[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 160 (2014), Part 4]
[Senate]
[Pages 4801-4804]
[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 assistant 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.


[[Page 4802]]

  Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I 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. RUBIO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. RUBIO. Mr. President, my understanding is we are on the motion to 
proceed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. We are.
  Mr. RUBIO. I wanted to speak about the issue of Ukraine. I get a lot 
of questions, phone calls, emails about it. It has certainly been on 
the minds of a lot of people across the country. The most common 
question that I get is: What do we do about it? What can we do? Related 
to that is the question of: Why does this even matter?
  I am going to get to that in my conclusion. But on this motion that 
is now before the Senate, where we are being asked to vote on a package 
of sanctions and also assistance to Ukraine, I wanted to first outline 
what it is we can do moving forward in addition to this bill that is 
before us, but also why this bill that is before us is so important.
  I think there are a couple of things that we really need to focus on 
in terms of our reaction to what has happened with regards to Crimea 
and with Ukraine, in particular, because of the Russian actions that 
have been taken.
  First and most important we need to help the Ukrainian people and the 
interim government in Ukraine to protect its nation's sovereignty but 
also to protect its transition to democracy--to full democracy.
  They have elections scheduled in May of this year. For these 
elections it is going to be critical that they go off smoothly, that 
they are free and they are fair because that is an important step in 
their transition to democracy.
  But we should anticipate that Russia, through Putin, is going to do 
everything it can to disrupt these elections, to delegitimize these 
elections. We already see evidence in open source reporting in the 
media that, in fact, there are highly trained agitators sponsored by 
the Kremlin that have found their way into Ukraine and could 
potentially participate in ways to try to disrupt these elections.
  So I think one of the first things we can do, working with our allies 
in Europe, is to help them with the logistical support they need to 
carry out in May elections that are free and are fair and to help them 
with the biggest step they are going to take so far towards a 
transition to democracy in Ukraine.
  The second action we need to take to help Ukraine to protect its 
sovereignty and to make its transition to democracy is to help them 
stabilize their economy. You can imagine that this disruptive change in 
government, combined with an invasion of its territories, has been 
highly disruptive to their economy, which was already feeling some real 
constraints. That is why the bill before us is so critical. In addition 
to some of the direct assistance, it will help them access loans that 
will allow them to stabilize their economic situation.
  What we can anticipate is that Russia is going to do everything it 
can to disrupt their economy. Again, the Russian argument here is--it 
is a ridiculous argument. But the argument they are making to the world 
is: Ukraine is a failed state. The Russian-speaking population is being 
threatened. So we have to get involved. We must intervene to try to 
stabilize that situation.
  That is the argument they have made in Crimea. Increasingly, that is 
the argument they seem to be making with regard to Eastern Ukraine. So 
the bill before us is critical because it will be a major step on the 
part of this government to do its part, in conjunction with our allies 
in Europe, to help Ukrainians stabilize their economy.
  As I have shared before, I have some real concerns about some of the 
language that is in this bill. It has to do with these changes to the 
IMF that I do not think belong in this legislation. I do not think they 
belong in this legislation for two reasons. One, I do not think that we 
