[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 160 (2014), Part 4]
[Senate]
[Pages 4905-4919]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




NOMINATION OF CHRISTOPHER REID COOPER TO BE U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE 
                          DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

                                 ______
                                 

  NOMINATION OF M. DOUGLAS HARPOOL TO BE U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE 
                      WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI

                                 ______
                                 

NOMINATION OF GERALD AUSTIN McHUGH, JR., TO BE U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE FOR 
                  THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

                                 ______
                                 

   NOMINATION OF EDWARD G. SMITH, TO BE U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE 
                    EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Cloture having been invoked, the clerk will 
report the nominations.
  The assistant bill clerk read the nominations of Christopher Reid 
Cooper, of the District of Columbia, to be United States District Judge 
for the District of Columbia; M. Douglas Harpool, of Missouri, to be 
United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri; 
Gerald Austin McHugh, Jr., of Pennsylvania, to be United States 
District Judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania; and Edward G. 
Smith, of Pennsylvania, to be United States District Judge for the 
Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the time until 2:30 
p.m. will be equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or 
their designees.
  The Republican whip.


                              Better Focus

  Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I wish to say a few words about the 
business pending before the Senate; that is, providing aid and 
assistance to the citizens of Ukraine who find themselves invaded by 
the Russian federation. But before I get to Ukraine, I wish to say a 
quick word about a story that appeared today in the New York Times.
  This was a remarkable story, remarkable in its transparency but also 
in its cynicism in terms of what some of our friends across the aisle 
have in mind between now and November. To put it in a word, they have 
given up. They have given up legislating and are going to spend the 
next several months holding a series of show votes which are in essence 
those designed to highlight poll-tested messages.
  The New York Times writes this:

       The proposals have little chance of passing.

  Little chance of passing.

       But Democrats concede that making new laws is not really 
     the point. Rather, they are trying to force Republicans to 
     vote against them.

  I would think the American people would expect and certainly they 
would deserve better than that from the Senate--scheduling a series of 
show votes, not for the purpose of actually improving the lives of the 
American people or solving the problems that confront our country at 
this time of low economic growth and high joblessness but, rather, for 
show votes, for purely partisan political reasons.
  At a time when millions of people have lost their health insurance, 
when millions have been forced to pay higher premiums or deductibles, 
when 3.8 million people have been unemployed for more than 6 months, 
when the labor force participation rate--the number of people actually 
looking for work--has fallen to 30-year lows, and when nearly 46.8 
million people are receiving food stamps, it is more than a little 
disappointing that the leaders of the Democratic Party in the Senate 
are into scoring cheap political points.
  As I said, the American people certainly deserve better. Again, I am 
a little bit surprised that some of the leadership on the Democratic 
side of the aisle would be so transparent and so obvious as to state 
their intentions to the New York Times, but that is what it appears.
  What we need is a Senate and a Congress that is more focused on 
creating an economic condition where the American people can find jobs 
rather than politicians who are focused solely on saving their jobs, 
particularly leading up to the next election. Of course, this is the 
kind of stuff that makes people extraordinarily cynical about 
Washington, DC, but with an election coming up, I guess some people 
have lost all sense of proportion.


                                Ukraine

  As we continue to discuss the proper response by the United States of 
America to Vladmir Putin's invasion of Ukraine, it is important that we 
stay focused on two overarching realities; No. 1, the Government of 
Russia is much more vulnerable to Western pressure than it might appear 
from the outside; No. 2, we have far more leverage today against Moscow 
than we did 10 years ago or even 5 years ago because of the renaissance 
in American energy, the oil and gas boom we are experiencing in 
America, thanks to the discovery of a man named George Mitchell from 
Houston, TX, who pioneered horizontal drilling, which together with 
fracking has allowed access to natural gas and oil reserves undreamed 
of just 5 or 10 years ago.
  Let's start with the first reality. As Ruchir Sharma of Morgan 
Stanley Investment Management wrote on Monday in the Wall Street 
Journal:

       Russia has become a classic weak-investment, high-inflation 
     economy.

  An economy plagued by massive levels of corruption.

[[Page 4906]]

  According to Mr. Sharma:

       . . . wealthy Russians have been moving money out of the 
     country at one of the fastest rates in two decades--$60 
     billion a year since 2012--and now foreign investors are 
     pulling out too.

