The defense budget proposes to slash even more benefits our military
families need. The Military Officers Association of America is
rightfully highlighting these proposed cuts to military compensation
and health care benefits.
The Washington Times published a story on this topic yesterday,
saying retired servicemembers weighed in with frustration and anger,
and rightfully so.
The proposal again caps the military pay raise at 1 percent, although
the private sector wage growth is 1.8 percent. MOAA, the Military
Officers Association, calculated what these cuts would mean to the
bottom line of our active-duty military. An Army sergeant stands to
lose nearly $5,000 in benefits annually and an Army captain will lose
nearly $6,000 in benefits annually. This is certainly the wrong message
to send to our men and women who put their lives on the line for this
country.
When the President was elected, he promised to go through the budget
with a scalpel; however, the only thing he seems capable of dissecting
is military pay and benefits.
I am here today to say that these cuts on our military families are
unacceptable. I will fight to preserve the benefits our military
families were promised. Fortunately, as has been the case with the
President's budgets from the past few years, this proposal will likely
never see the light of day. Even the majority in the Senate doesn't
have the desire to bring that proposal up for a vote. But this does not
excuse those who continue to propose savings that come at the expense
of our men and women in uniform or those who have served us in the
past.
Our military members, their families, and our veterans should not
have to bear the burden for Washington's irresponsible spending. Taking
away benefits from our servicemembers has become a recurring problem.
This is very troubling.
I stood here less than 2 months ago talking about our need to restore
military retiree cuts that were unjustly taken away to help rein in
spending. I opposed the budget agreement that cut the retirement
benefit of our veterans and reducing the cost-of-living adjustment
because it unfairly aimed to balance the budget on the backs of our
retired military. Now the President seems determined to continue down
that path.
We were able to restore most of those misguided military retirement
cuts, but these benefits should have never been a target. Now the
President wants to target servicemembers again. It is unconscionable
considering he is intent on interjecting the Federal Government into
private sector labor issues. He wants to force private entities to
raise wages and increase benefits in a poor economy that his policies
have created. When it comes to our men and women in uniform, he is all
for stripping away their hard-earned benefits so he can continue to
redistribute wealth, raise taxes, and increase Federal spending another
$1 trillion.
We need to keep the promise we made to our servicemembers and
maintain these benefits. Washington needs to find savings somewhere
else. It can and must be done.
With that, I yield back.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.
Climate Change
Mrs. HAGAN. Madam President, I come to the Senate floor today to
discuss an issue of enormous importance to my State, our country, and
future generations.
I thank my colleagues for bringing attention to the critical issue of
climate change earlier this week. This is a pressing problem that needs
to be addressed and too often gets pushed to the back burner.
As a Senator from North Carolina, I represent a State that is home to
some of our country's most treasured landmarks and most precious
natural resources--from the Great Smoky Mountains in the west to the
Uwharrie National Forest in the Piedmont to Cape Hatteras National
Seashore in the east.
Like so many North Carolinians, my family and I love spending time
together outdoors whether it is hiking, fishing, biking, or just
enjoying the views and being outside.
Visitors from across the country travel to North Carolina to
experience the Blue Ridge Parkway in the fall or to take a vacation on
the Outer Banks in the summer. Tourism is an important part of our
State's economy--generating $25 billion in economic activity and
supporting over 390,000 jobs in my State. However, rising temperatures
and extreme weather are putting those landmarks and resources at risk.
In 2012, North Carolina experienced a total of 40 broken heat
records, 4 broken snow records, 13 broken precipitation records, and 19
large wildlifes.
Since 2000, North Carolina has issued 14 disaster declarations from
severe storms and flooding. This extreme weather doesn't just
jeopardize the beauty of our coastline or put our forest at risk for
wildfires, it also affects our economy and impacts people's everyday
daily lives.
In 2011 Hurricane Irene ravaged our coast and affected approximately
1.3 million North Carolinians. Roads and highways were destroyed, homes
and businesses were left inaccessible. The damage left some families
with no other option but to live in tents.
