[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 160 (2014), Part 4]
[Senate]
[Pages 4683-4693]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




    SUPPORT FOR THE SOVEREIGNTY, INTEGRITY, DEMOCRACY, AND ECONOMIC 
          STABILITY OF UKRAINE ACT OF 2014--MOTION TO PROCEED

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume consideration of the motion to proceed to S. 2124, which the 
clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       Motion to proceed to Calendar No. 329, S. 2124, a bill to 
     support sovereignty and democracy in Ukraine, and for other 
     purposes.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed as if in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                     Recommending Geoffrey Crawford

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, in Vermont we have been fortunate that for 
almost two decades Judge William Sessions has served with distinction 
as a Federal judge for the District of Vermont. In January, Judge 
Sessions announced that he would take senior status later this year. In 
response to this news, the Vermont Bar Association, Senator Sanders, 
and I, each appointed three members to the Judicial Nominating 
Commission.
  The commission, as one can imagine, received many applications for 
this district court vacancy. It interviewed and vetted seven finalists, 
and then recommended to us the two candidates who garnered unanimous 
support.
  I spent hours interviewing them last week in Vermont, and today I am 
recommending that the President nominate Geoffrey Crawford, a recently-
appointed justice from Vermont's highest court. I talked to him at 
great length last week and again at length this morning. I am very 
comfortable in forwarding his name to President Obama, as I now have.
  Justice Crawford is an experienced and well-respected jurist. He is 
known for his modesty and humanity, notwithstanding his elite 
educational background and intellectual heft. He was a successful 
plaintiffs' attorney before he was appointed to the Vermont Superior 
Court in 2002.
  Then-Judge Crawford served on the superior court in our State for 
more than a decade, earning a reputation for his skill in working with 
juries and handling a wide variety of litigation. Attorneys who have 
appeared before him, on either side, have found him to be an engaged 
and careful jurist who treats everyone in the courtroom with respect. I 
have talked with a number of those lawyers, and they speak of his 
respect and abilities.
  As a lawyer, I wanted to hear this, and although I did not know 
Justice Crawford before interviewing him for this vacancy, the Vermont 
legal community repeatedly told me of his intelligence, warmth, and 
unwavering commitment to the highest calling of public service.
  When I met Justice Crawford, I found him to be well deserving of 
these accolades, and I was impressed by his thoughtfulness and 
pragmatic approach to the law, as was the chief counsel of the 
Judiciary Committee, Kristine Lucius, and the state director of my 
Vermont offices, John Tracy.
  I am confident that Justice Crawford will make an excellent Federal 
district court judge and I hope the President will nominate him soon 
for the vacancy on Vermont's Federal district court.


                    Tribute to General Richard Cody

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, it is my honor today to pay tribute to a 
fellow native of Montpelier, VT, GEN Richard Cody. General Cody is 
going to be honored next month--and deservedly so--by his alma mater, 
Montpelier High School.
  Following his graduation from Montpelier High School, General Cody 
attended and graduated from the U.S. Military Academy at West Point. 
This was the launch of an outstanding U.S. Army career which took him 
all over our country and world and culminated in his service from 2004 
to 2008 as Vice Chief of Staff of the Army. I am really proud to share 
a hometown with such a distinguished member of our military. I remember 
how proud Marcelle and I were of General Cody on the day of his 
retirement ceremony, with full honors, here in Washington.
  The Codys and the Leahys go back decades in Montpelier and have 
always been friends. General Cody, his siblings, and parents have been 
among the business and civic leaders in that city for as long as I can 
remember, and they have always shown the best of true Vermont values. 
The General brought those values of hard work, patriotism, and 
especially integrity to his military career, and ended that career as 
the best example a soldier could have. Even the Secretary of Defense 
was there for the retirement ceremony to honor him.
  I think of this man who would often march from his quarters in 
Virginia to the Pentagon carrying a military pack just to remind 
himself of what soldiers on the front line were doing. I have known 
many in the military--from privates to generals. No one has ranked 
higher in my esteem than General Dick Cody. He set an example for the 
whole country.
  No salute to a member of the military would be complete without 
recognizing the family beside the man. Dick's wife, Vicki, and his sons 
Clint and Tyler, sacrificed much through his service to our country. In 
fact, Clint and Tyler followed in their father's footsteps, both as 
members of the Army, and served as helicopter pilots during several 
combat tours in Iraq and Afghanistan. I am told one flew the same 
helicopter his father had flown.
  In closing, I would like to thank the Montpelier High School Boosters 
Club, and the citizens of Montpelier, for honoring General Cody. There 
is no more deserving alumnus, and I am proud to call him a friend.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. COATS. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call 
be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. COATS. Mr. President, when the Senate last met, I introduced, 
together with Senator Durbin, a resolution regarding our response to 
Russia's invasion of Ukraine. That resolution, which received unanimous 
support in the Senate, called for a number of specific steps to punish 
and isolate Russia for its actions.
  Among these steps we called upon President Obama to impose sanctions 
on officials of the Russian Federation who are most responsible for the 
invasion of the Crimean region. I am pleased with recent announcements 
by the White House which demonstrate that the President has begun the 
process of sanctioning some of these individuals, although I had hoped 
the numbers sanctioned would be far greater.
  I also note that today the President is in the Netherlands discussing 
with our European allies and partners the need for further steps. I 
trust and hope he will be successful in reaching a firm consensus with 
our allies and friends to define a strong united response to Russian 
aggression.
  Further, I also welcome such provisions in the legislation that is 
now pending in the Senate, the Support for the Sovereignty, Integrity, 
Democracy, and Economic Stability of Ukraine Act of 2014, which I trust 
and hope the Senate will be acting on beginning this evening and 
perhaps extending into this week.
  I would note time is somewhat of the essence. If we are going to send 
a message to Russia, certainly we don't want to be bogged down in 
internal delay over nonrelated or only slightly related issues. In 
fact, that is why Senator Durbin and I moved our provisions forward 
before the Senate adjourned for the break, simply to make sure there 
was a united, bipartisan Senate unanimously approved agreement on 15 
measures that would get the message to Vladimir Putin and the Russians 
that we take this very seriously.
  The legislation we will be dealing with also sanctions the Russians 
responsible for this recent aggression by prohibiting them from coming 
to the

[[Page 4684]]

