[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 160 (2014), Part 4]
[Senate]
[Pages 4809-4818]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




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

  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I ask to speak as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                          Washington Landslide

  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I wish to take a moment to address an 
issue that has really been on the hearts and minds of those back home 
in my home State of Washington.
  On Saturday, as I am sure many of my colleagues heard, the town of 
Oso, WA--a small, tightly knit town alongside the Stillaguamish River--
was directly hit by a massive landslide. That landslide cut off the 
town of Darrington, which is just a few miles down State Road 530. 
Houses over a square mile were simply swept away. We already know we 
have lost several people, and yesterday we learned there could be well 
more than 100 who are still missing. So right now in Washington State 
there are dozens of families who simply don't know if their loved ones 
are even still alive.
  Even though Oso and Darrington are 2,300 miles away from the Nation's 
Capital, our hearts and prayers are with them and their families. I 
want them to know that in the coming days and weeks and months--and 
even years, if that is what it takes--all of us will stand with the 
people of Oso and Darrington and provide any resources they need to 
recover and rebuild and that they have the thoughts and prayers of 
everyone in this country, from their Washington to this one.


                          Affordable Care Act

  Let me change gears a bit and address one of the most significant 
pieces of legislation for women in my lifetime--the Affordable Care 
Act.
  On Sunday this law celebrated its fourth anniversary, serving as a 
very stark reminder of where our Nation's health care system was just 4 
years ago. Four years ago our health insurance companies could deny 
women care due to so-called preexisting conditions such as pregnancy or 
being a victim of domestic violence. Four years ago women were 
permitted to be legally discriminated against when it came to insurance 
premiums and often were paying more for coverage than men. Four years 
ago women did not have access to the full range of recommended 
preventive care, such as mammograms or prenatal screenings and much 
more. Four years ago insurance companies had all the leverage and all 
the power, and too often it was women who paid the price.
  Now, thanks to the Affordable Care Act, for the first time women--not 
their insurance companies or their employers--are fully in charge of 
their own health care. In fact, women make up over half of the 5 
million people who have already signed up for coverage in the new 
marketplace, and over 47 million women have already gained guaranteed 
access to preventive health services thanks to the Affordable Care Act.
  That is why I feel so strongly that we cannot go back to the way 
things were. While we can never stop working to make improvements, we 
owe it to the women of America to make progress and to move forward and 
not allow the clock to be rolled back on their health care needs.
  Unfortunately, there are efforts underway all across the country--
including here today in our Nation's Capital--to severely undermine a 
woman's access to some of those most critical and lifesaving services 
that are provided under the Affordable Care Act. No provision of this 
law has faced quite as many attacks as the idea of providing 
affordable, quality reproductive health services to the women of 
America.
  For this reason I was very proud to lead Members of my caucus in 
filing an amicus brief with the Supreme Court in the two cases being 
considered there today. Those cases were brought by CEOs who want to 
take away their employees' right to insurance coverage for birth 
control, which is guaranteed under the Affordable Care Act.
  As was the case in the many attempts before this case, there are 
those out there who would like the American public to believe this 
conversation is anything but an attack on women's health care. To them, 
it is a debate about freedom--except, of course, freedom for women's 
access to care. It is no different than when we are told that attacks 
on abortion rights somehow are not an infringement on a woman's right 
to choose but it is somehow about religion or States rights; or when we 
are told that restricting emergency contraception isn't about limiting 
women's ability to make their own family planning decisions, it is 
somehow about protecting pharmacists; or just like last week when an 
Alaska State senator proposed placing State-funded pregnancy tests in 
bars but ruled out providing contraception because ``birth control is 
for people who don't necessarily want to act responsibly.''
  The truth is that this is about contraception. This is an attempt to 
limit a woman's ability to access care. This is about women. Allowing a 
woman's boss to call the shots about her access to birth control should 
be inconceivable to all Americans in this day and age. It takes us back 
to a place in history when women had no voice and no choice.
  In fact, contraception was included as a required preventive service 
in the Affordable Care Act on the recommendation of the independent, 
nonprofit Institute of Medicine and other medical experts because it is 
essential to the health of women and families. After many years of 
research, we know that ensuring access to effective birth control has a 
direct impact on improving the lives of women and families in America. 
We have been able to directly link it to declines in maternal and 
infant mortality, reduced risk of ovarian cancer, better overall health 
care outcomes for women, and far fewer unintended pregnancies and 
abortions, which is a goal we all share.
  What is at stake in this case before the Supreme Court is whether a 
CEO's personal beliefs can trump a woman's right to access free or low-
cost contraception under the Affordable Care Act.
  I strongly believe every American deserves to have access to high-
quality health care coverage regardless of where they work or where 
they live, and each of us should have the right to make our own medical 
and religious decisions without being dictated to or limited by our 
employers. Contraceptive coverage is supported by the vast majority of 
Americans, who understand how important it is for women and families.
  In weighing this case, my hope is the Court realizes that women 
working for private companies should be afforded the same access to 
medical care regardless of who signs their paycheck. We can't allow 
for-profit, secular corporations or their shareholders to deny female 
employees access to comprehensive women's health care under the guise 
of a religious exemption. It is as if we are saying that because 
someone is a CEO or a shareholder in a corporation, their rights are 
more important than the employees who happen to be women.
  As I sat inside that Supreme Court chamber this morning listening to 
the arguments being made on both sides, I

[[Page 4810]]

couldn't help but think: If these CEOs are allowed to evade this law, 
what would happen to the other legal protections for employees? Could a 
boss decide not to cover HIV treatment? Could an employer opt out of 
having to comply with antidiscrimination laws? Corporations should not 
be able to use religion as a license to discriminate.
  I am proud to be joined in filing the brief by 18 other Senators who 
were in office when Congress enacted the religious protections through 
the Religious Freedom Restoration Act in 1993 and again when we made 
access to women's health care available through the Affordable Care Act 
in 2010. We are Senators who know that Congress did not intend for a 
corporation or its shareholders to restrict a woman's access to 
preventive health care. We all know that improving access to birth 
control is good health policy and good economic policy. We know it will 
mean healthier women, healthier children, healthier families, and a 
healthier America. And we all know it will save money for businesses 
and consumers.
  I know many of our colleagues believe that repealing the Affordable 
Care Act and access to reproductive health services is somehow a 
political winner for them. But the truth is that this law and these 
provisions are winners for women, for men, for children, and for our 
health care system overall. So I am very proud to stand with my 
colleagues who are committed to making sure the benefits of this law do 
not get taken away from the women of America, because politicians and 
ideology should not matter when it comes to making sure women get the 
care they need at a cost they can afford.
  Madam 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 Missouri.
  Mrs. McCASKILL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. McCASKILL. I wish to speak as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Harpool Nomination