  So it is worth noting that Russia's economy is currently suffering 
through a period of stagnation, despite the fact that oil prices remain 
high. As a matter of fact, its government's main source of income is 
oil and gas revenue, which has led our friend the senior Senator from 
Arizona to say that Russia these days is ``a gas station masquerading 
as a sovereign state.''
  They depend on the ability to sell that oil and gas to Ukraine and 
Europe. Indeed, they use this as a political tool to work their will in 
Europe and obviously in Ukraine.
  Sometimes we talk about crony capitalism here in America in which 
private individuals and private companies collude with government in 
order to gain special benefits. That is what crony capitalism is. The 
Russian economy represents crony capitalism on steroids. If we could 
squeeze the oligarchs and the Kremlin advisers who have gotten 
fabulously rich thanks to their collaboration with Vladmir Putin and 
the Russian Government, many of Vladmir Putin's closest allies will 
begin to rethink their support. That is an area of vulnerability we 
ought to be focused on like a laser.
  As I said yesterday, I am encouraged by the sanctions the Obama 
administration announced on Thursday. It is a good start, but I would 
urge the administration to continue imposing serious penalties on high-
level Kremlin officials and the super-rich oligarchs who comprise 
Putin's inner circle. In other words, sanctions are not enough. We need 
to do more to dissuade and discourage Putin and his allies from 
engaging in the current course of conduct, as well as further 
adventures in other parts of Europe and areas of the former Soviet 
Union.
  It is time for more robust sanctions that target the financial energy 
sectors of the Russian economy. The cost for Moscow's aggression must 
be real, and that is not just me saying that, that is what President 
Obama said too. With that in mind, I urge the administration to 
sanction the Russian arms exporter known as Rosoboronexport, which has 
been tied up in all sorts of corruption scandals and which is also the 
primary arms supplier for Bashar al-Assad in Syria, who has murdered 
about 150,000 of his own people in the ongoing Syrian civil war.
  I cosponsored an amendment introduced by the Senator from Indiana 
that would end all U.S. Government contracts with Rosoboronexport and 
punish the companies with whom it does military-related business. Once 
again, I hope that the majority leader, Senator Reid, would reconsider 
and allow the amendment to receive a vote, something he refused to do 
yesterday. I am hoping after a good night's sleep and reconsideration, 
maybe he would be open to that.
  I would also call on the majority leader, Senator Reid, to allow us 
to offer another amendment introduced by the junior Senator from 
Wyoming, which would greatly expand American exports of liquefied 
natural gas by granting automatic approval to all applications for new 
LNG terminals that would ship gas to Ukraine and other members of our 
NATO alliance.
  One may wonder why that is necessary. Just to recapitulate, Putin 
uses energy as a weapon. If he is not getting what he wants out of 
Ukraine or Europe, he squeezes off the supply of energy which is 
essential to the economy and to life itself in those vulnerable parts 
of the world.
  We have been blessed as a result of the innovations of people such as 
George Mitchell with this new renaissance in energy in America through 
shale gas--sometimes called unconventional plays--but the point is we 
are now able to produce much more energy than we can consume 
domestically, and in North America alone we are fast approaching energy 
independence. We can afford to be an exporter of some of this energy to 
vulnerable countries such as Ukraine and Europe, so we can get Putin's 
boot off their neck when it comes to the impact he has on their energy 
supply.