The storm decimated tourism for the eastern part of our State at the
height of the tourist season. The region got back on its feet only to
be hit again a year later by Hurricane Sandy, which totally sliced
through Highway 12, which is the lifeline of the Outer Banks. It cut it
right down the middle.
This changing weather impacts another key part of North Carolina's
economy, agriculture, which is our State's biggest industry.
Agriculture generates $77 billion in economic activity and employs
nearly one-fifth of our workforce.
Last year record rainfall flooded several counties in North Carolina,
and our farmers lost tens of millions of dollars' worth of food crops.
Tomatoes were wrought with disease. In some fields half of all of the
sweet corn had been destroyed. Experts predicted losses could double
for producers, some of whom are thinking twice before they plant a crop
next year.
We are seeing the very real impact climate change is having on my
State and its economy today. In the absence of action, this extreme
weather is here to stay. Recent reports have shown that by 2099 climate
change could increase temperatures by as much as 10.5 degrees
Fahrenheit and cause over 1,000 more heat-related deaths just in my
hometown of Greensboro. By midcentury, Greensboro is expected to
increase from a historical average of 8 heat-excessive days in the
summer to 59 and to reach a total of 70 days by the end of the century.
This current path is unsustainable, and we must take steps now to slow
and stop the effects of climate change.
This is a challenge that will need to be addressed from many
different directions, but I am proud of the steps we took in North
Carolina when I was in the State senate to invest in energy innovation.
A bill I worked on in 2007 made North Carolina the only Southeastern
State with a mandatory renewable energy standard, requiring electrical
utilities to meet up to 12.5 percent of their energy needs through
renewable sources by 2021. We also enacted the Clean Smokestacks Act in
2012, which made significant emission reductions from coal-fired
powerplants in North Carolina and Tennessee.
I am proud of those accomplishments, but we must do more. I believe
North Carolina and the United States are well positioned to lead and to
take advantage of opportunities in the 21st-century energy economy.
I look at North Carolina's Research Triangle Park, which has become
an international model for bringing together industry, research
institutions,
[[Page S1642]]
and government to help develop clean energy technologies that reduce
carbon emissions and make our country less dependent on fossil fuels.
Companies and institutions across North Carolina are developing ways to
reduce energy more efficiently, harnessing smart grid technologies and
using renewables to provide new, power-intensive data centers in my
State.
While addressing carbon emissions presents new economic
opportunities, we must also be sure to minimize any economic burdens on
the least fortunate and make efforts to ensure that we do not harm our
global economic competitiveness.
The challenge before us is great, but if we come together, Democrats
and Republicans, we can move forward with commonsense measures that
reduce emissions, increase our energy independence, and put the United
States back on a sustainable path, all while getting the people of this
great country back to work.
Thank you, Madam President. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, as we wrestle with the Ukraine
situation, I hope we can--I wish we could have gotten together to be
able to pass the core responsibility of this Congress, which would be
to allow the loan program to go through--a $1 billion loan program that
I think everybody in the House and the Senate agrees on, Republicans
and Democrats. It was, in fact, complicated and made impossible tonight
because the majority insisted that IMF reform, which is opposed and is
unrelated to the Ukraine, be a part of this legislation. The House has
not passed it. I don't think the House will pass it. So why were they
insisting on that and refusing to take the money we were able to give
tonight? It is just baffling to me.
I appreciate Senator Menendez. He has shown real leadership and
insight into international relations. He chairs the Foreign Relations
Committee. I don't mean to attack his integrity or anything of that
nature, but he is incorrect in saying this bill is paid for or doesn't
violate the budget. It absolutely violates the budget. The
Congressional Budget Office has analyzed the numbers, and they have
concluded just what my Budget Committee staff has concluded, which is
that it violates the budget. The numbers are plain.