  Mrs. McCASKILL. Madam President, I rise to urge my colleagues to vote 
this afternoon--hopefully this afternoon or, if not this afternoon, 
tomorrow--for a terrific man to be a judge in the Western District of 
the Federal District Court in Missouri.
  As an old lawyer--too old--I find myself amazed that I have the 
opportunity to speak to the Senate about someone I have known a long 
time, about a lawyer I know very well. This is a man whose name is Doug 
Harpool. He is from Springfield, MO.
  Back in the early 1980s he and I arrived as very young lawyers in the 
Missouri House of Representatives. I had the opportunity to get to know 
him well--his character, his integrity, his work ethic. I watched him, 
against tremendous odds and, frankly, some inappropriate pressure, 
fight for a first major attempt at ethics reform in the Missouri 
Legislature. His journey was sometimes a very lonely journey, but he 
had a pit bull kind of mentality about going after this important 
topic, believing that if a person is in public service, a person's 
standards must be high; believing that if one chooses--many times at 
less compensation--a path in the public arena, one has a certain duty 
to conduct oneself with integrity and the kind of character that could 
make others proud of their representation.
  After his time in the Missouri Legislature, he went on to be a 
lawyer's lawyer. I don't mean the kind who says ``I am a litigator'' 
and never goes near a courtroom, and I don't mean the kind who says ``I 
handle serious cases'' and does nothing but shuffle paper, but, rather, 
a real litigant--somebody who is in the courtroom, by the way, on both 
sides of the table. This is somebody who helped clients who were suing 
people and helped people who were being sued.
  He has worked with great regard as a practicing attorney now for many 
years. There is nothing better than being respected by one's peers, 
especially those whom one has battled because when we battle with 
someone, we see it all. We see what kind of a person we are up against 
and what tactics the other person is willing to use. We see a person's 
raw intellect and their ability to think on their feet. So when I 
started hearing from so many lawyers who were Doug Harpool's colleagues 
what a terrific choice he would be, I knew that what I believed about 
him was shared by so many others.
  He will never be a judge who gets ``robitis.'' That is a serious 
disease which sometimes strikes Federal judges more often than other 
kinds because they are appointed for life. Practicing lawyers talk 
about judges who have robitis, which is a malaise that comes upon a 
judge who all of a sudden removes himself from the common people and 
that somehow makes him or her above the struggles lawyers are having, 
makes them above the problems clients are presenting in their 
courtroom. This is a grounded man. This is a man who will understand 
what it is like to litigate a case, why his judgments must be fair and 
also speedy, why he owes it to the litigants to actually read their 
briefs--not assign it to someone else, to thumb through and then make a 
decision based on a predetermined notion he might have.
  This is someone who will take this work with the degree of 
seriousness it deserves and with the amount of compassion we all should 
demand.
  I am so proud to be here urging his confirmation. I am confident he 
will be confirmed by a wide margin. But I am even more confident he 
will be the kind of Federal judge who will make me proud and all of 
Missouri proud for as long as he chooses to sit on the bench.
  Thank you, Madam President.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Madam President, I rise today to speak to the 
importance of passing the pending legislation to support the people of 
Ukraine in maintaining their independence at this very challenging 
time.
  Russia's illegal annexation of Crimea marks the first time one 
European nation has seized territory from another since the end of 
World War II. Now President Putin is continuing his military buildup 
along Ukraine's eastern border, and Russia's actions in the Crimea fly 
in the face of the basic principles of sovereignty that have 
underpinned security in Europe and around the world for decades. The 
United States and the international community must stand with Ukraine 
and reaffirm our commitment to Ukraine's independence and territorial 
integrity.
  This moment is a real test for the international community. It tests 
whether the nations of the world can respond in a unified way to 
support Ukraine and to check Russia. It will also test whether we in 
Congress can overcome political differences and leave partisanship at 
the water's edge.
  I believe we can and that we will rise to the occasion. We had a very 
good vote last night and hopefully that will continue as we take up the 
pending legislation.
  First, we should provide Ukraine with much needed economic 
assistance. That is why I strongly support the legislation that is 
currently before us. It authorizes the administration to extend $1 
billion in loan guarantees to Ukraine.
  Second, Congress needs to continue to push the administration to 
impose costs on Russia for its illegal and escalating actions.
  I applaud yesterday's decision by the G7 nations to cancel their 
participation in the upcoming Sochi summit, to suspend Russia's 
participation, and to convene energy ministers for talks to strengthen 
our collective energy security.
  The latest round of U.S. and EU sanctions are another very important 
step. However, Congress must continue to

[[Page 4811]]

explore options for additional bipartisan sanctions legislation. In 
addition, the administration should be aggressive in responding to 
Russian provocations using the authorities we give them.
  Third, we need to demonstrate support for our other allies and 
partners in the region who are threatened by Russia's expansionist 
agenda.
  NATO has already taken some commendable actions in the past week. 
They have deployed additional aircraft and early warning systems, and 
we are reinforcing our commitment to Poland and our Baltic partners.
  This is a significant moment for Ukraine, for Europe, and for the 
United States. It is imperative that we do our part to help the people 
of Ukraine secure the bright independent future they deserve. The 
people of Ukraine and of Ukrainian descent--whether they be in Kiev or 
in Manchester, NH--are watching and counting on our support.
  Our European allies are watching and are counting on our continued 
leadership. And maybe most important, Vladimir Putin is watching and 
counting on our acquiescence.
  So let us be committed and resolute. Let us stand together in support 
of the people of Ukraine. And let us start by passing this important 
legislation.
  I thank the Presiding Officer and yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REED. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                         Unemployment Insurance

  Mr. REED. Madam President, the Senate needs to do everything it can 
to help create jobs, improve our economy, and address the basic needs 
of the average American. Unfortunately, many efforts to make meaningful 
progress on these issues have been thwarted in the last 2 months. 
Specifically, for the last 87 days, emergency assistance for job 
seekers has been blocked by gridlock.
  Despite the best efforts of several of my colleagues, including my 
colleague and friend Senator Dean Heller of Nevada, today over 2.2 
million Americans are being denied vital assistance in what remains a 
very difficult economy, but I am pleased to say that a group of five 
Republicans and five Democrats have reached a principled compromise to 
end this impasse and help get people back on their feet.
  Indeed, I along with Senators Heller, Merkley, Collins, Booker, 
Portman, Brown, Murkowski, Durbin, and Kirk have introduced a bill to 
continue emergency unemployment insurance for 5 months retroactive from 
December 28.
  As I have advocated, this bill contains no cuts to the weeks of 
benefits available or the structure of the tiers of benefits, nor does 
it include other problematic policy changes. It is, however, fully paid 
for and includes some positive reforms that better align the 
unemployment insurance and workforce systems to help get people back to 
work sooner.
  It also includes language my colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle sought--and that was previously passed in the Senate 100 to 0--
which would prohibit millionaires from receiving Federal emergency 
benefits.
  I wish to thank Senator Heller for his commitment to this issue, for 
his steadfastness, and for his recognizing that this should not be a 
partisan issue. He has been an extremely thoughtful, collaborative, and 
constructive colleague in trying to bring this issue to the floor.
  I also wish to particularly thank Senators Collins, Murkowski, 
Portman, and Kirk because they also have been extremely thoughtful, 
tireless, and resolute in their efforts to find a pathway forward. They 
have all brought constructive ideas to the table. We have been able to 
craft a principled compromise that will provide aid to an estimated 2.7 
million Americans, including 12,000 Rhode Islanders.
  This is a vital lifeline that can mean the difference between making 
a rent payment, putting enough food on the table, and keeping the heat 
on as our constituents search for work in an economy where there are 
still more than two job seekers for every opening and in fact in some 
places three job seekers for every opening.
  I have been working since last year to extend these benefits. Every 
day that passes is another day that hard-working Americans do not have 
the same type of aid as those who were unemployed and looking for work 
last year had. I am glad we have reached a principled bipartisan 
compromise. It deserves to move forward quickly so we can provide much 
needed relief to our constituents and can strengthen our economy.
  I understand there have been administrative concerns raised about 
this bill by the National Association of State Workforce Agencies, 
which Speaker Boehner appears to be using as a reason to not take up 
this bipartisan compromise. Frankly, administrative challenges should 
not be a reason to deny aid to working Americans who have lost their 
jobs through no fault of their own and are out there hitting the 
pavement searching for work in a challenging economy.
  The Secretary of Labor has sent Congress a letter addressing all of 
the concerns raised by the national group. This letter notes the 
Secretary of Labor is ``confident that there are workable solutions for 
all the concerns raised by NASWA. From the Great Recession to the 
present, the Congress has worked in a bipartisan fashion to enact 
twelve different expansions or extensions to the EUC program. A number 
of extensions included changes to the program that were as or more 
complex than those included in the current bill. The Department of 
Labor has consistently worked with states to implement these extensions 
in an effective, collaborative and prompt fashion, and will do so 
again.''
  Indeed, the States have implemented benefits retroactively several 
weeks after the program has expired previously. I would like to add 
that my colleagues who have joined as cosponsors of this bill, out of 
an abundance of caution and a desire to allay these administrative 
concerns, have included clarifying language to ensure that 
administrative funding constraints related to the prohibition on 
millionaires receiving emergency unemployment insurance could not be 
read in an overly broad fashion, so that it will make this bill 
administratively easier to implement.
  I look forward to debating this bill later this week. I am hopeful 
that with this strong bipartisan showing, we can convince our 
colleagues on the other side of the Capitol that this is the right 
thing to do for the economy and for working Americans who lost their 
job through no fault of their own and who are searching for work.
  Again, I am delighted to join Senator Heller in this effort and our 
other Republican cosponsors. They have been extraordinarily thoughtful, 
constructive, and collaborative. They have served not only their 
constituents but this Senate and this country with great and deeply 
appreciated effort.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. HELLER. Madam President, I would like to begin by thanking my 
friend from Rhode Island for his continued work to help the American 
people by temporarily extending unemployment insurance benefits. This 
is something he and I have been working on together since this past 
December. I am pleased to have finally reached a bipartisan agreement 
that can pass this Chamber.
  I admire my colleague's dedication and am greatly pleased that we are 
here this week to support our efforts to help keep American families on 
their feet during this tough economy. I also wish to thank Senators 
Collins, Portman, Murkowski, and Kirk for their continued willingness 
to come to the table to craft a bill that can garner enough support to 
pass in this Chamber.
  I would also like to recognize some of my other colleagues: Senator 
Coats, Senator Ayotte, who though not cosponsors on this bill today 
were instrumental in these negotiations from the

