[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 160 (2014), Part 4]
[Senate]
[Pages 4796-4798]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                                UKRAINE

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I listened carefully to the comments of 
the minority leader, Senator McConnell, and he is asking for 
bipartisanship and quick action on the Ukrainian matter before the 
Senate today. I agree with him completely.
  In fact, it was about 10 days ago when Senator John McCain, on the 
other side of the aisle, joined with me and six of our colleagues, and 
we took a late-night flight on a Thursday evening, flew all night long 
to go to Kiev, Ukraine. We spent the whole day on Friday meeting with 
government leaders. We had one night in a hotel room and then the next 
day, Saturday, a whole day of meeting with their leaders as well. Late 
that night we caught a plane back to Washington, arriving at 5 in the 
morning.
  It was a whirlwind trip but an important one because it came just 
hours before the Russians staged this phony referendum in Crimea--a 
referendum that had been condemned by the United Nations Security 
Council, with the exception of Russia's vote. They voted against the 
condemnation, which was to be expected. China abstained.
  So the question before us is, What can and should the Senate do, and 
when should it do it? Well, we have a measure before us that passed out 
of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. I believe the vote was 14 to 
3. I may be mistaken by a vote or two there, but it was a strong 
bipartisan majority. Senator Menendez then brought it to the floor.
  When it came to the floor before our trip to Ukraine, Senator Reid 
offered to bring it to the floor and pass it and do this on a 
bipartisan basis quickly--just what the Senate minority leader is now 
asking for--but there was an objection. The objection came from the 
Senate minority leader's side of the aisle. A Republican Senator 
objected to moving this bipartisan measure forward quickly. So Senator 
Reid set up the vote that happened yesterday when 78 Members voted in 
the affirmative to move to this measure. That is a good thing. I hope 
we can bring it up this week, and if the other side or any Senator has 
a proposal for an amendment, I hope they won't keep it to themselves 
and conceal it but bring it forward. Let's talk about it and see if we 
can amend this measure, change this measure in a constructive fashion, 
without introducing a lot of amendments which might bog us down in 
long-term debate.
  The Ukrainians are waiting to hear from the United States. What they 
want to hear from us is very simple. Are we on their side? Will we 
stand with them as they resist Russian aggression and the possibility 
of Russia moving from Crimea into Ukraine proper. This is a legitimate 
concern in Ukraine.
  We met with the governor of Donetsk in the eastern reaches of 
Ukraine, where there are more Russian-speaking people and perhaps more 
Russian loyalty than perhaps in other parts of the country, and he is 
concerned about provocateurs coming in from Russia stirring up the 
local people in demonstrations. Several people have been killed in the 
process. They want to see things stabilized and quieted. In order to do 
that, I think the United States and freedom-loving nations around the 
world need to stand with Ukraine. This is the purpose of our 
resolution: to sanction Russia for its aggression in Crimea, to warn 
them off from any further aggression into Eastern and Southern Ukraine, 
to provide some basic assistance to Ukraine, and to set up a process 
where this new government in Ukraine can borrow--underline ``borrow''--
money under conditions from the International Monetary Fund to rebuild 
their economy. It is an economy on the ropes.
  The previous leader Yanukovych was loyal to Moscow. People came to 
the streets and said they felt the government was insensitive to their 
own feeling that there also should be an attachment to the West and 
that Ukraine could in fact at least look to the West in terms of its 
economic future. Yanukovych resisted--demonstrations on the street, 
hundreds of thousands of

[[Page 4797]]