United States and freezing their assets in America. Our European allies 
have done likewise, and together we have begun to respond to Russia's 
outrageous behavior.
  However, it is my strong belief that much more needs to be done. We 
and our European allies must recognize the enormity of Putin's crime as 
he rejects all modern standards of responsible international behavior 
and tramples on the sanctity of the territorial borders so vital to the 
stability of the postwar order.
  The international response must be more vigorous if we are to prove 
that Putin's behavior is unacceptable and cannot be repeated. A strong 
response now is the best way to reassure our allies and friends who are 
precariously placed on Russia's borders that this outrage must be 
stopped, reversed, and ended. Conversely, to do little more than 
prevent a handful of Russian officials traveling abroad will show Putin 
and his cronies that in the end we actually do not mean what we say.
  Again, the international response needs to be, has to be, much more 
vigorous if we are to prove that we stand together and united, one 
voice, claiming that the behavior of President Putin is unacceptable 
and cannot be repeated.
  When Senator Durbin and I introduced our prior resolution on this 
subject, we signaled our willingness to work with the administration to 
craft more punishing sanctions, including economic sanctions possibly 
targeting key sectors of the Russian economy, and I believe many of us 
here in the Senate on both sides of the aisle want to do more. I have 
suggested a range of provisions that would reduce Russia's oil and gas 
exports--which contribute a very significant amount to their economy 
and are therefore very dependent--I hope the President is discussing 
those very measures in Europe with our partners as we speak.
  We are all aware that sanctioning key Russian economic activities 
carries the possibility that our economic interests and those of our 
European allies could be affected at the same time. While this is 
reason for us to be thoughtful in terms of how we move forward, it is 
not a reason for inaction. It should not be the basis for our standing 
by and watching what is happening and simply saying: Well, this could 
potentially affect us economically back at home and therefore excuse 
the actions and probably enable further actions by our Russian 
adversary in this case.
  In the end, unpunished, unconstrained, rampant Russian territorial 
expansion will threaten us all to a much greater extent. Doing 
something now could prevent something much worse later. Standing up now 
could prevent something much more serious in terms of what we might 
have to do later. Sound policy decisions must reflect full assessments 
of all eventual consequences, and that includes a clear picture of what 
the world will look like if illegal, forceful annexation of a 
neighbor's territory is ignored or met only with a rap on the knuckles.
  I continue to believe we can and must do more to isolate Russia. This 
includes, for example, explicitly expelling Russia from the G8--not 
temporarily but explicitly expelling them and ending the NATO-Russia 
Council.
  In addition, I am proposing today a specific economic sanction that 
will harm Russian interests in a serious way and, hopefully, with 
minimal or no damage to our own. I am introducing an amendment to 
Ukraine aid bill and I trust it will find broad bipartisan support. The 
purpose of this amendment is to sanction Russia's Rosoboronexport, the 
sole state agency for export of Russian weapon systems and defense-
related goods. This is a state corporation exclusively entitled to 
export the entire range of Russian armaments officially allowed for 
export. It was set up for that purpose. It was set up by President 
Putin. It is a state-owned enterprise and its business is sending 
Russian arms around the world--some to very bad actors.
  Many of our colleagues here in the Senate know of this arms export 
agency because of Russia's continuing supply of arms to Assad's regime 
in Syria. Many here have repeatedly called on the administration to 
stop all cooperation with Rosoboronexport for that reason. We now have 
a new, broader reason for ending all cooperation with this export 
agency of Russia. To take steps to meaningfully obstruct that agency's 
work and the income it provides the Russian state will become the most 
effective ways we have of demonstrating our condemnation of Russian 
action by force of arms.
  Let me briefly explain my amendment. It does three things: First, it 
prohibits the U.S. Government from doing any business with this Russian 
agency by prohibiting future contracts and canceling past contracts.
  It is true the recent National Defense Authorization Act, which I 
supported, also includes similar language. But that act includes a 
waiver authority and another work-around provision the Defense 
Department has been using in order to buy Russian helicopters for 
Afghanistan. This practice has met with objection. It was objectionable 
when it began and it became more objectionable as the Russians 
continued to supply Assad. Now, based on what they have done in Crimea, 
it should be entirely unacceptable.
  Also, I just learned this morning that President Karzai announced his 
support for the Russian annexation of Crimea and approval of Russian 
actions, which makes our purchase of Russian weapons for the Karzai 
regime even more outrageous. After all we have done to support 
President Karzai and the Afghans with U.S. tax dollars and the lives 
and injuries to U.S. and coalition soldiers--after all we have done 
over a decade of time--President Karzai reaches out and publicly 
supports the Russian action, contrary to ours. Russia is the nation 
which pillaged Afghanistan for a decade. It is beyond belief that 
President Karzai can support, along with countries such as Syria and 
Venezuela--haven't heard from Cuba yet, but probably will--the Russian 
action when we are there trying to save his hide not only with our tax 
dollars but with our soldiers' lives.
  So my amendment takes away this waiver and would put a complete end 
to Karzai's business dealings with the Russians. Karzai will have to 
buy his Russian helicopters with his own money, not ours.
  Secondly, I propose this amendment will prohibit contracts with any 
domestic or foreign company that cooperates with Rosoboronexport in the 
design, manufacture, or military development of military equipment. 
Other types of business dealings with the corporation for nonmilitary 
activities would not be affected. We are going after the military 
exports, many of which go to some of our sworn enemies.
  Third, I propose to authorize the President to deduct from our 
foreign assistance programs any amount that a foreign state recipient 
spends on Russian weapons through Rosoboronexport. These deductions 
would be made from the Economic Support Fund and security assistance 
accounts but would not affect other aid programs. The President would 
be authorized to reprogram such funds for use elsewhere subject to 
congressional notification.
  If a USAID recipient is tempted to use some of our money to buy 
Russian weapons, they need to know we would deduct that amount from our 
assistance programs. They can buy Russian weapons on their own dime, 
not on our dime.
  Taken together, I believe these proposals would be a very useful 
addition to the Ukraine aid act and give it the additional teeth it 
needs. This amendment would harm the Russian arms industry, the Russian 
economy, Russian prestige, and Putin's standing in the world. That 
ought to be our goal. Whether it is my amendment, any other amendment, 
or whether it is the act we will be debating, it needs to harm the 
Russian arms industry, the Russian energy portion of the economy, 
Russian prestige, and Putin's standing in the world.
  This amendment will serve as a concrete and immediate response to the 
illegal invasion perpetrated by the Russian Federation. I urge the 
majority leader to permit a full debate, an up-or-down vote on my 
amendment, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

[[Page 4685]]

  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Hirono). The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. MURPHY. Madam President, I rise today to support the Ukraine 
assistance package, which will be on the floor for a vote later this 
evening. I want to thank the leadership of Senator Menendez and all the 
great work Senator Corker has put into this bill. I was proud to help 
put it together, along with Senators Johnson, McCain, and many others 
who were part of our debate in the Foreign Relations Committee.
  I come to the floor, as I am sure others have and will over the 
course of this afternoon, to talk about the vital importance of a big 
bipartisan vote in favor of this legislation this evening.
  Having just come from Ukraine--I was there this last weekend with a 
number of my colleagues, and it was my second trip to Kiev in the last 
3 months--I can tell you they are awaiting a very strong signal of 
support from the U.S. Congress that will send a message we are going to 
stand together with our Ukrainian brothers and sisters as they engage 
in this epic battle for their independence, for their freedom, and for 
their sovereignty.
  I won't belabor the underlying details of the bill, but the three 
components of the legislation are all equally important to Ukraine. We 
heard support for all three of these pieces while we were there over 
this last weekend.
  First and foremost, clearly, we have to deliver on our promise of 
economic aid. There is $1 billion of loan guarantees in this bill, and 
it is contingent upon the signing of a new agreement with the IMF, but 
it will also leverage about $15 billion in funds from Europe. This is 
important because even before this crisis precipitated by the Russian 
invasion of Crimea, Ukraine's economy was incredibly fragile, and this 
international crisis has done nothing but to further weaken the 
country.
  Ukrainians have a new government--one they have faith in, one they 
can believe in--that will finally bring an end to the corruption which 
has been rife throughout the Ukrainian Government over the past decade. 
But this new government will be undermined by an economic crisis that 
will occur, guaranteed, unless the United States steps up and provides 
this assistance. But we can't do it alone, and so that is why the 
second component of this bill would allow the United States to agree to 
a set of IMF reforms that would dramatically increase the amount of 
funding the IMF has to provide countries in crisis, such as Ukraine.
  Every other IMF member has signed on to these reforms except for the 
United States, and it has been largely due to the intransigence of this 
body that the United States stands on the sidelines. Some people have 
categorized the IMF reform component of this bill as superfluous, as a 
political add-on. That couldn't be further from the truth. When we were 
meeting with Ukrainian officials in this new government last weekend, 
they specifically asked that we pass the IMF reforms, because they know 
the only way they get an assistance package that is in the neighborhood 
of $20 billion or $30 billion is through the IMF. And the IMF will be 
much more likely able to provide that if the United States steps up and 
agrees to these reforms.
  Lastly, we need to send a strong, clear message to Russia there are 
consequences for their actions in Crimea. By giving the President the 
authorization to move forward on a broad range of sanctions, we will 
show that Putin was wrong when he calculated that a march into Crimea 
would come at little to no cost to Russia.
  I want to talk for a minute about what this really tells us about the 
status of Russia in the region and in the world. I am sure my other 
colleagues will come down to talk about the importance of sanctions and 
how they may change the calculuses being made in Russia and Moscow 
today.
  I have watched the media portray the events of the last couple of 
weeks as some sign of Russian strength. To me, this isn't a sign of 
Russian strength, this is a sign of Russian weakness.
  Putin has designs for reestablishing some sense of the old Soviet 
empire by reasserting control over what Putin calls the near abroad, 
which are the former Soviet republics and Soviet satellite states. His 
dream of reestablishing the Soviet empire fell apart the day President 
Yanukovych fled Kiev.
  Ukraine is the crown jewel of the near abroad. As Putin tried to 
recreate that empire under the guise of something called the customs 
union, he knew he couldn't do it without the second biggest country in 
Europe bordering on Russia--Ukraine. His invasion of Crimea was a 
panicked reaction to this new reality--a Ukraine now oriented toward 
the European Union.
  So today, I think it is important to understand the position Putin is 
in. He has made a mess for the international community to try to clean 
up through his invasion of Crimea.
  Crimea represents 2 million people in a country of 45 million, and 90 
percent of Ukraine has a government in Kiev which just signed an 
association agreement with the European Union. Russia's economy is 
going to hemorrhage if he continues the occupation of Crimea through a 
broad-based set of international sanctions. He has become a pariah in 
the world community.
  I agree with my colleague from Indiana: We shouldn't just be talking 
about removing Russia from the G8; we should take Russia out of the G8 
and make it completely clear to them that they don't have a place at 
the international table along with countries such as the United States, 
France, Germany, and England if they behave in this way.
  The bill we are debating today will give the President and new 
government in Kiev tools with which to try to address and perhaps end 
this crisis. But it is important to remember that this is not about 
reestablishing the Cold War. The world is oriented along paradigms that 
have nothing to do with who is with the United States and who is with 
Russia. This panicked invasion of Crimea, while rightly occupying the 
headlines on a nightly basis, is a display of Russia's weak position in 
the region and the world after the failure of their puppet government 
in Kiev to survive.
  Lastly, I will talk about the broader history, both looking in the 
past but also looking to the future, we may miss when we concentrate on 
an hour-by-hour basis on the crisis at hand.
  Having had the opportunity to visit Kiev a few times in the past 
several months, I have had the opportunity to learn a little bit about 
the history of the place and of the people. There is a wonderful 
cathedral in Kiev called the Church of St. Sophia. It is absolutely 
stunningly beautiful. It was built by Ukraine's greatest leader, 
Yaroslav the Wise. He presided over an empire which was at the time 
called Kievan Rus. Kievan Rus was essentially the hub of trading on the 
Eurasian continent. It took goods from the east and transported them to 
the west. It took goods from the Scandinavian countries and transported 
them down to the Mediterranean. Everything ran through the territory of 
Kievan Rus. It speaks to Ukraine's past but also to its future.
  They have been set up with a false choice within the crisis of the 
last several months: Join the European Union or stay aligned with 
Russia. But what we know is that Kiev historically has stood at the 
crossroads--not just east and west but of east and west and north and 
south. This is Ukraine's past, but it is also going to be Ukraine's 
future.
  While we try to deal today with a Russia run by a leader whose 
foreign policy seems dictated by a desire to poke a stick in the eye of 
the United States, I ultimately think viewing the forest through the 
trees also means acknowledging that Russia's future ultimately, in a 
post-Putin era, is about integration with Europe and integration with 
the West as well. Frankly, this is the direction Russia was heading 
until Putin took power.
  The conversation about how we realize that ultimate paradigm is a 
conversation for another day. But when Senator McCain and I went to 
Kiev in December and stood on the stage speaking to a million 
Ukrainians who had come down to the square to protest the current 
government, they were there to talk about one concept: dignity. For 
some it was about Europe, for