[[Page 4812]]

beginning. I understand their concerns and I also share their desire to 
see additional reforms to these programs.
  Regardless, I am grateful for their contribution over the past few 
months. I would also like to thank Senator Isakson and Senator Hoeven 
for their input and am appreciative of their efforts throughout the 
process. Though it has not always been easy, this process has truly 
been a collaborative effort at every level.
  Fortunately, I believe we have reached a compromise that will garner 
enough support in the Senate to help 1.3 million unemployed Americans 
get back on their feet as they look for work in the toughest job market 
in decades.
  This bill is a responsible, fully paid for, temporary extension of 
unemployment insurance benefits that expired in December. It addresses 
concerns that any further extension ought to be paid for. As our 
economy recovers and people find new jobs, the demand for social safety 
net programs should naturally diminish, but States such as Nevada, 
Rhode Island, and many others still have long economic recoveries ahead 
of them.
  I know some may feel there is little reason to extend these benefits, 
especially since they were allowed to expire at the end of last 
December, but the fact remains that too many Americans are out of work 
but want to return to the workforce. I have heard from many Nevada job 
seekers who in addition to trying to find a job are also struggling to 
put food on the table for their families, pay their rent or mortgage, 
and are running out of ways to make ends meet. Extending these benefits 
will help these families before their situation goes from bad to worse.
  My colleagues and I have worked together to come to a reasonable 
bipartisan agreement on both policy and pay-fors. I think we would all 
agree there are certain provisions that I think each side would prefer 
to see included in this bill, such as additional reforms, but this is 
the nature of compromise.
  We also recognize the challenge of dealing with a patchwork of State 
UI systems of varying capabilities, but I believe we are all open to 
finding ways to ensure that this extension is implemented as 
efficiently as possible. This task may not be easy, but I firmly 
believe it is worth doing.
  Again, thanks to all of my colleagues, especially my colleague from 
Rhode Island who has been involved in this process. I look forward to 
moving to this bill very soon and am hopeful Congress can finally 
resolve this matter as soon as possible to help restore some stability 
for the millions of unemployed Americans looking to get back to work.
  I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Manchin). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I rise to express my robust concern 
about Russia's actions and the continuing escalation of tensions in 
Central and Eastern Europe. Even with Ukrainian troops leaving Crimea, 
Russia continues to extort Ukraine, disavowing an agreement on gas 
prices that was part of a bilateral agreement allowing Russia to lease 
the Black Sea port in Crimea for its fleet. Russia is now arguing it no 
longer has to provide the discounted gas--because it illegally seized 
the port--but that it also must be paid back $11 billion for prior 
discounts.
  At the same time Russia has amassed more than 100,000 troops at 
Ukraine's border, in addition to 23,000 troops that are in Crimea, 
making clear the threat of an outright invasion of Ukraine and possibly 
a portion of Moldova. Putin is watching to see what we will do, to see 
if we have the resolve to act or if he, in essence, gets the green 
light to take the next step.
  I believe we need to act now. Although I also believe our response to 
Russia's annexation of Crimea should include the International Monetary 
Fund reforms that passed in a bipartisan way out of the Senate Foreign 
Relations Committee and that obviously received a rather strong 
procedural vote yesterday in the Senate--and these are critical to 
strengthening the assistance package for Ukraine and to strengthen U.S. 
global leadership--I recognize our ability to move this package with 
those reforms in it at this point is unlikely.
  The House Republican leadership has proven itself intransigent on IMF 
reform, and we all know why. Trying to link support for IMF reforms to 
C-4 political committees that may have violated campaign finance laws 
and may involve individuals who illegally used them to influence 
Federal elections is pretty outrageous. I cannot believe the House 
leadership will not put national security interests above their 
partisan political interest but, obviously, politics clearly don't stop 
at the water's edge on this issue.
  So while I am not happy about it, I believe we need to move forward 
on a bill today that sends the necessary message of support to Ukraine 
and resolve to Russia. But as we take that step, let us realize it is 
the IMF that is leading the effort to stabilize Ukraine's fragile 
economy. Congressional ratification of the 2010 IMF reforms would 
increase IMF emergency funding to Ukraine by up to 60 percent and 
provide an additional $6 billion for longer term support, setting an 
important marker for other donors, such as the EU and the World Bank.
  Let us be clear about what keeping the IMF provisions would have 
done. The IMF is strengthened at no cost to U.S. finances or influence. 
The United States retains its executive board seat and the sole veto 
power at no net cost because the $63 billion increase in the U.S. quota 
is totally offset by an equivalent decrease to a separate emergency 
facility. However, other countries would put in new money, increasing 
the IMF's lending power.
  The fact is this would be a pure win for the United States. We would 
fully have paid 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 an ingredient 
precluding future need for military action, the minor cost would have 
been paid back many times over. And we will have another crisis in the 
future, in which the IMF will be critical to whether that crisis can be 
diffused and solved.
  I repeat what I have said before. This should not be a partisan 
issue. Presidents Reagan, Clinton, and both Presidents Bush backed 
legislation to increase IMF resources. Ronald Reagan called the 
International Monetary Fund ``the linchpin of the international 
financial system.''
  In a letter to the House and Senate leadership last week, members of 
the Bretton Woods Committee, the original entity that created some of 
the international organizations that have created global stability, 
such as the IMF, wrote that ``Implementing the IMF quota reforms . . . 
bolsters our leadership in the fund'' . . . and provides the United 
States with ``leverage to continue to preserve our national security 
and economic interests abroad.''
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record 
the letter I am referring to.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                  The Bretton Woods Committee,

                                                   Washington, DC.
     Hon. Harry Reid,
     Majority Leader, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Mitch McConnell,
     Minority Leader, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
     Hon. John Boehner,
     Speaker, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
     Minority Leader, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Majority Leader Reid, Speaker Boehner, Minority Leader 
     McConnell and Minority Leader Pelosi: We write to urge 
     Congress to maintain strong U.S. leadership in the 
     International Monetary Fund (IMF) by enacting IMF quota 
     reform legislation. For over 60 years, the IMF has been a 
     principal tool for advancing U.S. national security and 
     economic interests globally.