  Before the shale gas revolution, which has just been in the last 
decade or so, there was very little the United States could do to deter 
Eastern Europe's dependence on Russia's LNG. The global energy 
landscape is much different than it was just a half decade ago.
  Back in October the House Energy & Commerce Committee held a hearing 
at which several Eastern European diplomats discussed the geopolitical 
significance of America's natural gas boom. The Lithuanian Ambassador 
said bluntly: ``We need your gas. We want to buy your gas.'' Well, 
Lithuania is one of the countries that are in the greatest jeopardy now 
against the depredations of somebody like Vladimir Putin and a Russian 
Federation on the march.
  Meanwhile, the Czech Republic's Deputy Chief of Mission said that 
U.S. LNG exports would increase his country's leverage in future energy 
negotiations with Moscow. This same Czech diplomat has also urged the 
U.S. Government to treat LNG exports to NATO countries the same way it 
treats LNG exports to countries with which America has a free-trade 
agreement. This is how he put it: Such a policy shift ``puts us in a 
different league. We are in League B and we would like to be in League 
A.''
  Passing the Barrasso amendment, of which I am a proud cosponsor, 
would put all NATO countries in league A, and it would send an 
unmistakable message to Vladimir Putin and his allies in this 
aggression against the people of Ukraine and potential aggression 
against other countries that this weapon he uses, known as energy, is 
no longer available to him to use to intimidate people and gain their 
territorial ambitions.
  It would also demonstrate that Members of both political parties here 
in Congress are committed to breaking Vladimir Putin's energy 
stranglehold over the nations of Eastern Europe. This is going to be 
very important because if Putin keeps coming--as he may very well do--
and as Europe considers working with the United States to impose higher 
and higher costs, Europe is going to look in the mirror and say: What 
do sanctions against Russia mean in terms of our economy?
  I am afraid they are going to be compromised if they realize their 
engagement with us--and increasingly high sanctions against Russia--has 
a negative impact on their economy because it will essentially 
jeopardize their energy imports.
  In addition to sanctions and gas exports, the third prong of 
America's Ukraine strategy should include serious military assistance 
to Kiev. Everyone has said: We are not talking about American boots on 
the ground, but we are talking about providing military assistance to 
people who are trying to defend themselves.
  If our alliance and agreement with Ukraine means anything, it means 
we are going to help them defend themselves against Russian 
depredation.
  Believe me, not only is Ukraine watching but other nations, such as 
NATO--which has a treaty relationship with the United States and a 
self-defense agreement in section 5 of the NATO treaty where aggression 
against any single NATO country is treated as an attack against all of 
them--are watching America's response in Ukraine.
  In some cases, America might not have to send that military aid 
directly. We might only have to facilitate the purchase of certain 
equipment from other sources. But either way, we should be doing 
everything possible to make sure our friends and our allies have the 
resources they need to deter Russian aggression further.
  It is not just our enemies who are looking to see if America 
retreats--pulling back in the world and creating a vacuum that is being 
filled by people like Vladimir Putin--it is our friends and our allies 
who are wondering if America is a dependable friend and ally. If we are 
not, they are going to make other arrangements all around the world.
  I have a few final words about what is at stake.
  When Ukraine voluntarily gave up its nuclear arsenal in the mid-
1990s, it did