[[Page 4686]]

some it was about corruption, and for some it was about the brutal 
violence on the square displayed by Yanukovych. For most people, they 
wanted to restore dignity to their lives, and what dignity really is 
about in the end is the ability to choose for yourself what your future 
is. This is why we are here to support Ukraine.
  No country--the United States, the Russian Federation, Germany--
should dictate to the Ukrainians what their future should be. That is 
why, in the wake of the invasion, in the wake of years of economic 
manipulation from Russia, we are going to extend a firm hand to the 
Ukrainians with an assistance package and a message of economic 
consequences to Russia.
  The world we envision ultimately is one not only where Ukraine gets 
to go back to its historical routes and draw from east and west but one 
in which Russia realizes that their economic salvation lies not in 
setting up some new Cold War but in fully integrating themselves, their 
economy, and their political institutions not only with countries such 
as Ukraine, not only with the nations of the EU, but beyond to American 
shores as well. This is the future.
  But that reality will never exist for the young nation of Ukraine 
unless it survives this moment. And we can send a strong message this 
evening that this body stands with that future for this young nation of 
Ukraine by supporting the package before us.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.


                        Internal Revenue Service

  Mrs. FISCHER. Madam President, while I realize Members of this body 
are very concerned about the situation in the Ukraine today and we are 
focused on the crisis happening there, I wish to take a few minutes to 
discuss two bills I have recently introduced that deal with reforms to 
the Internal Revenue Service.
  As the Federal agency tasked with administering the U.S. Tax Code, 
the IRS has extraordinary influence on the lives of Americans from all 
walks of life and all points of view. Citizens have the absolute right 
to expect the IRS to be free from political influence, with taxpayers 
treated fairly and enforcement carried out in an unbiased manner. 
Unfortunately, we have learned our expectations sometimes are very 
different from reality.
  In early 2013 the IRS acknowledged a history of targeting politically 
active groups as some of these groups sought tax-exempt status. This 
practice first involved flagging groups concerned about government 
spending and debt. Ironically, the targeting came at a time when poll 
after poll indicated that the Federal Government's out-of-control 
spending and our $17 trillion debt were top concerns for all Americans, 
and from my experience, they are the top concerns for Nebraskans as 
well.
  Despite these legitimate concerns and the patriotic desire of 
Americans to effect change in government, the IRS worked to impede 
these organizations from full participation in our democratic process. 
To do so, the IRS dragged its feet and slow-walked applications for 
tax-exempt status, asking questions that weren't necessary, including 
questions regarding political beliefs. That is why I recently 
introduced S. 2043, the Stop IRS Overreach Act. This bill states that 
the IRS shall not ask any taxpayer any question regarding their 
religious, political, or social beliefs. This is a pretty 
straightforward concept, and it is an American concept. It shouldn't 
matter who you are or what you believe--we should all be treated 
equally before the law.
  Given the recent behavior of the IRS, it appears this legislation is 
necessary. I believe this measure should enjoy support from both 
parties. It is worth noting that the legislation passed the House of 
Representatives on a voice vote.
  American taxpayers are also frustrated with the lack of 
responsiveness from the IRS. Every single year taxpayers and their 
accountants write the IRS asking for additional information regarding 
their taxes. Often, the response from the IRS is silence--nothing but 
silence.
  So taxpayers wonder: Did they even get my question? Did they get my 
letter? Are they going to answer my question?
  Silence. No answer.
  The IRS currently is not required to respond to taxpayer 
communication. We all know, though, that the inverse is true--taxpayers 
are compelled to respond when the IRS requests any information. This is 
a double standard which is not fair.
  My bill, S. 2044, would require the IRS to respond to communication 
from any taxpayer within 30 days of receiving such communication. This 
way taxpayers will at least know that the IRS is not asleep at the 
switch and that they have received their letter.
  My bill would also make two other significant changes to the IRS: 
First, it would require the agency to notify a taxpayer if the agency 
discloses that person's information to another government entity. 
Current law doesn't require such disclosure. Next, the legislation 
would require that when the IRS begins an audit on any individual 
taxpayer, the audit and any tax assessed with the audit must be 
completed within 1 year. The window for these painstaking audits can't 
be open forever. The uncertainty adversely impacts families, as these 
audits currently can be held up for years, with the taxpayers never 
quite sure if the tax is going to be assessed and when it is going to 
be assessed.
  The House approved identical legislation by a voice vote.
  These two bills are straightforward. They make simple but important 
changes to the way the IRS operates. Making these changes will help 
Americans all across our country. I urge my fellow Senators on both 
sides of the aisle to support this legislation.
  I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. STABENOW. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Michigan.


                              Natural Gas

  Ms. STABENOW. Madam President, one of the true bright spots in our 
economy right now has been, and continues to be, manufacturing. 
Manufacturing jobs have been on the rise. We have over 12 million 
Americans who are now employed with good-paying jobs in the 
manufacturing sector. Many of them are in my own great State of 
Michigan.
  This renaissance in the kind of good-paying jobs that built the 
middle class of this country is being powered in a significant way by 
American natural gas. More than $100 billion in investments, in more 
than 120 different manufacturing projects, is being fueled by abundant, 
affordable American natural gas. Thanks to American natural gas, the 
people in our country have a great new opportunity to go to work, have 
a good-paying job, and support their families.
  Our country is truly blessed with this natural resource. It is 
critical that we continue to put our American natural gas to work so we 
can create American jobs, which is why I am confused and concerned by 
those who are rushing to send this American resource overseas without a 
careful review of the impact this will have on the costs to our 
manufacturers, our jobs, and our families.
  I am not opposed to exporting some of our natural gas as part of a 
balanced, well-thought-out plan. A rush to approve every export 
facility request immediately is not wise. It is not wise for our 
economy or our people when we know that increased natural gas is needed 
here at home.
  People need jobs in America. We have about 10 million people out of 
work. We have an awful lot of people who need a job. Good-paying jobs 
in manufacturing can and will be part of their future if we manage our 
natural gas resources the right way. It is critical for America that we 
get this right. We need to export our products, not our jobs, and that 
is the debate I believe we should be having.