[[Page 4813]]

       The immediate importance of a strong IMF role for countries 
     in crisis is apparent now in Ukraine, which seeks help from 
     the U.S. and IMF to maintain its independence and economic 
     health, and to reduce its energy dependence on Russia. 
     Implementation of IMF quota reform would mean Ukraine would 
     be able to borrow 60% more in rapid IMF financing (from $1B 
     to $1.6B) than is possible today. Coupled with the U.S. $1 
     billion in new loan guarantees for Ukraine currently being 
     considered by the Congress, Ukraine would have a total of 
     $2.6 billion in emergency resources to draw upon to stabilize 
     its economy. This enhances the geopolitical position of 
     Ukraine's government in the current crisis with Russia.
       The IMF doesn't always get it right but it has been doing 
     important work in countries for decades to stabilize their 
     financial situation and put them on a path toward economic 
     growth for decades. This clearly serves our interests.


                 Advancing National Security Interests

       The IMF is often the first responder of choice for the 
     United States and our allies, to help countries prevent or 
     manage financial crises before they destabilize an economy 
     and give rise to conditions of economic stagnation, poverty, 
     and political instability, which can embolden terrorism. When 
     Russia went to war with Georgia in 2008, the U.S.-backed IMF 
     $750 million emergency loan to Georgia countered the early 
     financial fallout and kept our friend on a path of market-
     friendly economic policies. It was the IMF that stepped in to 
     provide financial assistance to the former Eastern European 
     countries after the fall of the Berlin Wall. U.S.-supported 
     IMF loans helped stabilize Pakistan after 9/11, and have 
     reinforced fragile economies such as Jordan, Tunisia and 
     Morocco to help ensure our partners can focus on counter-
     terrorism cooperation and combating radical extremism.


                   Promoting U.S. Economic Interests

       In its role to promote the stability of the international 
     monetary and financial system, the IMF consistently promotes 
     a growth-oriented agenda based on open markets and strong 
     macroeconomic and structural policies. IMF support to the 
     Euro Area during the recent financial crisis lessened the 
     global fallout and financial instability of highly 
     interconnected economies, and forced long-needed structural 
     reforms to begin to take place. The IMF was first responder 
     to the Asian crisis in the late 1990s, and helped restore 
     growth to Asian economies and create robust export markets 
     for U.S. businesses, which supports American jobs.
       Implementing the IMF quota reforms negotiated by the United 
     States in 2010 bolsters our leadership in the Fund without 
     increasing the overall U.S. financial commitment. It requires 
     other countries to make additional financial commitments, 
     effectively providing a larger and more stable source of 
     financing that the U.S.--as the largest shareholder and only 
     country with veto power over major IMF decisions--can 
     leverage to continue to preserve our national security and 
     economic interests abroad. A stronger IMF keeps emerging 
     economies secured in the system we designed without 
     sacrificing any of our influence.
       We would therefore urge the Congress to continue its 
     longstanding, bipartisan support of the International 
     Monetary Fund for our national self-interest and for the good 
     of the global system.

  Mr. MENENDEZ. Let me cite the names of some of the folks who signed 
that letter: Madeleine Albright, former Secretary James Baker, Zbigniew 
Brzezinski, William Cohen, Stephen Hadley, Henry Kissinger, Tom Ridge, 
Condoleezza Rice, Clayton Yeutter, Robert Zoellick, Lee Hamilton, Brent 
Scowcroft, Frank Carlucci, Robert Rubin, Larry Summers, John Snow, and 
Henry Paulson. This is a bipartisan list of ``Who's Who'' in foreign 
policy, all saying this is critical to do.
  Let me be very clear. Opponents have argued that IMF reforms provide 
no added relief to Ukraine, so it is superfluous to this bill. That 
argument is patently false. The 2010 IMF reforms strengthen the IMF. 
That is why they were done. And as it relates to Ukraine, by increasing 
Ukraine's quota, the reforms increase available short-term lending from 
$1 billion to $1.6 billion, and longer term resources the IMF can 
leverage for Ukraine by up to $6 billion. It also strengthens our 
ability to shape an IMF support package for Ukraine.
  Critics say IMF reforms undermine U.S. influence and increase 
Russia's influence in the IMF. They are dead wrong again. We remain the 
largest IMF shareholder even after reform, we are guaranteed our 
executive board seat, and we will continue as the only country--the 
only country--with veto power over major IMF decisions.
  Meanwhile, the reforms rationalize the voting structure of the IMF to 
increase buy-in of dynamic emerging economies in a way that ensures 
continued U.S. leadership in a more relevant international institution. 
On the other side, the reforms matter little to Russia, which already 
has a board seat.
  Opponents say IMF reforms cost American taxpayers billions and put 
taxpayer money at risk. Again, wrong. There is no cost to American 
taxpayers. The reforms included in the Senate Ukraine bill preserve 
U.S. leadership, the veto position in the IMF, without increasing--
without increasing--our financial commitment to the IMF. The IMF is the 
most solvent financial institution in the world, and the risk of IMF 
default is de minimis.
  We would have paid for all of this budget impact through real cuts, 
as my colleague and ranking member on the committee Bob Corker asked. 
We came together and we figured it out. The appropriators helped us 
determine underperforming funds, programs from which we could take 
these funds, and we ultimately came to a very successful conclusion.
  I regret the failure to strengthen the IMF to support Ukraine and 
other unforeseen crises around the world will endanger the system we 
have so painstakingly built. And it shouldn't need arguing that 
fragmentation of global economic governance is not in our national 
interest. The fact is IMF reform, combined with the aid package for 
Ukraine, would send a clear and unambiguous message to the world that 
the annexation of Crimea will not stand.
  But I understand this institution and our political realities, so I 
have come to the floor to ask that we come together to at least send 
our message of support to Ukraine and another message to Putin. We 
should act today. We cannot and should not stand for the violations of 
international norms perpetrated on Crimea by Russia. The world is 
watching, and the world's superpower cannot be seen as incapable of 
rising to Russia's challenge. That is the responsibility before the 
Senate today.
  So for those who have criticized the IMF reforms--and because the 
House leadership doesn't want to pursue it because of extraneous 
matters having to deal with politics and not policy, willing to risk 
national security issues--they are going to get their way today. I 
would hope, therefore, the rest of this package, which provides a loan 
guarantee to Ukraine of $1 billion, that provides sanctions against the 
Russian regime and others who corrupted Ukraine, the previous Ukrainian 
Government, and who have violated its territorial integrity, that 
provides assistance to ensure democratic elections can be held this May 
in Ukraine, that provides for greater defense cooperation with Ukraine, 
all other elements of this legislation, should have universal support. 
We should do it today in order to ensure that we send a clear, 
unambiguous message, as 100,000 Russian troops are on the eastern front 
of the Ukraine. I believe this is a critical moment for us to answer 
affirmatively.
  I yield the floor, and 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. BARRASSO. 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. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to talk about 
an issue that has been in the news quite a bit, and quite a bit on the 
minds of people, I think, all around the Capitol, which is what is 
happening with, specifically, Vladimir Putin and Russia and the 
invasion and takeover of Crimea and the activities in Ukraine.
  On March 15 Russian forces seized a natural gas distribution station 
in a Ukrainian village. I think this is key because this was right at 
the time they were getting ready to have a vote on Crimea leaving 
Ukraine, joining Russia, and I was in Ukraine at the time. I was there 
with a bipartisan group. We had eight Senators--Republicans and 
Democrats from across the aisle and across the broad spectrum of 
politics in America. What we saw at the time,