should be taking up an issue of that importance in this manner. We 
should have a full debate. That should be dealt with separately. But I 
also think it was a mistake by this administration to include the IMF 
language in this bill because what we need as much as anything else is 
not just to pass this bill out of the Senate but to pass it with the 
most amount of support possible.
  I want to see it be 100 to 0 or 95 to 5 so we can send a very strong 
message to Russia and the world that the United States of America and 
her people are firmly on the side of Ukraine's sovereignty and 
Ukraine's desire for independence from Russia and its ability to 
stabilize itself in moving forward. That, quite frankly, is endangered 
as a result of the administration's decision to push this divisive 
language into this bill. There was no reason for them to do that.
  In fact, that sentiment is not a Republican sentiment. It is being 
echoed in the House, where a number of Democrats today are quoted in 
newspaper articles as saying that this is a mistake, that they should 
never have done this. If they were to take this language out, you would 
pass a bill in the House and Senate this week. We could have passed one 
before we left 2 weeks ago. Instead, it continues to have to go through 
a prolonged debate and divisiveness.
  There are people who have had to vote against it here on the floor 
because they feel so strongly about the IMF language. We could have had 
their support. We could have sent a stronger message than the one that 
is being sent now.
  I have those concerns. By the way, there was a statement made on the 
floor yesterday that I think deserves to be addressed. The majority 
leader stood here and said that, basically, the reason that--
Republicans are responsible for the loss of Crimea in an effort to help 
a family that is engaged in American politics. I think that statement 
is absurd and ridiculous. I think it is the kind of hyperbole that in 
issues such as this has no place.
  At some point there have to be issues so big and so important to the 
national security of this country that they are above politics and 
above that sort of statement. That being said, while I share the same 
concerns that many of my colleagues do about the IMF language, and 
initially expressed my position that I was not willing to vote for this 
bill with it, after much thought and consideration over the last couple 
of weeks, researching the issues, I made the conclusion that in the 
cost-benefit analysis, helping Ukraine stabilize itself, helping 
Ukraine stabilize its economy, given the importance of this issue, it 
is so important that I am prepared to vote for this despite the fact 
that it has something in it that I do not like. That is how important I 
think this issue truly is.
  Oftentimes in foreign policy that is what we are called to do. We are 
called to make pragmatic decisions that are in the best interests of 
America and our allies around the world, even if it is less than ideal 
or perhaps not the complete solution that we want. That is why I voted 
to proceed with the debate on this bill yesterday. That is why I am 
prepared to support it despite the inclusion of IMF language that I am 
strongly against--because I think this issue is that important.
  The third thing we can do to help Ukraine protect its sovereignty and 
make its full transition to democracy is to help them with their 
defense capability. Now, understand that when the Soviet Union fell in 
the early 1990s, Ukraine was left with the world's third largest 
stockpile of tactical nuclear weapons and strategic nuclear weapons on 
the planet.
  But they signed this agreement with the United States, the United 
Kingdom, and Russia that basically said: If you give up your nuclear 
weapons, we, these three countries that signed this, will provide for 
your defense and assure you of your defense. So Ukraine did that. They 
gave up these weapons. This was signed in 1994, and 20 years later, one 
of the three countries that signed that agreement has not just not 
provided for their defense, they actually invaded them.
  I want to make a point on this for a second. Think about if you were 
one of