[[Page 4687]]

  Low-cost natural gas is critical to our Nation's ability to create 
manufacturing jobs. It is critical. If we start exporting too much of 
our natural gas without monitoring or evaluating the impact over time, 
we may be giving up a real advantage we have right now for creating 
jobs and bringing jobs home from other countries.
  What do we hear from a lot of businesses that are making decisions to 
bring jobs home? They talk about low-energy costs. We don't want to 
give that up as an advantage for America as we compete in a global 
economy. Also, if increased exports raise prices to the same level as 
global oil prices--and obviously some folks would like to see that 
happen for their own interests--American families will be hit with even 
higher energy costs at home, and that doesn't make any sense either. 
Exporting more American natural gas simply doesn't add up.
  A study last month by Charles River Associates found that using our 
own low-cost natural gas to increase American manufacturing is twice as 
valuable to our economy and creates eight times as many jobs as sending 
this important American resource overseas. Let me say that again: Using 
our own low-cost natural gas to increase American manufacturing output 
is twice as valuable to our American economy and creates eight times as 
many jobs as exporting this important American resource overseas.
  I am particularly dismayed that some people are using the very 
serious crisis in Ukraine as an excuse to rush through new projects to 
export our natural gas.
  Last week I met with members of the Ukrainian community in Detroit. 
They are deeply concerned about what is happening. This is personal for 
them. They have family and friends in Ukraine. This crisis should not 
be used by those in the oil and gas industry to rush through actions 
that may be good for them in the long run. It certainly will not be 
good for some people in the short run. Anything that is approved now 
will take way too long before it has any impact in Ukraine. Raising 
prices may be good for some in the long run, but it will not be good 
for American manufacturers. It is not good if the whole idea is to 
create American jobs here at home, and it is not good for middle-class 
families.
  I want to be very clear: I am extremely concerned about what is 
happening in Ukraine. We must stand with the people of Ukraine and our 
allies in Europe against the outrageous actions of Russia and President 
Putin. This crisis is very serious and requires a serious response by 
the Senate. I know colleagues on both sides of the aisle care deeply 
about this issue. I hope and I assume we will pass a package to help 
Ukraine as soon as possible.
  Again, this crisis should not be used as an excuse to shortcut the 
permit process or the thoughtful evaluation that I know the Department 
of Energy is committed to doing to make sure we get this right. This 
crisis should not be used to rush through new natural gas export 
facilities that may undercut our effort to create good-paying jobs here 
at home.
  The Department of Energy has already agreed to permit six liquefied 
natural gas LNG export facilities that will export over 9 billion cubic 
feet of LNG every day--and that is not counting the other 30 
applications that have been approved for export to countries we have 
free trade agreements with. I am not suggesting that should not have 
been done; I have not opposed that. But we better be careful on how we 
move forward and how we evaluate the impact on our economy.
  As we all know, LNG export facilities take years to build. We could 
approve permits for 100 new LNG facilities tomorrow, and unfortunately 
it would do nothing to address the crisis in Ukraine and potential 
supply disruptions to our other important allies in Western Europe.
  Here is what I am most concerned about: We all know that gas prices 
are decided by the global marketplace. Prices are high in Asia right 
now. We don't have the existing infrastructure to get natural gas to 
Ukraine. The gas in the export facilities that are rushed through are 
very likely to go to Asia--very likely to go to China.
  Should American natural gas be used to lower prices and create jobs 
in China or in other parts of Asia or should we be using low-cost 
natural gas to create jobs right here at home? I hope we can all agree 
on the answer to that question.
  Rushing through more natural gas export facilities, unfortunately, 
would not help Ukraine. However, it could have a negative effect on our 
own economy in the long run. Increasing exports would reduce our supply 
here at home and raise consumer prices, and we all know how devastating 
that would be for our families. Higher prices for natural gas means it 
will cost more to cook your dinner, heat your home, and power your 
small business.
  The recent propane shortages and dramatic price spikes we saw in 
States across the country should raise a red flag for everybody. We 
simply cannot afford to export too much natural gas too fast without 
truly understanding the impact on our own jobs and families. Plus, 
sending so much of our natural gas abroad will neutralize the 
competitive advantage we have right now for cheap and abundant fuel. We 
have an advantage right now, and we need to keep that advantage.
  My concern is that we would be giving the big oil companies a boost 
because there would be higher prices for natural gas which would keep 
oil as a viable alternative because there would not be the advantage of 
natural gas anymore if we go to the global marketplace and all the 
prices go up.
  In the end, the people of Ukraine and our allies who need our help 
would not be receiving it. Our own manufacturers, businesses, and 
families would not be receiving it. Instead, it would be going to the 
oil companies.
  Shame on us if we squander the opportunities that low-cost, abundant 
natural gas resources offer our country. I believe we need to be smart 
in how we manage our resources.
  Again, I am not opposed to exports. It is a question of a balance. It 
is a question of thinking it through in a thoughtful way and having an 
American plan where we are balancing out part exports, part keeping 
natural gas here at home, and making sure our manufacturers have the 
edge in a global economy because they have lower cost energy. We need 
to make sure we are bringing jobs back from overseas because of lower 
cost energy. We need to make sure our families have low-cost fuel and 
other energy assistance.
  We need to be smart at this point in time about our resources. We 
have the opportunity, I believe, to find the right balance that allows 
us to both benefit from some exports and benefit from the resources by 
creating jobs here at home. Our manufacturers are families, the middle 
class of this country, the folks trying to hold on, folks trying to get 
into the middle class who know manufacturing jobs are a part of the way 
of doing that. They are counting on us. Our economy is counting on the 
fact that we will be smart about the way we make decisions about our 
natural resources. Right now with natural gas we have the opportunity 
not only for the States that have it to do well by exploration and 
extraction but by leveraging that as we look at the opportunities for 
manufacturing; leveraging our own resources, which we are told will 
give us eight times more in benefit in terms of jobs than just having 
our natural resources in America exported around the globe and the 
prices floating up to the higher prices of oil.
  I thank the Chair. We are going to have a lot of discussion and 
debate on this issue going forward. I look forward to that. I think 
this is an opportunity for us to have an American plan on 
manufacturing, with American low-cost energy, to be able to jump-start 
our economy moving forward.
  I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I have a parliamentary inquiry: What is 
the business before the Senate?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate is considering the motion to 
proceed to S. 2124, the Ukraine aid bill.
  Mr. McCAIN. I thank the Presiding Officer.

[[Page 4688]]