[[Page 4814]]

right before the vote, was the helicopters heading in to take over the 
gas plant. To me that showed how Vladimir Putin thinks of energy, 
thinks of politics, and thinks of power.
  In the Washington Post that Sunday morning, the day of the vote in 
Crimea: ``Ukraine decries Russian Invasion, Natural Gas Facility 
Seized.'' Their first action before the vote even occurred, the 
Russians came in and seized a natural gas facility. It showed his 
willingness, his desire, to use energy as a weapon. It is also a 
reminder that energy for us can be a powerful weapon to counter Russian 
aggression.
  President Putin has repeatedly made it clear that he does not care 
about democracy, about freedom or about the Ukrainian people. What he 
does care about is money and power. As the United States considers how 
to help the Ukrainian people, as we are doing right now on the floor of 
the Senate with sanctions and aid, I think we need to make sure we take 
steps to hit Putin exactly where it hurts, which is in his wallet, in 
his power. Right now some may say: How does this matter? How important 
is this? Right now about half of Russia's revenue comes from oil and 
natural gas.
  We heard it today in the energy committee. The chairman of the 
committee stated that in her remarks before hearing testimony. Fifty-
two percent, she said, of Russia's revenue comes from oil and natural 
gas. I think Senator John McCain was exactly right when he said this 
past Sunday on CNN that ``Russia is a gas station masquerading as a 
country.'' He was part of that group of eight Senators who went to 
Ukraine, went to Kiev, went and saw where the massacres occurred and 
visited with the new Prime Minister and the new President.
  That is why I believe my amendment to this sanctions bill, this aid 
bill on the floor of the Senate, is so very important not just to us as 
a Nation but to the people of Ukraine, the people of Europe, those who 
are trying to regain some freedom from the yoke and the tyranny of what 
Russia is doing by charging outrageous energy prices to people across 
Europe and across the Ukraine. We have an opportunity right now to make 
it easier for the United States to export our own gas to NATO countries 
and Ukraine. That is what my amendment will do. It is simple. It is two 
pages. By expediting the approval of facilities to export liquefied 
natural gas, we can send a very powerful signal to European markets 
that alternative supplies will be available soon. We can undermine 
Russia's leverage with its European customers today and undercut 
Russia's ability to make so much money off gas exports in the future.
  Some Washington Democrats continue to act as though the conflict in 
Ukraine has nothing to do with energy. Other Democrats see it 
differently. The Obama administration claims that speeding up LNG 
exports to Europe would not have an immediate effect. That is not what 
we heard today in the energy committee. That is not what a bipartisan 
group of Senators has heard and believes.
  We cannot ignore Russia's economic dependence on energy and the 
reality about how energy markets work. Remember, half of Russia's 
revenue comes from oil and natural gas. That is why the United States 
shale gas revolution is already undermining Russia's negotiating 
position with its European neighbors.
  This all has come about in the last decade--new techniques of 
horizontal drilling, directional drilling, all of which makes energy in 
the United States easier, cheaper to get, and then more available so it 
can then be more easily exported. By reducing U.S. demand, that frees 
up supply that can be bought on European markets. Because there is more 
supply, that forces Russia's state-owned gas companies to adjust their 
prices. Every molecule of American gas that can get anywhere else in 
the world is going to be a molecule that those in Europe and those in 
Ukraine cannot be held hostage to buy from Russia.
  That is what The Economist said earlier this year. The more supply 
there is, then Russia's state-owned gas company will have to adjust its 
prices. It ran an article on European efforts to reduce the control 
Russia has had over gas prices. We can immediately apply more pressure 
to the region's gas prices and further erode Russia's revenues by 
approving additional liquefied natural gas export capacity.
  I think about that hearing earlier today in the energy Committee, 
when every witness endorsed LNG exports to undercut Russia. So what is 
stopping us? Some Washington Democrats have denied any need to act more 
quickly. The administration has approved just seven applications for 
LNG export facilities over many years. It spent an average of 697 days 
processing each of them. The Energy Department has still not processed 
another 24 applications that are waiting and waiting and waiting.
  My amendment would speed up that process, force the administration to 
act on applications to be able to allow energy to be sent to our NATO 
allies and to the Ukraine. We don't need more hearings to tell us what 
we already know. Natural gas and the pricing continues to be a boot on 
the neck of the Ukrainian people and in Europe.
  Majority Leader Reid needs to allow a vote on my amendment. To me, it 
strengthens the Ukrainian relief package. It strengthens the economics 
in terms of money going from the United States. It strengthens aid, and 
it strengthens sanctions because it actually works to specifically 
undercut, undermine Russia's ability to hold others hostage. Plus, it 
has bipartisan support. There are a number of Democrats who would vote 
to support it. I think it is time to send a signal to Russia that we 
are finally ready to use energy to help stop their aggression.
  I will point out that I am not alone in this, and there is 
significant across-the-board support. It is interesting, the number of 
headlines in the past week or so from papers with various different 
approaches, including the New York Times: ``U.S. Hopes Boom In Natural 
Gas Can Curb Putin,'' directly tying natural gas to the Russian 
President. That is the New York Times.
  The Wall Street Journal: ``West Tries To Loosen Russia's Gas Grip.''
  Investor's Business Daily: ``Bold Energy Policy Best Response To 
Russia In Ukraine.''
  The Wall Street Journal: ``Energy Exports as Foreign-Policy Tool'' 
and ``Moscow Tightens Squeeze on Ukraine Over Energy.''
  It is evident the export of liquefied natural gas from the United 
States will help us as a Nation. It will help us in terms of our 
foreign policy, and it can be used and should be used and must be used 
to undermine the Russian economy at a time when they are--with Putin on 
the move, Putin on a daily basis evaluating the consequences of his 
actions to decide what he is going to do, planning to do, with the 
possibility of additional incursions into Ukraine. He continues with 
troops along the border between Russia and the Ukraine ready to act, 
ready to go in, ready to cross the border. All he understands is 
strength and power, and the way to undercut that is by undercutting his 
economic strength and power, by exporting liquefied natural gas.
  So I come to the floor asking that Senator Reid allow an amendment 
that would strengthen the bill we are discussing right now and making 
it better for the people in Ukraine, better for the people here at 
home, and actually doing something significant about the problem we see 
existing with the additional use of power by Vladimir Putin.
  I thank the Chair. I yield the floor, and 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.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Warren). The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. HOEVEN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HOEVEN. Madam President, I come to the Senate floor today to 
address the legislation that we are considering, legislation that will 
provide economic and diplomatic sanctions to

[[Page 4815]]