people in the Maidan and Kiev, Ukraine, and 103 of those demonstrators 
gunned down, shot and killed in the streets, by snipers firing from 
government buildings.
  There is a high state of emotion in the Ukraine today, as Yanukovych 
fled the country and the parliament took control. The new prime 
minister is a man who, at the age of 39, has an awesome responsibility. 
He carries the burden of his nation on his shoulders. He came to the 
United States asking for our help. President Obama met with him. He met 
with Members of the Senate, and I thought that conversation was 
positive--moving us forward. Now it is up to the Senate this week to 
move on this measure. Let's not bog down in partisan debates. Let's not 
get off on tangents.
  One of the issues I think will be brought up in the course of this 
week is the question of energy, and it is an important question because 
Putin has to be viewed for what he is today. He is the leader of 
Russia, and he is trying to save and sustain a failing Soviet 
franchise. He said: The most disappointing event of the 20th century 
was the elimination of the Soviet Union. Those were Putin's words. He 
has this dream of restoring an empire, reaching out to countries which 
used to be republics of the Soviet Union and members of the Warsaw Pact 
nations, and trying to bring them back into the Russian fold. We saw it 
8 years ago when he invaded Georgia and took territory there.
  I have been there. I have seen it. Behind the barbed wire in South 
Ossetia we see the Russian troops. They are garrisoned trying to 
protect that region of Georgia which they seized 8 years ago. The same 
thing is true now in Crimea. This is Putin's idea. If he can't win the 
hearts and minds of neighboring nations, he will take them over with 
masked gunmen, Russian soldiers, and energy extortion.
  There was a debate in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee about 
whether or not we can come to the assistance of those surrounding 
nations being preyed upon by the Russians and Putin--and to do it with 
assistance through energy. In the last several years we have found an 
abundance of natural gas in the United States. Somewhat surprisingly, 
our country, 5 years ago dependent on foreign energy sources, now has a 
surplus of natural gas.
  So the question was raised: Can we transport this gas to these 
countries, liberating them from dependence on Russia for energy 
sources? It is a very important question. It is a timely question. But 
it is one we should view in the context of where we are today.
  The good news is companies are moving back to the United States to 
reestablish manufacturing in our country--good-paying jobs. Why? We 
have skilled workers, some of the most productive in the world. 
Secondly, we now have this surplus of natural gas--an important 
feedstock for manufacturing jobs. With those two elements and 
transportation costs, we find more companies coming back to the United 
States, and we need them--in Illinois, in New Jersey, and desperately 
around the United States.
  So the question then is raised--an important question: Would we 
jeopardize our economic growth, our creation of manufacturing jobs, if 
we started exporting the natural gas which we have discovered? It is a 
worthy debate, an important debate. It is one that is really important 
when we consider the future of building manufacturing jobs in America.
  Secondly, we take a look at this natural gas debate, and we have to 
put it in historic context. Those who say to export, just to sell it, 
and that it is another commodity, need to put this in historical 
context. If 5 years ago the United States had gone through a famine, 
would we be exporting agricultural goods today without concern? I don't 
think so. We would think twice about it because we can remember that 
not that long ago we were vulnerable. Thank goodness we weren't and 
haven't been. But think about the energy famine we suffered some 5 
years ago. We were dependent on OPEC. We were dependent on foreign 
suppliers. We were worried about where our Nation was going from an 
energy perspective.
  The discovery of new sources of natural gas, new methods of 
extraction and new sources of oil, for example, have given us hope that 
we are going to be an energy surplus Nation. But it is a newfound 
treasure, and it is one about which we ought to be careful and measure 
carefully.
  Some say we have plenty, more than we can use, and it should be an 
international commodity. Others say take care and make certain we make 
the decisions best for America, number one.
  Should we debate that and decide that in a matter of minutes or hours 
on the floor of the Senate this week or take the time to look at it 
carefully? I think the latter.
  When I went and spoke with the new Prime Minister of Ukraine, 
Yatsenyuk, I mentioned this possibility: What if we exported liquefied 
natural gas to Ukraine? He said: We don't have a place to receive it 
today. It is a pretty substantial investment of infrastructure to 
receive LNG into our country and to use it effectively. We are not in 
the position with our economy to make that investment today. We are 
going to look to other energy sources in the near term.
  So the notion that natural gas exports will have benefit for Ukraine 
or any nation in the near term may be wishful thinking. Shouldn't we 
look at that part of the equation honestly about what they can absorb, 
when they can absorb it, and whether they want it? I think these are 
all legitimate and critically important energy policy debates in which 
we should engage.
  But let's not make any mistake about it. We need to pass a resolution 
condemning what Russia has done in Crimea and threatens to do in 
Ukraine. They have gathered at the borders of Belarus and in Russia, on 
the eastern reaches of Ukraine--military forces far beyond what was 
necessary to guarantee an orderly referendum in Crimea a little over 9 
days ago. They are poised to move forward. I pray that they won't.
  We have to make it clear in the West--whether it is President Obama's 
visit with the G-7 nations, whether it is the European Union in 
resolution or even our Senate and House--that we stand with Ukraine. We 
want to stand by their sovereign and territorial integrity.
  Many people didn't notice--they should have--but in 1994, Ukraine was 
the third strongest nuclear power in the world. After the breakup of 
the Soviet Union, Ukraine had more nuclear weapons than any country on 
earth, save the United States and Russia.
  In 1994, they came forward and said: We are prepared to eliminate and 
destroy our nuclear arsenal if we have the assurance of major nations 
this won't jeopardize our future and it won't jeopardize our 
territorial integrity. They produced what was known as the Budapest 
Memorandum. The Budapest Memorandum was signed by the United States, 
the United Kingdom, Ukraine, and Russia, guaranteeing that at least in 
principle all those nations would respect the territorial integrity of 
Ukraine. Within the last 2 weeks, Russia has not only reneged on that 
promise--it has in fact invaded Ukraine and taken over territory there.
  It is important for us, when it comes to Ukraine, to not only stand 
by the Ukrainian people as they move toward a more democratic form of 
government, but it is important for us to reinforce the premise that if 
a country will give up its nuclear weapons, will not pursue the 
development of nuclear weapons, and become part of the nuclear club, we 
will basically say: That will not create a dangerous situation for your 
future. This is what the Budapest agreement was about, recently 
violated by Russia, one of the signatories.
  If we want to make the argument in Iran, North Korea, and other 
countries, that they should foreswear their nuclear weapons, shouldn't 
we also be standing by the premise that if they do, at least civilized 
nations will stand behind them if they and their sovereignty are 
threatened? This is what is happening today in Ukraine and Crimea.