  I urge my colleagues to not only vote for this particular measure but 
also to vote to pass as soon as possible the bill before the Senate 
that was reported out by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, by a 
vote of 14 to 4, before we went into recess. Obviously, it is intended 
to be an opening response--a beginning response--to the Russian 
aggression in Ukraine; specifically now occupying and absorbing Crimea 
into Russia, an act of aggression the likes of which has not been seen 
in a long time.
  In addition, now additional pressures are being put on the Ukrainian 
Government as we speak, such as raising the price of gas, canceling 
Ukraine special price discounts. Also, oil deliveries are slow, border 
crossings for the delivery of trade have been closed, and the dirty 
tricks go on from the old KGB colonel Vladimir Putin.
  This act is relatively mild. It will provide loan guarantees which 
are badly needed. Now the Ukrainian economy is under even greater 
pressure and greater difficulty, given the actions taken by Vladimir 
Putin, and it would stabilize the Ukrainian economy. It is just a 
beginning, but it is a strong signal of support by the United States 
for this fledgling Ukrainian democracy.
  The IMF reforms are considered somewhat controversial by some of my 
colleagues, but the IMF reforms are not the reason this legislation is 
before us. The reason the legislation is before us is because Vladimir 
Putin has now absorbed Crimea into Russia. I predicted that when the 
Ukrainian Government became a government of the people and threw out 
Yanukovych, Putin would do exactly that because of his view of the need 
to have Sevastopol, the base on the Black Sea, in order to have access 
to the Mediterranean, without which his visions and view of the Russian 
empire would be threatened.
  Right now the President of the United States is in Europe. I hope he 
is leading in Europe rather than just consulting in Europe. By the way, 
a comment by the President--I still don't quite get it--that there 
would not be a military excursion in Ukraine--I have never heard that 
word used in regard to military action. But the most important thing, 
in my view, is to pass this legislation as soon as possible. We can 
fight about other less important issues later on. We need to send a 
strong signal to the people of Ukraine who are watching us as we speak 
and as we vote today, as to whether we are going to come to their 
assistance and at least take some small measures to punish Vladimir 
Putin. If we get hung up for another week or another who knows how many 
hours because of our failure to act, in my view, it sends exactly the 
wrong signals.
  I also speak again in the strongest terms that we need to send 
military assistance to this country. We need to help them defend 
themselves. Russian troops are amassed on the border of Eastern Ukraine 
as we speak. I don't know whether Vladimir Putin will go into Eastern 
Ukraine. I did predict he would go into Crimea. Now I believe he is 
watching carefully for the reaction of the West, led by the United 
States of America, as to how we are going to assist Ukraine, how we are 
going to prevent or at least make the cost of further encroachment into 
Ukrainian territory a very expensive one.
  We have military assistance programs with a myriad of nations, and we 
should be giving them the weapons they need to defend themselves. I am 
talking about defensive weaponry. It is shameful for us not to do so.
  I see my colleague from Illinois with whom I was privileged and proud 
to travel to Ukraine, a man who understands these issues as well or 
better than anyone in this body and one who represents thousands and 
thousands and thousands of Ukrainian Americans whom I know he has met 
with and who are deeply concerned.
  Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. McCAIN. I am glad to yield.
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I wish to say through the Chair it was 
an honor to join my colleague Senator McCain in a whirlwind trip to 
Ukraine: 48 hours, maybe 6 extra to spare; 2 full days of working, 
meeting every leader at every level of government there and sensing 
their concern over the pending so-called referendum on Crimea and what 
Russia will do next. The Senator from Arizona and I stand together in a 
bipartisan fashion, urging the passage of this resolution as quickly as 
possible.
  I just left the phone--the reason I came to the floor, I say to the 
Senator from Arizona, I was on the phone with the Ambassador of Ukraine 
and we were talking about the situation there, and I said: Senator 
McCain is on the floor and I would like to go down and say a word.
  He said the people of Ukraine are watching what we are doing. They 
are watching what Congress and the United States are going to do.
  There are some differences between us. There are some differences 
between the parties. There comes a moment--and there always has, at 
least in the past--where we decide we are going to stand together as a 
nation, particularly when it comes to issues of foreign policy. This 
resolution doesn't address every issue the Senator from Arizona has 
raised, but it certainly addresses some key issues on which the Senator 
and I both agree. We both voted for this in the Senate Foreign 
Relations Committee and we both want to see this move. The sooner the 
better.
  I wish to salute my colleague, the Senator from Arizona, for 
returning to the Maidan, that area in Kiev where 103 Ukrainians lost 
their lives demonstrating against the former government and asking for 
change. Our experience together, visiting that country with a 
delegation of eight Senators, I hope sent a strong message: There is 
bipartisan support for Ukraine and we will not tolerate Putin's 
aggression at the expense of innocent people.
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to engage in a 
colloquy with the Senator from Illinois.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. McCAIN. I ask my friend: Isn't it true the people of Ukraine are 
watching in a way that is hard for them to understand--before an empty 
Chamber. But, more importantly, whether we act and act quickly, that 
signal to them as they face this additional Russian aggression, maybe 
not military aggression but already borders have been closed, the price 
of their energy has been raised--in other words, Putin is putting more 
and more pressure on them. They look to us. Isn't it a fact they will 
not quite understand if we go another several days because of some 
additional issue that does not affect whether we are coming to their 
assistance, I ask my friend.
  Mr. DURBIN. Through the Chair, I couldn't agree more. I think it is 
significant that when the new Prime Minister of Ukraine was scheduling 
his first trip outside of the country, where did he come? Here, 
Washington, DC. With whom did he meet? The President and the leaders. 
We sat together with him in a room downstairs--the Senate Foreign 
Relations Committee room. He came here because he wanted to bring the 
message to us of what he feared would happen if Putin's aggression went 
forward, and he wanted us to bring the message to the world that the 
United States stood by him. How can we possibly explain to these people 
who are worried about the existence and survival of their Nation that 
we got tied up in some political squabble between the House and the 
Senate and the two political parties? It is important for us to move 
and move quickly.
  The Senator from Arizona understands this as well or better than 
most. Many of us have come from countries which were once under the 
yoke of the Soviets and we remember full well what it took to finally 
get independence and democracy. Today, Vladimir Putin is fighting to 
save a failing Soviet franchise, and where he can't win the hearts and 
minds of neighboring nations, he instead uses masked gunmen, troops, 
barbed wire, and energy extortion. That is how he works. He is not 
winning this battle, but he is saying to the world: The only way I can 
keep my ``friends'' in line is with pressure. So the United States, and 
I hope other civilized nations, will join us in saying that is 
unacceptable.

[[Page 4689]]

  I thank the Senator and I agree with him. Now is the time to act in 
the Senate.
  Mr. McCAIN. I note the presence of the chairman of the Foreign 
Relations Committee whom I wish to thank for his rapid leadership in 
getting this legislation approved by an overwhelming majority of the 
committee on a bipartisan basis. I know he is waiting to speak.
  I have just one more comment for my friend from Illinois. I 
understand he just met with Ukrainian Americans in Chicago, in his home 
State of Illinois. Isn't it true they don't quite understand why we 
have not acted more rapidly in the face of naked aggression--which is 
incredible acquisition of territory which the Russian Government 
guaranteed as part of Ukraine when Ukraine gave up its nuclear 
inventory, which happened to be the third largest in the world. I see 
the chairman waiting, so I will not ask any more questions, except to 
urge my colleagues let's have an overwhelming vote to move to this 
legislation and get it done as quickly as possible.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, first let me thank my two colleagues, 
both distinguished members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, 
Senator McCain and Senator Durbin. Their work and their leadership on 
this issue has created the type of bipartisan spirit that I think is 
incredibly important in general but certainly in foreign relations. 
They both added greatly to the legislation that came out of committee 
with a strong bipartisan vote that we are considering on the floor.
  Last week some of my colleagues in this Chamber were sanctioned by 
Vladimir Putin for standing up for the Ukrainian people, standing up 
for freedom, standing up for their democratic aspirations, standing up 
for the sovereignty of Ukraine. As I said in Brussels at the German 
Marshall Fund this weekend, if I have been sanctioned for those 
reasons, then I say, by all means, Mr. Putin, sanction me.
  I urge all of my colleagues to be supportive of the legislation. They 
may be sanctioned at the end of the day, but that is really what 
standing for Ukraine is all about at this critical moment and what it 
means beyond.
  When we look around the world, we realize that every so often we face 
a critical juncture at a time of great upheaval and change. With the 
backsliding of Russian leadership to a pre-1991 posture, we are at such 
a juncture. Vladimir Putin seems to view the pre-1991 Soviet Union's 
expansionist authoritarianism as a present-day goal and the last two 
decades, which saw the formation of new and independent states, as a 
departure from Peter the Great's expansionist aspirations.
  From Ukraine, to Georgia, to the Middle East, we are seeing a new 
Russian leadership bent on using its military authority, its economic 
resources, and diplomacy to serve its parochial interests at any cost--
despite violations of its own legal commitments and those it has made 
to the international community.
  Russia's flatout extortion of Ukraine, supported by former corrupt 
leaders of Ukraine, forced the political explosion which Russia then 
exploited.
  In Syria, President Putin is actively propping up President Bashar 
al-Assad and perpetuating the world's worst humanitarian disaster.
  In Iran, the ink of the Joint Plan of Action signed in Geneva last 
November was barely dry when reports surfaced that Tehran and Moscow 
were negotiating an oil-for-goods swap worth $1.5 billion a month, and 
that they planned to build a new nuclear plant--all steps that only aid 
Iran in its pursuit of nuclear weapons, while diminishing the sanctions 
that forced that country to the negotiating table in the first place.
  It is no surprise that Putin and his cronies have already threatened 
to derail Syria and Iran talks if their countries do not step back from 
punishing Russia for its annexation of Ukraine.
  In Geneva, as the P5+1 talks with Iran continue, we can only hope 
that the crisis in Ukraine will not have a ripple effect in Russia's 
position or participation.
  But, in my view, Mr. Putin has miscalculated. He has reignited a 
dangerous pre-1991 Soviet-style game of Russian roulette with the 
international community, and we cannot blink.
  He must understand that we will never accept his violation of 
international law in Ukraine. That is why we passed this legislation in 
committee--an aid package for Ukraine that provides loans for economic 
stabilization, supports planning for upcoming democratic elections, 
aids in the recovery of stolen assets, and expands security cooperation 
between the two countries, and it holds Moscow accountable for its 
aggressive stance against Ukraine.
  First, this legislation provides for Ukrainian loan guarantees, 
consistent with the $1 billion announced by the administration in 
recent days. It mirrors the House legislation.
  Second, it ensures that the Obama administration can assist the 
Ukrainian Government to identify, secure, and recover assets linked to 
the acts of corruption by Viktor Yanukovych, members of his family, or 
other former or current Ukrainian Government officials.
  Third, it authorizes $50 million for democracy, governance, and civil 
society assistance and $100 million for enhanced security cooperation 
for Ukraine and other states in Central and Eastern Europe.
  Fourth, it mandates sanctions, complementing the President's recent 
Executive order, against Ukrainians and Russians alike responsible for 
violence and serious human rights abuses against antigovernment 
protesters--and those responsible for undermining the peace, security, 
stability, sovereignty or territorial integrity of Ukraine--as well as 
imposing sanctions on Russian individuals complicit in or responsible 
for significant corruption in Ukraine.
  Fifth, it allows the administration to broadly sanction corrupt 
Russian officials and go after Putin's allies and cronies who are 
engaged in massive corruption to the detriment of the Russian people.
  Finally, it provides needed reforms to the United States' 
participation in the International Monetary Fund, which would allow the 
United States to leverage significant support from the IMF for Ukraine 
today and for similar unforeseen crises that are going to come in the 
future.
  It is the IMF that is leading the effort to stabilize Ukraine's 
fragile economy, an essential task if there is to be any chance of 
reaching a peaceful political solution to the standoff with Russia.
  Congressional ratification of the 2010 IMF reforms would increase IMF 
emergency funding to Ukraine by up to 60 percent, and it would provide 
an additional $6 billion for longer-term support, setting an important 
marker for other donors such as the EU and the World Bank.
  Failure to approve the reforms, on the other hand, would undermine 
both the IMF and the international standing of the United States.
  Some countries are happy to see U.S. global influence diminish. 
Failing to approve the reforms weakens the United States and emboldens 
our competitors.
  The IMF is strengthened at no cost to U.S. finances or influence. The 
United States retains its Executive Board seat and sole veto power at 
no net cost, since the $63 billion increase in U.S. quota is fully 
offset by an equivalent decrease to a separate emergency facility. 
Other countries, however, put in new money, increasing IMF lending 
power.
  The fact is, it is a pure win for the United States. We will pay for 
the $315 million budget impact of the bill with real cuts and from 
funds that were underperforming or no longer needed. Given that the IMF 
helps to stabilize countries, often precluding future need for military 
action, the relatively minor cost will pay back many times over.
  This is not a partisan issue. Presidents Reagan, Clinton, and both 
Presidents Bush backed legislation to increase IMF resources, and 
President Reagan called the IMF ``the linchpin of the international 
financial system.''
  These efforts combined send a message to the world that the 
annexation of Crimea will not stand.

