[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 160 (2014), Part 3]
[Senate]
[Pages 4459-4469]
[From the U.S. 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

[[Page 4460]]

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 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

[[Page 4461]]

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 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.''

[[Page 4462]]

  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.
  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

[[Page 4463]]

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 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

[[Page 4464]]

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.
  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

[[Page 4465]]

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. 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

[[Page 4466]]

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 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

[[Page 4467]]

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 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.

[[Page 4468]]




                             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, 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

[[Page 4469]]

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.

                          ____________________