[[Page 4798]]

  It is not just a question of the survival of the Ukrainian Government 
but also a question as to whether civilized countries around the world 
trying to lessen the threat of nuclear weapons will stand with one 
voice and condemn the Russians for what they have done.
  It is very clear Putin has ambitions far beyond the Republic of 
Georgia and far beyond Ukraine. He engaged in this charm offensive at 
the Sochi Olympics and talked about the modern Russia and what it meant 
in the 21st century. The very same troops who were protecting the 
athletes from terrorism in Sochi, as soon as the final ceremony ended, 
were shifted and transferred into Crimea to invade that nation. The 
charm offensive was clearly over. NBC may have covered the Sochi 
Olympics, but it didn't cover the invasion of Crimea in real-time. But 
it happened, and we know it happened.
  Having been to Ukraine with Senator McCain and six other colleagues, 
our bipartisan delegation found a deep attachment in Ukraine to the 
United States. It is an attachment sometimes linked to specific 
families. I happen to represent the City of Chicago, where there is a 
prominent section known as Ukrainian Village. When I returned from 
Ukraine and went back to this section of Chicago, near the church where 
the Ukrainians worship on Sunday, we had over 500 people who gathered 
to hear what I had seen and heard and to talk about where we should go 
when it came to the future of Ukraine.
  But it is worthy to note that there weren't just Ukrainian Americans 
in that room in Chicago when I returned a week ago. In the front row 
were Polish people--and we have more Poles in Chicago than almost any 
other city outside of the nation of Poland--Lithuanians, Latvians, 
Georgians, and even Venezuelans. They had all come there to listen 
carefully, many of them with memories that not that long ago they were 
under Soviet domination and lived in fear of what would come from 
Moscow. These same people were standing together. They were standing in 
league with their Ukrainian-American neighbors, with the understanding 
that throughout its modern history Russia and the Soviet Union have 
taken over countries nearby when they could, and many times we didn't 
speak out.
  I have heard the argument made that perhaps, if the United States 
showed more military force in other places in the world, we might have 
discouraged Vladimir Putin. That argument doesn't make sense. Look at 
history. We were in the midst of the Vietnam war and we had committed 
half a million troops. The greatest military in the world was engaged 
in Southeast Asia when Brezhnev, the head of the Soviet Union, invaded 
Czechoslovakia. We were engaged in two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, 
actively showing the power of our military in those countries, under 
President George W. Bush, when Vladimir Putin invaded the Republic of 
Georgia.
  So I think it is an empty argument to say if we just show our muscles 
and start a war someplace, the rest of the world will be fearful. I 
don't think it is a recipe for the future. What the President is trying 
to do is to establish political and economic sanctions on Russia which 
will cost their economy and put pressure on them to stop this 
aggressive conduct. That, to me, is sensible.
  Let's take up this measure. If Members have amendments, bring them to 
the floor. Let's pass it today, not later this week. Let's show that we 
stand with the Ukrainians and oppose Russian aggression, support 
sanctions when needed, and prepare to loan to the Ukrainians the money 
they need to sustain their economy and to build it in the future.
  Ukraine is the second largest country in Europe. It is moving toward 
the West. Let us welcome them. As long as they are going to make 
certain their future is consistent with our democratic values, I think 
it is important we not only continue this dialogue but show we can 
truly be their allies and friends.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________