[[Page 4690]]

  Let me close by saying we are at a dangerous moment in history, with 
global consequences, and the world is watching.
  If the West does not act, what will China say when it is looking at 
its territorial desires in the South China Sea? What will Iran say when 
we are negotiating in Vienna about nuclear weapons? What will others in 
the world say--North Korea, whose march to nuclear weapons on a greater 
scale is still in play?
  All of them will be looking at what we in the West do or do not do, 
in making a decision about Russia's brazen move into Ukraine. They will 
be watching to see how far they can go, how much they can do. They will 
be asking: What can I get away with?
  The fact is, as a matter of principle, Ukrainian sovereignty cannot 
be violated for simply looking westward and embracing ideals rooted in 
freedom. These ideals must always remain first and foremost in our 
strategic response to international events.
  When I was in Brussels last week at NATO and the German Marshall 
Fund, I said: The broader question that faces us is this: Can a united 
transatlantic vision and our collective commitment to bold actions in 
this century match the vision and commitment of those who created the 
international institutions which brought peace and prosperity to 
millions in the last century?
  I believe that--if we live, lead, and govern, guided by shared values 
and united by our common concerns--we can lead the world through this 
transformational moment in history and prevent further Russian 
aggression from taking us back prior to what was that 1991 world.
  That is the choice before us. I urge my colleagues to strongly 
support the cloture motion so that we can work toward a statement that 
will do exactly that.
  Mr. McCAIN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. MENENDEZ. I will be happy to yield to the distinguished Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. I think it is very clear that Vladimir Putin has amassed 
forces on the border of Russia and eastern Ukraine, and right now he is 
calculating as to whether to move there or even into Moldova, where the 
Transnistrian region is now occupied and has been by Russian troops. 
Also, there is pressure on the Baltic countries that is being exerted 
as we speak, a lot of it in defense of ``Russian-speaking people.'' If 
we do not send this message now, with this package, in a bipartisan and 
strong manner, Vladimir Putin will be encouraged to enact further acts 
of aggression against Crimea and in the region.
  I would ask my colleague if he does not agree with that assessment.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. I think the Senator is spot-on. Right now, Putin is 
looking at whether or not he proceeds in Eastern Ukraine. He is looking 
at Transnistria and Moldova. He is calculating and he is calculating: 
What are the costs? What will the United States and the European Union 
do?
  From my perspective, President Putin only understands strength, and 
that strength is either in a military context--which, of course, no one 
is speaking about at this moment--or an economic one. That is why this 
package is so incredibly important--because it takes every single 
dimension that the distinguished Senator helped us in the committee on. 
It aids Ukraine up front for the loan guarantee. It sanctions--and the 
Senator was very engaged in several elements of that--elements of the 
Russian hierarchy for engaging in corrupting the country, Ukraine, and 
at the same time for invading its territorial integrity. It prepares 
assistance for that election which is supposed to take place in May 
that is critical to be fair, open, and transparent and, at the same 
time, provides for the greater resources through the IMF.
  So all of these elements are critical. It also includes a very clear 
statement about greater defense cooperation, which is also critically 
important.
  So these are all the elements of sending a strong message, as Putin 
is calculating: What will be the cost? If the cost is not high enough, 
he may very well proceed into Eastern Ukraine or to those parts of 
Moldova. That is an action that we can ill-afford and the action that 
others will look at across the world, as I mentioned, that they will 
calculate: The West is not willing to take the actions necessary to 
stop my designs.
  If that is the case, then I think we are in a world of hurt across 
the globe.
  Mr. McCAIN. I thank the chairman for his eloquent statement.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, I yield the floor and suggest the 
absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                             cloture motion

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under 
rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.
  The assistant 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.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum 
call has been waived.
  The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the 
motion to proceed to S. 2124, a bill to support sovereignty and 
democracy in Ukraine, and for other purposes, shall be brought to a 
close?
  The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Washington (Ms. 
Cantwell), the Senator from Louisiana (Ms. Landrieu), and the Senator 
from Missouri (Mrs. McCaskill) are necessarily absent.
  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the 
Senator from Georgia (Mr. Chambliss) and the Senator from Illinois (Mr. 
Kirk).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Donnelly). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 78, nays 17, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 79 Leg.]

                                YEAS--78

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Baldwin
     Begich
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Blunt
     Booker
     Boxer
     Brown
     Burr
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Coats
     Collins
     Coons
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Donnelly
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Fischer
     Flake
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Hirono
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson (WI)
     Kaine
     King
     Klobuchar
     Leahy
     Levin
     Manchin
     Markey
     McCain
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Portman
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Rubio
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Thune
     Toomey
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Vitter
     Walsh
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--17

     Barrasso
     Boozman
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Enzi
     Heller
     Lee
     Moran
     Paul
     Risch
     Roberts
     Scott
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Wicker

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Cantwell
     Chambliss
     Kirk
     Landrieu
     McCaskill
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote the yeas are 78, the nays are 17.

[[Page 4691]]

Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in the 
affirmative, the motion is agreed to.
  The Senator from Washington.