deter Russian aggression and also provide financial assistance in the 
form of a loan guarantee to the Ukraine to provide financial assistance 
that will be combined with $15 billion in loan guarantees from the 
European Union as well as assistance from the International Monetary 
Fund that can truly make a difference for Ukraine in helping them to 
stand up to this Russian aggression, while at the same time undertaking 
sanctions that I believe can be effective in deterring the incursions 
Russia is making into Ukraine.
  A very important part of what we do is to be united with the European 
Union in this effort. For the sanctions to work, for the economic 
assistance to Ukraine to work, we have to have a united front. We have 
to work with our allies throughout Europe. But the European Union's 
ability and willingness to stand with us is greatly impacted by their 
energy situation. So how do we help? How do we help them address a very 
difficult situation in energy so that they will stand with us in 
putting forth the kinds of sanctions that can truly make a difference 
now? And the time to take action is now. The time to stand up to 
Russia's action of invading another country unlawfully, taking part of 
that country, holding an election that is not bona fide, and amassing 
troops on the border of a country and threatening to make additional 
incursions into a country--the time to stand up and put sanctions in 
place that will deter that behavior is now.
  But the European Union finds itself in a situation where fully one-
third if not more of its energy comes from Russia. Half of that is 
piped through the Ukraine and 50 percent or more of Ukraine's energy 
comes from Russia as well--specifically, natural gas. So the EU finds 
itself in a very difficult position when it comes to energy, and 
obviously that is a very important factor as they deliberate their 
steps in terms of both sanctions against President Putin and Russia and 
the activities he has undertaken and may undertake in the future and 
also in terms of their willingness to stand up and to halt those 
actions and to assist Ukraine.
  So as part of this legislation we are considering, we have offered to 
help provide energy to Europe. The good Senator from Wyoming, Mr. 
Barrasso, was on this floor. He is the prime sponsor of legislation 
that would help move natural gas in the form of LNG--liquefied natural 
gas--from this country to Europe. I am a cosponsor of that legislation. 
We filed that legislation as an amendment to the bill we are 
considering, and we are asking for a vote on that legislation. I think 
there would be very strong bipartisan support in this Chamber, and I 
have no doubt whatsoever that the legislation will pass the House as 
well. Representative Gardner has introduced the same or very similar 
legislation on the House side, and there is no question that the 
support is there to pass the legislation.
  So as we look this week--and I think we will pass a bill this week--
to both put sanctions on Russia in place and to assist Ukraine, we can 
add this energy legislation which is an integral piece in helping the 
EU stand with us in standing up against Russian aggression--very 
simple, straightforward legislation.
  What the legislation provides is that for companies in the United 
States that are willing to build LNG facilities and export liquefied 
natural gas, which they are prepared to do--and we will expand the 
countries to which they can export. Right now we have a limitation in 
terms of the exports. They can go to countries with which we have free-
trade agreements, but there are many other countries that we have 
strategic security interests in that make a huge difference in terms of 
our security and security in the world, NATO countries, the EU, 
Ukraine.
  I understand it would take time to build the facilities and move that 
product, but there is no question in the near term that if we pass this 
kind of legislation, we will be sending a very strong signal to world 
markets and, even more importantly, a very strong signal to President 
Putin that we are serious about working with the EU to provide energy 
so that they have sources other than Russia. That strengthens the EU, 
and it also weakens Russia because Russia is entirely dependent for 
revenue on their sales of energy. So as we take this step, we not only 
strengthen our allies, we weaken Russia's ability to make the kinds of 
incursions they have made into the Ukraine.
  This is a very straightforward amendment. It has bipartisan support. 
We are offering it as part of this bill. As we work through the 
amendment process and we determine the form this bill is going to 
take--and again, I think there is strong bipartisan support to move 
this legislation. I believe we can move it this week. I believe we can 
get agreement to have the votes and to move it this week. But I call on 
our leadership, I call on the leadership of the majority party in a 
bipartisan way to come together and give us the opportunity to vote on 
this amendment. It is part of a commonsense, comprehensive approach to 
truly deal with the situation in Eastern Europe.
  In addition, I would like to take a moment to call on the President 
of the United States to take concrete steps that could make a big 
difference in the energy equation. The President is negotiating with 
our NATO allies right now, with the EU, which is now the G7--formerly 
the G8 but the G7 without Russia--talking about what steps can and 
should be undertaken to address what Russia has done and may do in the 
future.
  On a bipartisan basis, I joined with Senator Mark Warner of Virginia, 
and on May 21 we wrote a letter to the President calling on him to 
undertake an energy plan. I would like to take a minute to read that 
letter on the Senate floor because I think it is a straightforward, 
commonsense energy plan that the President could undertake right now 
and show the world and show specifically President Putin that he is 
serious, that we are serious about working with the EU starting 
immediately. So it addresses taking short-term steps but undertaking a 
long-term plan that will ensure that the EU, working with the United 
States and others--countries such as Norway, which is producing 
incredible amounts of natural gas in the North Sea--working with 
countries that can supply natural gas to the EU, that we will end their 
dependence on Russia. And if Russia continues the kinds of activities 
it is undertaking, they will find themselves isolated.

       Dear President Obama: We write to you today because we are 
     deeply concerned with the events unfolding in Ukraine and 
     Crimea that have been instigated and supported by Russia. 
     President Vladimir Putin's aggressive actions and 
     intransigence, and his continued dismissal of U.S. and 
     European Union warnings, is of particular concern. We share 
     your view that tough sanctions from both sides of the 
     Atlantic will be required to provide the necessary motivation 
     to change Putin's behavior, and to enable a diplomatic 
     resolution of this crisis.
       The sanctions that have been implemented so far are good 
     and appropriate; however, we believe that energy security is 
     a critical component to achieving a successful outcome in the 
     region. Russia provides one-third of Europe's natural gas 
     needs. With Russia in a position to slow or stop gas flowing 
     into much of Europe, Putin retains leverage to continue to 
     dominate European energy markets. Though Russia has publicly 
     committed to maintaining a full supply of gas to Ukraine and 
     Europe, their recent history contradicts those proclamations. 
     In January 2009, Moscow cut its supply of gas flowing through 
     Ukraine, and at least 18 European countries saw their 
     supplies completely or partially reduced. Some governments 
     declared states of emergency and ordered factories and 
     schools to close, while millions of people struggled to cope 
     in freezing temperatures.
       As long as Vladimir Putin continues to use energy as a 
     weapon, we must take this threat seriously and take this 
     Russian threat off the table. For the first time in a 
     generation, America is in a position to export energy, and 
     acting strategically to increase our natural gas exports 
     accompanied by a more comprehensive U.S.-EU energy security 
     dialogue will weaken Putin's grip on European energy markets.
       We produce 30 trillion cubic feet of gas a year in the 
     United States. States such as mine are producing incredible 
     amounts. We are flaring off gas we would like to get to 
     markets. This is a winning proposition to the United States. 
     If we provide gas to the EU, that generates economic activity 
     and jobs here and helps strengthen the EU and reduces our 
     dependence on natural gas from Russia.
       We urge you to take five specific actions that will have 
     near and long term positive

[[Page 4816]]

     impacts on the energy security of Ukraine and the EU.
       First, direct the Department of Energy to accelerate the 
     natural gas export permit process by approving the pending 
     permits within 60 days, or providing specific reasons why it 
     cannot approve individual permit applications. Though exports 
     would not start immediately, and though the price points in 
     Asian markets are currently more attractive to natural gas 
     exporters, calling for expedited approval of Liquefied 
     Natural Gas exports will increase liquidity on the global 
     markets and will improve the European energy security.
       Second, conduct a strategic review of U.S. energy policies, 
     and expand the group of nations that currently qualify for 
     U.S. energy exports beyond those with free trade agreements 
     to include our NATO allies, the EU, Ukraine, and any others 
     that are in the national security interest of the United 
     States.

  It just makes sense.

       The review could include examining the potential of 
     additional investments of facilities capable of liquefying 
     natural gas.
       Third, launch a joint U.S.-EU initiative on energy security 
     at next week's--

  Meaning this week--

       U.S.-EU summit in Brussels, with specific near-term and 
     future deliverables. One area of critical importance to 
     ensure greater energy security in Europe is the natural gas 
     infrastructure. While some European countries such as 
     Lithuania and Austria receive 100 percent of their gas from 
     Russia, others receive far less, and by improving the 
     interconnections, these countries could far more easily 
     direct supplies to one another in case of an outage. One 
     specific fix would be to reverse the flow of gas from 
     Slovakia to Ukraine, a proposal that is under consideration 
     by the European Commission. Additionally, we should assist 
     Ukraine to establish and maintain a high level of security 
     around its strategically significant gas storage facilities 
     in Southern Ukraine.

  Countries such as Norway--Statoil--can supply more gas. Working 
cooperatively, we could have an impact right now as well as put a long-
term plan in place that sends a very clear message to President Putin 
that we are going to change the energy equation.