[[Page 4803]]

these other countries around the world right now that feels threatened 
by your neighbors, and the United States and the rest of the world are 
going to you and saying: Listen, do not develop nuclear weapons. Do not 
develop nuclear weapons, South Korea. Do not develop nuclear weapons, 
Japan. Do not develop nuclear weapons, Saudi Arabia. We will protect 
you. We will watch out for you.
  What kind of lesson do you think this instance sends to them? I think 
the message this is sending to many nations around the world is: 
Perhaps we can no longer count on the security promises made by the 
free world. Perhaps we need to start looking out for ourselves. That is 
why the Ukrainian situation is so more important than simply what is 
happening in Europe. This has implications around the world.
  There are a number of countries around the world now that are 
considering increasing their defense capabilities, including a nuclear 
capacity, because they feel threatened by neighbors that have a nuclear 
capacity themselves. So far they have held back because they have 
relied on the United States and our partners to assure them that they 
do not need these weapons, that we have their back. But now when 
something like this happens, these countries see it as further evidence 
that potentially those sorts of assurances are no longer enough in the 
21st century.
  That raises the real risk that over the next 2 decades, you could see 
an explosion in the number of countries around the world that possess a 
nuclear weapons capability because they now feel that they must protect 
themselves and can no longer rely on other countries to do it for them.
  So how can we help Ukraine with its military and defense 
capabilities? By providing them assistance. By the way, the Ukraine 
military capability degraded not just because of their overconfidence 
in these assurances that were made to them, but there was also 
corruption in that government. In fact, the previous president who was 
ousted by a popular revolt, that president actually undermined the 
defense capabilities of that country and took a lot of that money and 
used it for internal control, to be able to control his own population 
instead of being able to protect his country.
  So what can we do to help? The first thing that I have called for us 
to do is to provide Ukraine with more military equipment and more 
training. We should work with our NATO allies and the European Union to 
help equip and train the Ukrainian military forces so that they can 
protect the country now and moving forward. We can also share 
intelligence information with them to help them better position their 
assets and understand and have a better awareness of what is going on 
around them.
  We can also help them with logistical support. These are the sorts of 
things that I hope this administration will take steps toward in the 
next couple of days. So that is the first thing we can do. We can help 
Ukraine protect its sovereignty and make its full transition to 
democracy.
  The second thing we need to do is we need to continue to raise the 
price on Putin for the invasion of Crimea. We need to change the 
calculation, the cost-benefit calculation that he is going to go 
through as he decides whether to move into Eastern Ukraine now and 
potentially even parts of Moldova.
  So already some steps have been taken in that regard. I applaud the 
administration for having additional sanctions announced last week. I 
think we are going to have to continue to do more in conjunction with 
our allies. I think we need to add more names of individuals, of 
financial institutions, and of businesses, primarily those who have 
links to this invasion, but also Russia's involvement in supporting the 
Syrian regime as it carries out the mass slaughter of its own people.
  I think we need to suspend our civil and nuclear cooperation 
agreement that was entered into as part of the 123 agreement 4 years 
ago as a strong message to them. I think we need to reassess the role 
that NATO plays in Europe. NATO was largely built around the Soviet 
risks in Western Europe.
  Then, after the fall of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War, 
NATO kind of lost its way a little bit in terms of its role in Europe 
because there was no threat. In fact, you saw some of these countries 
saying, you know, it is likely that NATO's role now will be about 
operations in the Middle East or in Africa and being involved in 
threats there as opposed to actually having to defend our own 
territory.
  The facts on the ground in Europe have changed dramatically in the 
last 2 months. You now, in fact, do have a powerful military force in 
the region that has shown a willingness to invade a neighbor. They did 
this in 2008 in Georgia. They are doing it again now in a way that is 
even more egregious and outrageous. I think it is time for NATO to 
reevaluate its capabilities, given this new threat that is here to 
stay.
  Also, the time has come for NATO to reposition its assets to face 
this threat and this risk. I think and I hope that those conversations 
are happening now. I think for NATO, in many respects, it is time to 
reinvigorate this alliance. It has a clear and present danger in Europe 
in the form of the government of Vladimir Putin, who threatens his 
neighbors and the stability of Europe. So now I think NATO has found a 
reason to reinvigorate itself.
  The last point I would make, in terms of changing the calculus, is 
the real stranglehold Russia has on Europe. It is not simply its 
military capabilities, it is its natural resources. Much of Europe 
depends on Russia for its oil and natural gas. This creates a 
tremendous amount of leverage on their neighbors. One of the reasons we 
have seen some countries in Europe reluctant to move forward on even 
higher sanctions is because they are afraid of losing access to the 
natural gas and oil from Russia that their economy depends on.
  We need to change that. That can't happen overnight, but we need to 
begin to change that; first, by increasing our exports to those 
countries and particularly Ukraine. I know Senator Barrasso will have 
an amendment as part of this debate that I hope will be considered that 
will allow us to export more natural gas to Ukraine. But what also 
needs to happen is other countries in Europe need to develop their own 
domestic capabilities in natural gas so they can become less reliant on 
Russia for these resources and become more reliant on themselves and 
free countries in the region to be able to do that. That is a critical 
component of a long-term strategy in all of this.
  Let me close by answering the question I began with. Why does this 
matter? I think this matters for a lot of different reasons. I have 
highlighted one, in terms of decisions being made around the world and 
governments deciding whether they are going to pursue their own 
domestic nuclear weapons capability, but there is another that perhaps 
we need to think about.
  After World War II--in fact, after the last century when the world 
went through two devastating World Wars--there was a commitment made 
that no longer would nations be allowed to aggressively invade other 
countries and take over territory and exercise illegitimate claims. In 
fact, international norms were established at the end of World War II. 
There were some conflicts during the Cold War with Russia, with the 
Soviet Union, and with the spread of communism, but by and large, 
especially since the end of the Cold War, that has been the established 
norm.
  It is not acceptable in the late 20th century and in the early 21st 
century for a country to simply make up an excuse and invade a neighbor 
and take their lands and territory. That was perhaps the way of the 
world 300 years ago, 200 years ago, and 100 years ago, and there were 
massive wars and loss of life as a result of countries doing that, but 
the world grew tired of these conflicts and decided we will no longer 
tolerate or accept these sorts of things.