                             Oso Landslide

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I am sure all our colleagues have seen 
the news over the past few days from my home State of Washington where 
we are suffering from a devastating natural disaster.
  For those who haven't seen the coverage, on Saturday the town of Oso, 
WA--a very small, tightly knit community on the Stillaguamish River--
was hit by a massive landslide. It has cut off the town of Darrington 
just a few miles up State Road 530, and houses over a square mile have 
been swept away.
  We know already we have lost eight people. This morning we learned 
there are more than 100 people still missing, and right now in my home 
State of Washington there are dozens of families who do not know if 
their loved ones are still alive. These are moms and dads, they are 
sons and daughters, they are neighbors and friends who in the blink of 
an eye saw water and earth wipe away their homes and their entire 
community, and now many of them don't know if their loved ones 
survived.
  I was in Arlington, WA, yesterday, where the search and rescue 
operations are being coordinated. It is just down the road from where 
the slide hit, and I want to talk for a few minutes this evening on the 
Senate floor about this tragedy.
  Oso and Darrington are very small towns like a lot of others in this 
country. The population of Oso is 180 people. These are the types of 
places where everyone knows everyone, where they stop to say hello, and 
where everyone lends a helping hand. It is impossible to describe the 
scope of this devastation. There isn't a single person who hasn't been 
impacted in some way by this tragedy. There also isn't a single person 
anywhere who isn't doing everything they can to help. I saw neighbors 
who were there providing food, providing shelter, offers of all kinds 
of hope, help, hugs, and prayers. First responders are risking their 
lives every minute, braving very dangerous conditions to look for 
survivors. People across my State are offering help and donations, 
anything they can to assist these communities that are experiencing the 
unthinkable. We have grocery stores offering food to the families who 
need it and to the rescue workers. The Red Cross is there on the 
ground. Tribal leaders from the local community are coming to offer 
what they can.
  I wanted my colleagues to know that this weekend I saw some of the 
worst devastation I have ever witnessed in my home State. At the same 
time I also saw firefighters who hadn't slept. They refused to stop as 
they searched for survivors. I saw families refusing to give up hope, 
and I saw communities that need our entire State and our entire country 
to stand with them now.
  Even though Oso and Darrington are 2,300 miles away from the Nation's 
Capital, our hearts and prayers are with the families in those 
communities tonight. In the coming weeks and months--and even years if 
that is what it takes--all of us need to stand with the people of Oso 
and Darrington and Arlington and provide the Federal resources they are 
going to desperately need in this recovery and rebuilding operation. I 
want them to know they will have the thoughts and prayers of everyone 
in this country going out to the real Washington as they see this 
through.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.


                      Smith and McHugh Nominations

  Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. President, I rise this evening to speak in support of 
two nominees for Federal judgeships from Pennsylvania. I believe my 
colleague Senator Casey is going to have a message he will share with 
us momentarily.
  First, I wish to be very clear that I am very enthusiastically in 
support of both Judge Ed Smith and Mr. Gerald McHugh, the two nominees, 
both of whom are likely to get a vote this week. If confirmed, they 
will serve as U.S. district judges for the Eastern District of 
Pennsylvania.
  I thank Chairman Leahy and Ranking Member Grassley for their work in 
ushering these candidates through the committee process.
  I thank Leader Reid and Leader McConnell for their role in ensuring 
these nominees would have a chance to have a vote on the Senate floor.
  Most of all, I thank my colleague Senator Casey. Senator Casey and I 
have been working hard to fill a number of vacancies on the Federal 
bench in Pennsylvania since I got to the Senate. He predates my arrival 
here, so he has been at this longer than I have, but since I have 
arrived we have had a terrific working relationship. We have had eight 
terrific men and women confirmed to the Federal bench across 
Pennsylvania. Hopefully, these two gentlemen will join them and we will 
be up to 10.
  We have developed a rigorous process by which the many candidates who 
apply for these vacancies are thoroughly vetted, and I am very pleased 
that we have been able to make this ongoing process work. 
Pennsylvanians expect us to work together across party lines--a 
Democratic Senator and a Republican Senator--to simply find the best 
candidates. I have to say that I think we are doing exactly that with 
respect to our judicial nominees, and there could be no better examples 
than Judge Smith and Gerald McHugh.
  Ed Smith was approved by the Judiciary Committee by a voice vote on 
January 16. He is very well respected. I have known Judge Smith for 
nearly 20 years. There is no question that he has the requisite skills, 
the knowledge, the background, and the acumen. He will be a great 
Federal judge. We know this because of what he has already accomplished 
in his career. He serves as a captain in the U.S. Navy, in the JAG 
Corps. He has been a commanding officer at the Navy Reserve Naval 
Justice School. He served as a military trial judge in the Navy 
Reserve. He was deployed to Iraq in 2007 and 2008 to serve as a rule of 
law advisor to the Iraqis, and he received a Bronze Star for his 
service.
  Currently, Ed Smith is a judge on the Northampton County Court of 
Common Pleas. He has been a partner in the law firm of DeRaymond & 
Smith, and he is a cum laude graduate from Dickinson Law School.
  Importantly, Judge Smith has agreed that if he is confirmed, he will 
sit in the Easton Courthouse in the First District. That is a 
courthouse which has not had a district court judge since 2004. The 
people of Northampton County deserve to have that courthouse filled, 
and Judge Smith is an outstanding candidate to do it.
  I am also delighted to support Gerald McHugh. Gerald McHugh is a 
highly accomplished attorney, of very keen intellect, with a great 
commitment to public service. He is currently a partner in the Raynes 
McCarty firm. His work has mostly been in civil litigation, in medical 
malpractice, in litigation regarding unsafe products, aviation 
disasters, and in civil rights. He has been a shareholder in the firm 
of Litvin, Blumberg, Matusow & Young.
  He began his career clerking for District Court Judge Luongo in the 
Eastern District. He is a cum laude graduate from the University of 
Pennsylvania Law School.
  Gerald McHugh is not only a skilled lawyer, but he has been very 
active in his community. He has been giving back to the greater 
Philadelphia area for a long time. He is on the boards of many 
charitable and civic organizations. He is the president of the 
Pennsylvania Legal Aid Network and has been since 2004. He cofounded 
the Hospitality House of Philadelphia to help ex-offenders, and he does 
pro bono work to improve neighborhoods and prevent crime in West 
Philadelphia.
  Both of these candidates have the crucial qualities necessary to make 
outstanding judges, and they have manifested that throughout their very 
distinguished careers. They have the intelligence, they have the 
integrity, they have the commitment to public service, and they have 
respect for the limited role the judiciary has under our constitutional 
system. So I am pleased to rise to speak on behalf of

[[Page 4692]]