[[Page 4907]]

so after receiving a U.S. security guarantee. When other Eastern 
European nations decided to join NATO, they too were seeking a 
guarantee from America that we would come to their defense and other 
NATO allies would also come to their defense.
  If Russia's annexation of Crimea is allowed to stand, many of our 
allies, our partners, and our friends will no longer trust American 
promises, and many would-be aggressors, such as China, will be 
emboldened to pursue their territorial claims with much more 
belligerence, and correspondingly the world will become a much more 
dangerous place. In other words, the outcome in Ukraine is critically 
important both to U.S. credibility and the future of the international 
order. Our policies should reflect that.
  I am disappointed that the majority leader has seen fit to cut off 
any opportunity for Senators on both sides of the aisle to offer 
constructive additions for a vote. We are not even asking for assurance 
that they would pass; we are just asking for a vote on amendments, such 
as military assistance to the Ukraine, expediting the permitting of LNG 
export facilities to help alleviate the stranglehold Putin has on 
Europe and Ukraine. The majority leader has said no, he is not going to 
allow that, and we do need to get this bill out of here tomorrow--and 
we will--to send a unified message that this sort of aggression will 
not be met with silence by the U.S. Government. Even the advocates of 
this underlying bill have said it is not enough. This is just a start.
  I would like to hear a schedule from the majority leader of when he 
purports to bring some of these other important issues to the floor--
particularly if Putin does what many expect him to do, and that is to 
continue rolling on into Western Ukraine and perhaps other countries. 
What will be America's response? What will be the bipartisan response 
of the Senate? What we have done so far is a start, but it is nowhere 
near good enough to exact the kinds of costs President Obama said he 
wants to exact on Putin and Russia for this act of international 
aggression and invasion in the country of Ukraine.
  With that, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GRAHAM. 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. GRAHAM. Madam President, I believe Senator McCain is on his way 
to the Chamber. We want to have a colloquy about Ukraine. I ask 
permission to do that when Senator McCain arrives.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Madam President, as Senator McCain makes his way to the 
floor, we are trying to figure out what to do as a nation--along with 
our allies in Europe and throughout the world--about Ukraine and really 
what to do with Putin.
  In my view, this is a symptom of a greater problem. Crimea had been a 
part of Russia for a very long time, but in 1954, I believe it was, 
Crimea became part of a sovereign nation called the Ukraine through an 
agreement. In 1994 the Ukrainians--after the collapse of the former 
Soviet Union, which was the third largest nuclear power in the world--
agreed to turn their nuclear weapons back over to the Russian 
Federation as part of the Budapest agreement. In return for receiving 
the weapons, the Russian Government promised to honor the territorial 
integrity of the Ukraine, and we were part of that deal.
  I guess no one really fleshed out what honoring the territorial 
integrity of the Ukraine would mean, but clearly, in 1994 when the 
Ukrainian people gave up the nuclear weapons they possessed to the 
Russians--and we were part of the deal where we were going to guarantee 
their territorial integrity for the swap--no one envisioned that Russia 
would move into Crimea because they don't like the political dynamic in 
Kiev. If the people of the Ukraine want to move west, that is not a 
reason to basically abrogate the 1994 agreement.
  What is going on around Russia is the following: As the former Soviet 
Union collapsed, people who had been in the sphere of influence of 
Russia--the former Soviet Union--have all embarked on a different path 
for the most part. There are a couple of people who align with Russia 
but not many.
  My goal is quite simple: Allow the people of the Ukraine, Poland, and 
the former Soviet Union to make their decision about how they would 
construct their country apart from threats of force or intimidation by 
Russia.
  It is no surprise to me that all those who could choose to move away 
from Russia because of the experience they had in the past have done 
so. Ukrainian people will always have a unique relationship with 
Russia, but they want to be Ukrainian.
  There are a lot of ethnic Russians in Ukraine. We have everybody in 
America. America is an idea, not an ethnic group or a particular 
religion. Ukraine is multiethnic. They have ethnic Russians with a 
bunch of other folks--``Ukrainians,'' for lack of a better word.
  The bottom line is that they have been debating among themselves 
about how to move forward and in what direction to move. Yanukovych won 
an election. He moved the Ukrainian people away from Europe and toward 
Russia. The President preceding him rode a revolution into power--the 
Orange Revolution, which some would argue did not produce the results 
the Ukrainian people were hoping for. It took us a long time as a 
nation--and we are still trying--to figure out who we are and where we 
are going. Democracies are messy.
  The one thing we should all be doing is aligning ourselves around the 
concept that choosing one's destiny as an individual within the 
confines of the law and choosing one's destiny as a nation in 
international law should preclude having that choice taken away by your 
neighbor through military force and intimidation.
  Entering into Crimea was a breach of international law. It was a 
breach of the 1994 agreement. Putin has proven to be an antidemocratic 
force in the world and in Russia.
  When you are dealing with somebody, you need to look at their value 
system and their agenda and their interest. The value system of Mr. 
Putin is that of a KGB colonel. Most of his adult life he worked for 
the KGB, so his value system comes from that organization. It is about 
the ends, not the means. Democracy is about the process. I am not 
surprised that he snuffed out democracy--as any reasonable person would 
know it in Russia--and that he has made the Duma almost irrelevant, if 
not a joke. There is no independent judiciary; if you oppose Putin, you 
are liable to go to jail. I understand where he is coming from because 
of his value system; I just don't agree with it.
  What we can't do is let him affect those who are living around him 
who want to go on a different path because the day you begin to do 
that, it never works out well. In World War II, every time somebody 
gave Hitler a little of this or a little of that, it never worked out 
well.
  So what do we do? The European community, along with the United 
States, has a historic chance to reset what I think is a deterioration 
of world security and order. Having sanctions combined with aid, 
including sanctioning the Russians in a fashion they will feel, hitting 
their energy sectors, their oil and gas companies masquerading in this 
country, and increasing the capability of a gutted Ukrainian Army to 
defend themselves from further insurgents, would be a combination of 
hitting the Russians and helping the Ukrainians militarily and 
economically without any boots on the ground from the United States. I 
hope that is what the President will do. That is what we are trying to 
do here--to some extent, at least--on the sanctions side in the U.S. 
Senate.
  I see Senator McCain has arrived. He has been the most consistent 
voice for the last decade about the role of America, our destiny as a 
country, with what we should align ourselves, understanding the Arab 
spring, and he has