[[Page 4804]]

If you recall, in the early 1990s, Saddam Hussein did that. He invaded 
Kuwait. The entire world community rallied around the United States of 
America to expel him as a result of that illegitimate action.
  In the 21st century, we have the most egregious violation of that 
norm. We basically have Russia deciding they don't like the way things 
are going in Ukraine so they decide to invade. They decided to take 
over a territory. Think about how they did it. They denied ever doing 
it. They sent Russian troops into Crimea, but they had them wear 
uniforms that had no markings on them. In fact, the press would ask 
these soldiers: Where are you from, and they wouldn't answer. They 
invaded a country but lied about their invasion. They claimed these 
were local defense forces that had rallied around the Russian flag. 
They made up this excuse that somehow the Russian-speaking population 
in the region was being oppressed and attacked and was in danger and so 
they needed to intervene.
  To this day, Russia still will not admit the military role they are 
playing on the ground in Crimea. So in addition to violating this 
international norm, which is an outrageous behavior, they have lied 
about it and think they can get away with it. The point I am making is, 
if in the 21st century a country is allowed to invade a neighbor, lie 
about it and lie about the reasons for it and they can get away with it 
without significant costs, we have created a dangerous precedent with 
which we are going to have to live. All over the world there are 
powerful nations that can now claim land they do not control belongs to 
them.
  I took a trip in February to Asia. I visited Japan and the 
Philippines and South Korea. You know what the No. 1 fear in that 
region is. That China has similar claims to Russia. They claim all 
sorts of pieces of territory and of oceans that belong to them. They 
claim it belonged to them 1,000 years ago and should belong to them 
now. They have taken a different tack, but the point is, if we now live 
in a world where a country can make territorial claims and then simply 
act on them without any repercussions from the international community, 
then I think the 21st century is starting to look more and more like 
the early 20th century, a time that subjected the world to two 
devastating World Wars.
  We cannot allow this to go unpunished. The only way this can be 
punished is if the free countries of the world rally together and 
impose sanctions and costs on Vladimir Putin and his cronies for having 
taken this action. That will never happen--the free world will never be 
able to rally to impose those costs--unless the United States leads 
that effort. We can't do it alone, but it cannot be done without us.
  That is why it is so important that measures such as the one the 
Senate now is considering happen with the highest amount of bipartisan 
support we can muster. We may not agree with every aspect of it--I 
certainly do not--but we must weigh the equities. If we were to put 
this on a scale, the need to do something about Ukraine so far 
outweighs the things about the legislation before us that we don't like 
because of the implications it has not just on our Nation but on the 
world and the role we must play. If some other country around the world 
fails to pass sanctions, fails to take steps or does so in a way that 
is divided, it might have some impact, but when the United States fails 
to act in a decisive way, it has a dramatic impact.
  One of the arguments our adversaries around the world use is asking 
our allies: Why are you still in the camp of the United States? They 
ask: Why are you still allying yourself with the United States? They 
are unreliable. Their government is always bickering and deeply 
divided. They can't come together in Washington to do anything. Do you 
think, if you are ever invaded or ever get into trouble, the United 
States could possibly muster the domestic political support necessary 
for them to come to your assistance? Don't count on America. Count on 
us or count on yourself.
  I have already explained why there is danger in that, but that is the 
argument these countries use against us. What I fear is that if we fail 
to take decisive and unified action in this body, in the Senate, to 
send a strong message--and while we may not agree on every component of 
this, and I have already said I believe it was a mistake for the 
administration to push for that IMF reform language--if we do not send 
a strong and decisive message, then I think this will be spun against 
us. I think this will be used as evidence to our allies and other 
countries around the world why America is no longer reliable, either 
economically or militarily.
  The consequences of that could extend far beyond Europe into other 
regions of the world, such as Asia. This is not a game. This is not 
some domestic political dispute. This issue has ramifications that will 
directly impact the kind of world our children will inherit. In fact, 
it will dramatically impact the kind of world we will have to live in 
over the next 20, 30, and 40 years. We cannot afford to make a mistake. 
We cannot afford to be wrong.
  I hope I can convince as many of my colleagues as possible to support 
this legislation, with all of its flaws, so we can send a clear message 
that on these issues we are united as a people and as a nation and that 
we remain committed to U.S. global leadership.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The assistant majority leader.

                          ____________________