these two highly accomplished nominees, and I urge my colleagues to 
support their confirmation later this week.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I would like to commend and salute the work 
done by Senator Toomey and his staff, working with ours, as well as the 
leaders he mentioned, beginning with Majority Leader Reid and Chairman 
Leahy.
  Like Senator Toomey, I am grateful to have the opportunity to talk 
about both of these nominees for the U.S. District Court for the 
Eastern District of Pennsylvania: Edward George Smith, who serves now 
as a judge, as well as Gerald Austin McHugh, Jr. I have known Gerald 
Austin McHugh, Jr., a lot longer, and I will speak about him first. I 
know him as Jerry.
  If there is one thing I could say about Jerry McHugh, it is he is a 
lawyer's lawyer. He is the kind of lawyer other lawyers go to for 
advice, for guidance, and sometimes for education. He has been a great 
leader in the bar, but also someone who has been a strong advocate for 
those who need a voice, often serving as a lawyer for those who 
wouldn't have an advocate absent his involvement in a case.
  Jerry McHugh is a Philadelphia native. He was educated at St. Joe's 
University in Philadelphia where he received a degree in theology, 
graduating summa cum laude with the highest honors. He also graduated 
from the University of Pennsylvania Law School, and he graduated from 
Penn law school with honors as well.
  He began his practice at the law firm of Litvin Blumberg Matusow & 
Young in the early 1980s. Prior to his career as a lawyer, he served 
two judges as a law clerk: first, Judge Spaeth, Superior Court of 
Pennsylvania, the second highest court in the State right next to the 
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. He then served Judge Alfred L. Luongo, 
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. He then 
went into practice in the Litvin firm, and later the Raynes McCarty law 
firm in Philadelphia, PA, starting in 2004.
  I will highlight a few memberships which I think bear upon his work 
as a lawyer and the work he will do as a judge. He has been a member of 
the Pennsylvania Trial Lawyers and a board member of the Legal Aid 
Network in Philadelphia. He served the bar association in a number of 
capacities, including Volunteers for the Indigent Program, helping 
those who may not have a voice.
  Jerry focused his practice on complex civil litigation, including a 
variety of matters. I think it is noteworthy that the Pennsylvania 
Supreme Court three times appointed him to chair the Pennsylvania 
Interest on Lawyers Trust Accounts Program, a program which is very 
important so that when the fund is needed to help resolve a case which 
involves a lawyer, the fund is there. It has to be administered and 
overseen by folks who have the highest integrity.
  I know Jerry McHugh as someone who has a wide range of experience as 
a lawyer, an advocate, an active citizen, someone who would bring to 
the court a passion for justice and a sense of outrage in the face of 
injustice. I can't say enough about his experience and his preparation 
for this very important assignment he would have upon confirmation to 
be a judge in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. I am grateful for 
his willingness to serve.
  In addition, Judge Edward George Smith, as Senator Toomey noted, has 
a great career and a varied set of experiences, serving now as a judge 
in the Court of Common Pleas in Northampton County since January of 
2002. He was elected to that position and then retained, which is the 
ultimate validation of someone's services on the bench in the Court of 
Common Pleas in Pennsylvania.
  Prior, as Senator Toomey noted, Judge Smith served the United States 
in the Navy Judge Advocate General's Corps as a captain, from 1984 
until the present time. He also served in the DeRaymond & Smith law 
firm for about 11 years. In that time period he served as solicitor for 
a number of entities in the region.
  Edward Smith has also demonstrated his commitment to his community. 
He is a former president of the Boys and Girls Club of Easton, PA, 
former president of the Kiwanis Club of Palmer Township, former 
emergency medical technician in Forks Township.
  His 27-year military career is substantial. In addition to serving in 
the Navy and achieving the rank of captain, he served our country in 
Iraq. Just a few of his commendations are the Bronze Star medal, 
Meritorious Service medal, and the Navy and Marine Corps Commendation 
medal.
  Whether by way of life experience as well as legal experience or 
whether his experience as a judge, Judge Smith is prepared to be a 
judge again on a different court--in this case, the U.S. District Court 
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
  When we make decisions about whom to nominate for either the district 
court or the appellate court, we always want to consider a range of 
characteristics, experiences, and qualifications. First and foremost, 
we look to people who have unquestioned integrity. We look to them as 
people who have a varied experience, whether in the law as a judge or 
in other life experiences as well. We also look to people who can do 
the job--not just by way of their integrity and ability but also those 
who have the judicial temperament, the approach to litigants, to treat 
them with fairness and to arrive at a measure of justice.
  On those qualifications and characteristics, as well as others, both 
of these nominees possess them in abundance. I am grateful for Senator 
Toomey's work with us to get this done to have two judges to be 
confirmed, and we are looking forward to doing that later this week.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                         1964 Alaska Earthquake

  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Thank you, Mr. President.
  In Alaska there is a great deal of attention focused this week on the 
Great Alaska Earthquake of 1964. March 27 marked the 50th anniversary 
of this amazing physical event, the second largest earthquake that has 
ever been recorded, an episode Alaskans have been talking about for the 
past 50 years and will be talking about for the next 50. I rise this 
afternoon not to speak about that anniversary but to speak of a 25-year 
anniversary that while not caused by Mother Nature had a devastating 
impact on Alaska and the surrounding waters of our State. I would like 
to speak very briefly about where we are 25 years after the Exxon 
Valdez ran aground on Bligh Reef.
  The Exxon Valdez was a 987-foot tanker. It was carrying 53 million 
gallons of crude oil. It struck Bligh Reef in Prince William Sound at 
12:04 a.m., on March 24, 1989, and within literally hours it had 
released approximately 11 million gallons of crude oil into the water.
  As most know, the Alaskan coastline isn't just a nice thin straight 
beach; it is hundreds and hundreds of coves and islands and miles of 
shoreline. That oil spread over approximately 1,000 miles of shoreline 
across our coast. It is absolutely a fact that this environmental 
disaster is something that has left an impression on Alaskans not 
unlike what we experienced 25 years prior to that with another one of 
Mother Nature's devastations, the Great Friday earthquake in 1964.
  It is important when we have milestones, when we have anniversaries 
or times where we pause to think about what has happened before, that 
we not only think about the tragedy at the time but we think about how 
we have moved forward from that time, hopefully learning from those 
incidents that trigger such strong memories.
  So many Alaskans have stories of how they worked to help clean up the

[[Page 4693]]

oil spill in the aftermath of the Exxon Valdez, whether it was 
fishermen who had been displaced--they were no longer going out and 
fishing; instead they charged their vessels to be part of the massive 
cleanup effort that was underway. The stories that are out there 
throughout our State and from folks around the country are as poignant 
and touching 25 years later as they were at the time, because as the 
environment was impacted, the lives of Alaskans were clearly impacted.
  I like to think I spend a good amount of time in the small fishing 
community of Cordova--a community that was dramatically impacted by the 
Exxon Valdez spill--visiting with fishermen and fishing families 
decades after the fact and hearing their stories not only of the loss 
they incurred because they were not able to go out and fish, they were 
not able to meet their boat mortgages, but the other stresses the 
community experienced because of this disaster, whether it was personal 
bankruptcies, whether it was divorce, whether it was social issues 
because people just couldn't deal with the fact that their landscape 
and their livelihoods had been changed. It was a very trying and 
traumatic time. I think those scars take decades to heal.
  My hope is that, as Alaskans, we come together and learn from these 
tragedies and events so we can move forward. We are pretty resilient 
people. The people who have been so dramatically impacted are proof and 
evidence of that.
  What else have we seen as we have tried to learn from that tragedy? I 
think it is fair to say that at the time--back in 1989 when the Exxon 
Valdez ran aground--there was perhaps, as some would call it, a 
complacency. Perhaps we were just not monitoring operations as we 
should have, but we had an industry that had been operating quite 
safely--absolutely safely--for decades without incident. When you lose 
that vigilance, things can happen, and things happened with the Exxon 
Valdez.
  Since that time, we have learned that you have to have a level of 
preparedness as you operate in areas such as the Prince William Sound, 
you have to have a level of preparedness that meets the challenge you 
face. At the time the tanker ran aground, the spill response equipment 
that was there and had been planned for was not readily available. We 
didn't have sufficient boom available in the event of a disaster. We 
didn't have the fleet that could go out and assist in the disaster.
  Now, 25 years later, Alyeska has 189 skimmers, 49 miles of boom and 
on-water storage capacity of almost 38 million gallons. We have put in 
place a requirement that North Slope oil must be transported in double-
hull tankers. You cannot bring a tanker in to carry North Slope crude 
unless it is double-hulled. It doesn't matter what the weather is, we 
require a level of escort--a two-tug escort--out of the Prince William 
Sound. It can be a flat, calm summer day or a foul winter day, but 
every tanker going out is escorted by two tugs. We also have radar 
monitors that are in place that truly allow for a greater level of 
oversight and scrutiny.
  What we have done in response to the spill is, I think, something 
that is worthy of note. Clearly, it is something that Other Nations 
look to as the example of preparedness. We have our Prince William 
Sound Regional Citizens Advisory Council in place. They are truly 
active and engaged, not only with the community, but with the fishing 
fleets.
  We have learned that the company Alyeska--the management company for 
the transportation of Alaska's North Slope oil--conducts two major oil 
spill drills every year to make sure that there is a level of 
preparedness. We have about 400 local fishing boat owners that are 
trained to deploy and maintain the boom. They come together with drills 
to make sure we never have anything like we saw with the Exxon Valdez 
again.
  I think it is fair to say that 25 years after the spill, we are 
continuing to monitor not only the land and water but our fisheries. I 
recognize we still have a herring fishery that has not yet recovered. 
We still have a bird population--the guillemot--which has not 
recovered.
  Twenty-five years is a long time. When you have a disaster, as we 
had, it does leave an impact. My goal, mission, and effort as a 
legislator is to make certain we do not have a level of complacency 
where we close our eyes and fail in our efforts for preparedness again.
  I think what we have demonstrated in Alaska since the spill is, as I 
say, admirable in recognizing that we had failed in a level of 
prevention, but we also recognized we could learn from that tragedy and 
move forward, and we did.
  I wanted to take a couple of minutes this afternoon and acknowledge 
that there are still many Alaskans who woke up this morning not 
thinking about the weather or getting their kids to school, but with a 
very strong reminder of where they were 25 years ago and how the events 
of that day changed people's lives. Again, the goal here is to never 
have a tragedy of that scale and scope again.
  With that, I thank the Chair, yield the floor and suggest the absence 
of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________