Look, a lot of things around here are not perfect, but the idea that
we would insist on passing International Monetary Fund reform that does
not have to be a part of this bill and is not related to this
situation, is going to cost $315 million to fund that program, that
reform, which is very controversial, and half of the money explicitly
comes from the Defense Department--Air Force missiles and Army
procurement and aviation--at a time when the Russian army is occupying
the Crimea in the Ukraine, we want to now cut the Defense Department
and the Army of the United States even more.
The Budget Control Act has really tightened the military's defense
budget. They are doing all they can do to meet that budget. I have
tried to support the budget. I believe all of us need to tighten our
belts. But I will just say this: We don't need to take more money out
of the Defense Department budget at a time when we are already asking
them to take unprecedented reductions. I feel strongly about that. It
is disturbing to me that we have not reached that agreement.
In fact, what has happened is the Defense Department was forced to
make some tough decisions, so they rescinded some of the money they
had, and they intended to use it on other priorities, things they need
to spend the money on. They made tough choices. What has Congress come
in here now to do? Reach in there and take the money the Defense
Department was trying to save so they can move it to something of high
priority and spend it on this program. There is $4 trillion in U.S.
Government spending. We can't find some other place to find this money?
Aren't there legitimate offsets that don't violate the budget?
For the most part, all of these offsets for both programs are not
legitimate. They are basically gimmes. We need to get away from that.
We need honesty in budgeting. We really do need it. When we have a
priority we want to act on, such as this Ukraine situation, there are
plenty of opportunities for us to identify lesser priority spending and
take that money and spend it. That is what the Defense Department was
doing when they executed rescissions. They were making choices, setting
priorities.
We should not do this. It is not a little bitty matter. Frankly, the
House needs to be more careful about how they do their business. The
bill they sent over here has problems with it. But to take another
whack at a controversial program--$315 million--and take half the money
from the military is really unacceptable.
I warned people about this in advance, but they persisted. They
thought they could get to the last minute and they would stand here on
the floor and emotionally argue that our objection had something to do
with not caring about or being supportive of the people of the Ukraine,
that we would just fold and give it to them. Well, that day is becoming
a day of the past.
Somebody needs to stand here and say we are going to do these things
right or we are going to have real problems on the floor of the Senate.
If I have to do it, I will do it.
I am proud of the Senator from Wyoming, who sought to pass the House
bill. We just have to accept it. That is something we could do and get
it done tonight, and I would be willing to support that. I certainly
want to help the Ukraine, and we can do it and do it in the right way.
I thank the Chair for the opportunity to speak tonight. I know we all
love the country, and we are going to have to wrestle now with serious
questions about Russia--what their agenda is, what kind of actions they
may be taking. There needs to be no doubt that this Senator has no
intention of standing idly by while Russia attempts to take over
independent, sovereign nations on its border. It is absolutely
unacceptable. We cannot accept it. It should not have happened. I
believe if this President had been more firm and clear in his policies,
it likely would not have happened, but it has.
The whole world now has to confront this crisis and deal with it. It
is not going to be easy. I think all of us need to work hard to put our
politics aside on this question and try to do what is in the national
interests.
I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
I note the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. Madam President, what is the pending business?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion to proceed to S. 2124.
Cloture Motion
Mr. REID. I send a cloture motion to the desk that I would ask the
Chair to report.
I have to sign it and send it there first.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under
rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to report the motion.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
Cloture Motion
We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the
provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate,
hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to
proceed to Calendar No. 329, S. 2124, a bill to support
sovereignty and democracy in Ukraine, and for other purposes.
Harry Reid, Robert Menendez, Debbie Stabenow, Barbara
Boxer, Patty Murray, Richard Blumenthal, Jeff Merkley,
Carl Levin, Joe Donnelly, Christopher A. Coons, Jack
Reed, Maria Cantwell, Barbara A. Mikulski, Tom Harkin,
Tim Kaine, Jeanne Shaheen, Jon Tester.
Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent that the mandatory quorum under
rule XXII be waived.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
[[Page S1643]]
____________________