       Fourth, help Ukraine implement a significant energy 
     productivity initiative. U.S. businesses have developed many 
     off-the-shelf technologies that can greatly reduce energy 
     waste and promote greater efficiency, which will reduce 
     Ukraine's energy needs. This has the potential to greatly 
     reduce the amount of energy required by Ukraine and lessen 
     their dependence on Russia.

  I was recently in Ukraine. We have many U.S. companies doing business 
over there. Many of the companies were from my State. I met with 10 
CEOs from different companies in Kiev that are doing business 
throughout Ukraine. There is no question that by working with our 
companies they can have a major impact on what happens in Ukraine both 
in terms of conserving energy but also producing more energy, and that 
goes to the final point.

       Finally, help Ukraine implement energy development 
     technology to enhance domestic production and promote energy 
     security. We have been contacted by several U.S. companies 
     that are ready to make strategic investments to help Ukraine 
     increase production of their own energy resources to reduce 
     reliance on Russian energy supplies.
       We urge you to support and encourage the U.S. State 
     Department's Unconventional Gas Technical Engagement program 
     that allows U.S. local and state-level officials to share 
     best practices with European government officials. Already, 
     U.S. oil and gas companies are leading EU countries in shale 
     gas exploration and off-shore exploration in Eastern Europe 
     to help these countries diversify their energy sources.
       We urge you to use the meetings to encourage more European 
     cooperation to solve their own energy dependency problem. A 
     recent proposal from the United Kingdom provides a series of 
     recommended reforms to the European energy infrastructure. We 
     believe our proposal aligns with the British recommendations 
     will provide a helpful starting point for the discussions 
     next week. The U.S. has a long history of supporting the 
     transatlantic relationship on areas of security and defense, 
     and energy security should be part of that dialogue.

  We then close the letter saying:

       We look forward to working with you to implement this plan.

  Think about it. These are steps the administration can and should 
take now. There is bipartisan support for energy legislation in this 
body to back it up and make it happen.
  I call on my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to come together 
as part of an effort to deter Russian aggression, help Ukraine. To help 
the EU stand strong and united with us, we need to address the energy 
issue. We can and we should.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Madam President, I appreciate Senator Hoeven's work on 
the Ukraine issue. I know he went there recently, and I have also 
visited the great energy resources in his State as his guest and know 
they have a broad range of energy sources, as does Minnesota.
  I rise to talk about the importance of the Support for the 
Sovereignty, Integrity, Democracy, and Economic Stability of the 
Ukraine Act, and I urge the Senate to act as quickly as possible to get 
it done.
  As the past week has made clear, the crisis in Ukraine is not waiting 
for us. We witnessed Russia's blatantly illegal annexation of Crimea 
and its continued efforts to bully, intimidate, and weaken the new 
Ukrainian Government.
  It is critical we immediately demonstrate to the world, one, our 
support for Ukraine as it charts a new democratic future for itself; 
two, our abhorrence of the Russian Government's actions that violate 
Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity; and three, our 
commitment to continue leading the world through a tough and determined 
response to the crisis.
  This legislation, which was backed by our colleagues on the Foreign 
Relations Committee on a strong bipartisan vote, accomplishes these 
important goals. It provides badly needed assistance to Ukraine to help 
its new government stand on its own two feet.
  It also punishes those who contributed to the crisis by authorizing 
sanctions targeting Russia's officials, Crimea's self-appointed 
leaders, and the former leaders of Ukraine who lined their own pockets 
at their country's expense.
  It is unfortunate we have not passed this bill already, given that 
the vast majority of our colleagues agree on the basic framework of how 
we should respond to events in Ukraine. I understand some of our 
colleagues may want to add something else to this bill, but almost 
everyone agrees we should provide assistance, including loan guarantees 
to the new Ukrainian Government and impose sanctions on Russian leaders 
and key institutions.
  Now is the time for us to move forward. Together, the United States 
and our allies have taken important steps, such as barring Russia from 
the Group of Eight and imposing sanctions on key Russian officials. 
President Obama is in Europe this week working to convince our allies 
to take even stronger measures to help Ukraine and hold Russia 
accountable. We in the Senate must also act.
  I think it is important to step back to reflect on how we arrived at 
this point. This is not a crisis the United States sought. The 
situation in Ukraine became a crisis because the former President of 
Ukraine and Russian leaders sought to keep the Ukrainian people from 
pursuing their right to determine their own future.
  The Ukrainian people rose last November after their then-President 
turned his back on an association agreement with the European Union. 
This agreement would have helped bring Ukraine into the prosperous 
community of European nations while also compelling it to reduce 
corruption and enhance the rule of law. In short, it was a treaty that 
would have helped lift Ukraine to a better future with greater 
opportunity for its people.
  When the former President abandoned that treaty, the people of 
Ukraine did not go quietly. They demonstrated courageously for months 
in the face of severe repression by the regime, including snipers 
shooting at civilians in the streets of Kiev. In the face of all odds, 
they succeeded in forcing the regime to the negotiating table.
  The President fled the country, taking with him his ill-gotten 
wealth. It seemed the Ukrainian people would at least have the freedom 
they had worked so hard to achieve. The new government even signed--at 
long last--the association agreement with the European Union that the 
old regime had rejected.
  Unfortunately, President Putin has long sought to keep Ukraine from

[[Page 4817]]

charting its own course, first through economic manipulation and now 
through brutal force. When it became clear that the people of Ukraine 
would not be denied, President Putin carried out a military 
intervention to cut off Crimea and stage a sham referendum before 
illegally annexing the territory in a flagrant breach of international 
law and Russia's own past commitments to Ukraine's sovereignty.
  Even though he claims Russia will seek no more territory from 
Ukraine, he continues to harass and undermine the new government by 
reneging on previous agreements to provide subsidies for gas and 
slowing deliveries, something my colleague from North Dakota has 
focused on. Russia's military continues to mass on Ukraine's borders.
  I find it interesting that just a few months ago President Putin 
wrote a New York Times op-ed on the subject of international law and 
the use of force. He declared:

       Under current international law, force is permitted only in 
     self-defense or by the decision of the Security Council. 
     Anything else is unacceptable under the United Nations 
     charter and would constitute an act of aggression.

  In President Putin's view, force must be approved by the U.N. 
Security Council or it is an act of aggression, except when it comes to 
Ukraine.
  It should be clear by now that President Putin will use any means to 
advance his ends. He employs the language of ethnic nationalism while 
he tries to take apart Ukraine. His dissenters are sent to prison on 
trumped-up charges, children languish in state institutions as a result 
of the adoption ban, which is something we care so much about in 
Minnesota as one of the top States for adopting kids from Russia and 
across the world, and the Russian LGBT community lives under the 
constant threat of oppression.
  All the people of Ukraine want is a simple freedom to seek a brighter 
future for their country, to not be a pawn to President Putin's efforts 
to resurrect the Soviet Union. The whole world sees that.
  On March 15, 13 members of the U.N. Security Council voted for a 
resolution to condemn Russia for the very use of force that President 
Putin criticized last year. Only one country voted against it and that 
country was Russia.
  Now the world is watching us. They are watching to see whether the 
Congress of the United States will act. We have talked a lot about 
Ukraine over the past several weeks. I was proud to cosponsor a 
bipartisan resolution, led by Senators Durbin and Coats, that expressed 
support for Ukraine and criticized Russia's actions. That resolution 
passed unanimously 2 weeks ago. Now is the time to show we are actually 
doing something.
  Ukrainians need to know that the United States stands with them, not 
just in the very important speeches on the Senate floor but also with 
real assistance and real action. President Putin needs to know we will 
not meekly return to business as usual and allow him to bully Ukraine 
with impunity.
  Our allies and adversaries around the world need to know we will 
stand together to protect our vision of a world governed by democracy 
and law, where nations do not live under the threat of force by their 
neighbors.
  This is one of those times where the impact of our votes will be felt 
far beyond the walls of this Chamber. In Ukraine they are going to be 
watching this vote. In Russia they are going to be watching this vote. 
All over Europe they are going to be watching this vote and in those 
countries from the former Soviet Union. The world is watching. So other 
people, other countries that may choose to engage in this illegal 
breach of international law, that may choose to tread on this illegal 
ground will be watching, and that is why this vote is so important.
  I urge my colleagues, in the support of the people of Ukraine, to 
support this bill.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. HOEVEN. Madam President, I wish to take a moment to commend the 
Senator from Minnesota on her remarks. She expressed what we feel very 
strongly in this body. I wish to express both my agreement with her 
comments as well as the importance of moving this legislation. I 
believe there is very strong bipartisan support to move this 
legislation. I think we can get it done this week.
  Again, I express my appreciation for her words here today and I 
believe that is exactly the kind of cooperative spirit we need on the 
part of all 100 Senators to get this done. Now is the time for action. 
I join with the good Senator from Minnesota in calling for that action.
  With that, I yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                 Unanimous Consent Agreement--H.R. 4152

  Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that 
notwithstanding cloture having been invoked, the motion to proceed to 
S. 2124 be withdrawn; that the Senate proceed to the immediate 
consideration of Calendar No. 328, H.R. 4152; that following the 
reporting of the bill, a Menendez-Corker substitute amendment, the text 
of which is at the desk, be made pending; that no other amendments be 
in order; that no points of order or motions be in order other than 
budget points of order and the applicable motions to waive; that on 
Thursday, March 27, following morning business, there be 2 hours of 
debate equally divided between the two leaders or their designees prior 
to a vote in relation to the Menendez-Corker amendment; that upon 
disposition of the amendment, the bill be read a third time and the 
Senate proceed to vote on passage of the bill, as amended, if amended.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, reserving the right to object, I note in 
the majority leader's requested consent order he stipulates that no 
other amendments be in order, which I think is deeply regrettable, 
given the fact that this matter has been considered in the Foreign 
Relations Committee and then came to the floor without any opportunity 
for the rest of the Senate to participate, either in the deliberative 
process or to debate important improvements to the legislation. I would 
note two for the majority leader's consideration.
  Two amendments which seem to enjoy a tremendous amount of bipartisan 
support are in recognition of the stranglehold Vladimir Putin and 
Russia have on Ukraine's energy supply as well as the energy supply to 
the rest of Europe. There is a Barrasso amendment many of us support 
that calls for the expedited consideration and permitting of exporting 
liquefied natural gas.
  There is another amendment I have offered that would provide military 
assistance to Ukraine. Right now, the underlying bill provides $100 
million. It doesn't specify the precise nature of the assistance, but 
it appears to be in the nature of rations, uniforms, and medical 
supplies. I would think at a minimum we would want to make sure the 
Ukrainians who are defending their country are supplied additional U.S. 
military assistance in order to defend themselves against this Russian 
aggression.
  So I ask the majority leader to modify his unanimous consent request 
with the following: that the first amendment in order be a Barrasso 
amendment related to the exportation of liquefied natural gas; and that 
following the disposition of the Barrasso amendment, the majority 
leader and the Republican leader or their designees be recognized to 
offer relevant amendments in an alternating fashion, including the 
Cornyn amendment on military assistance to Ukraine.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the majority leader so modify his 
request?
  Mr. REID. I reserve the right, and will just make a brief comment. 
The

[[Page 4818]]

committee action on this bill was really historic. The issue my friend 
just suggested be part of an amendment process was discussed at some 
length in the committee.
  As I discussed this morning, the situation in Ukraine is critical. 
The Senate must act as quickly as we can on the Senate Committee on 
Foreign Relations bill.
  The bill before us gives additional aid to the fragile Ukrainian 
economy. As Secretary Kerry said yesterday, he wants this aid that is 
in our bill now, but he also wanted what was in our bill--IMF funding. 
But he said: If I cannot get both, the most important thing we do now 
is the funding that is in our bill, and he is probably right.
  We already know there have been many signals--not any hidden 
signals--from the House that they would not accept the IMF. The 
Republican leader said he was concerned about the IMF.
  So I am very pleased the sanctions inside this legislation that I 
hope will pass on Thursday is something that is going to help Ukraine. 
I am confident it will. It sanctions those inside Ukraine and Russia 
who have undetermined Ukraine's sovereignty and stability.
  I think, as far as I am concerned, we will have more legislation on 
this in the not distant future. As far as I am concerned, I think there 
should be more sanctions that we look at. I think they need more aid. 
On Sunday shows, I heard Republican Senator Ayotte, Democratic Senator 
Durbin both talking about the need for sleeping bags, small arms fire, 
and things such as that that the Ukrainians simply do not have.
  That is why I am pleased we have been able to come to a tentative 
agreement to vote on this measure Thursday. I would have preferred to 
include, as I have already indicated, the International Monetary Fund 
provisions in this bill. It is something that is needed. These 
provisions would have provided additional funds to stabilize this 
fragile Ukrainian economy, but my Republican colleagues, for reasons 
unrelated to Ukraine, were ready to kill the bill over the IMF issue.
  Today we are ready to move forward on the bipartisan Senate Foreign 
Relations Committee bill without the IMF language. Let me just take a 
minute--a brief minute--to extend my appreciation--and I think I speak 
for the entire Senate--for the hard work that has allowed us to get 
where we are.
  Chairman Menendez, Ranking Member Corker--they have worked very well 
together on legislation generally but on this specifically. Senator 
McCain, who is a long-time leader on national security issues, has been 
very articulate and forceful in his view as to what should be done. By 
the way, both Senators Corker and McCain suggested we should have the 
IMF money in this, but I called Senator McCain this morning and told 
him reasons why I thought we could not go forward with it, and I think 
he agrees with that.
  I hope my colleagues will join us in voting to pass this important 
bill on Thursday. The people of the Ukraine are watching. The Russians 
are watching. It is time for the Senate to act. It is time for Ukraine 
to get the support it needs, it is time for this body to sanction the 
Russians, and it is time to send a clear message to Putin that the 
United States condemns the Russian annexation of Ukraine. I say once 
again, if he so likes these votes he created in Crimea, why doesn't he 
have one in Chechnya? Why doesn't he have a vote there? Because I think 
that would turn out much differently than what he would want.
  I understand Senator Barrasso is talking about this issue that my 
friend from Texas suggested, and it and other issues are something we 
need to bring up when we talk about further work on Ukraine.
  So I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I will be brief, but further reserving 
the right to object to the majority leader's request, I just want to 
make sure the majority leader understands no one is talking about 
slowing down this bill. It is anticipated, I think even under the 
majority leader's consent request, that we will be finished with this 
bill no later than Thursday. It is one of those circumstances where, 
given the context of what is in the legislation, there is actually 
bipartisan support because of the importance of sending a unified 
message to the Russian leader about this aggression.
  But I wish to be clear that my position is that sanctions are not 
enough. We need to go further and to provide a means for the Ukrainian 
people to defend themselves against this sort of aggression, which they 
do not presently possess. We need to find a way to relieve the 
stranglehold Putin has on Ukraine and much of the rest of Europe that 
he is going to keep using as long as he feels we have not acted to 
undermine or jeopardize that stranglehold.
  That is the purpose of these amendments, and I regret the majority 
leader has seen fit to object to my request--reasonable request--for 
germane amendments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, my friend from Texas is absolutely right. 
We need to do more on Ukraine--there is no question about that--and I 
look forward to working with him and all Senators to do that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The motion to proceed is withdrawn.

                          ____________________