[[Page 4908]]

been a thorn in the side of Putin and Russia for quite awhile. So I 
wish to, if I could, ask a question of Senator McCain.
  Given what we know about Putin's past and what he has done in Crimea, 
what does the Senator expect in the future and what can we reasonably 
do as a nation to change the outcome?
  Mr. McCAIN. I thank my colleague.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to engage in a colloquy with 
the Senator from New Hampshire and the Senator from South Carolina.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. McCAIN. I thank my colleagues. The American people should know 
exactly what has happened and what is happening now, and what may 
happen, unless we show a steadfast and robust response to the active 
aggression which has just taken place as Colonel Putin has moved and is 
aggressively using the force of arms, invaded a country and absorbed 
part of that country into Russia. A blatant act of aggression, sparked 
by the age-old practice of demonstrations and desire for intervention 
to protect Russian-speaking people has just been enacted by Vladimir 
Putin.
  Vladimir Putin's forces, I would say to my friend from South 
Carolina, as he knows, are on the border of Eastern Ukraine right now, 
and they are poised to invade. They even have forces in Belarus. 
Vladimir Putin is figuring out the cost-benefit ratio of moving into 
Eastern Ukraine, the cost-benefit ratio of moving into Moldova, which 
is not a member of NATO; of inciting the Russians there--there are 
1,400 Russian troops stationed in Transnistria. He is figuring out the 
cost-benefit ratio of inciting violence in the Russian-speaking 
population of the Baltic countries, especially Estonia.
  Vladimir Putin is on the move. A fundamental and naive attitude 
toward Vladimir Putin by this President and this administration, I 
hope, is shattered for all time. Vladimir Putin is a KGB colonel who 
said the greatest mistake of the 20th century was to break up the 
Soviet Union. He is intent on restoring the Russian empire. That is 
what Vladimir Putin is all about. And what has been our response? 
Fascinating. The President of the United States, in his press 
conference yesterday, basically said, So what I announced and what the 
European Council announced was that we are consulting and putting in 
place the framework, the architecture for additional sanctions, 
additional costs should Russia take the next step.
  How does Vladimir Putin read that statement by the President of the 
United States? He reads it by saying, We got away with it. We got 
Crimea back.
  Both the Senator from South Carolina and I predicted he would not 
give up Sevastopol and he would invade if he felt it was necessary to 
do so.
  So that is where we are today. Does anybody believe that when the 
President of the United States says ``the architecture for additional 
sanctions, additional costs, should Russia take the next step''--how 
does Vladimir Putin interpret that statement?
  I wish to digress for a minute. There has been a lot of conversation 
about what the reaction was to Georgia and the invasion of Georgia and 
what the Bush administration did or did not do. I will let people judge 
what the Bush administration did or did not do.
  I will submit for the Record an opinion piece written by Senator 
Lindsey Graham and Senator Joe Lieberman dated August 26, 2008, after 
the invasion by Vladimir Putin into Georgia at the conclusion of my 
remarks.
  At that time--this is 2008--Senator Lieberman and Senator Graham 
wrote:

       There is disturbing evidence Russia is already laying the 
     groundwork to apply the same arguments used to justify its 
     intervention in Georgia to other parts of its near abroad--
     most ominously in Crimea.

  That is what Senator Graham and Senator Lieberman said 6 years ago.
  They went on:

       This strategically important peninsula is part of Ukraine, 
     but with a large ethnic Russian population and the 
     headquarters of Russia's Black Sea Fleet at Sevastopol.

  Then Senator Lieberman and Senator Graham went on to argue for a much 
more robust response than the Bush administration gave:

       Specifically, the Georgian military should be given the 
     antiaircraft and antiarmor systems necessary to deter any 
     renewed Russian aggression.
       Our response to the invasion of Georgia must include 
     regional actions to reassure Russia's rattled neighbors and 
     strengthen trans-Atlantic solidarity. This means 
     reinvigorating NATO as a military alliance.

  It goes on and on.
  Senator Lieberman and Senator Graham 6 years ago predicted this. I 
wonder what lesson this President took from that event and their 
predictions. The fact is--and it is with great sadness I tell my 
colleagues--we will hear a lot of rhetoric, there will be a lot of 
meetings, gatherings and conversations and threats about what needs to 
be done. But for a broad variety of reasons, which I do not have the 
time to go through, I predict to my colleagues now that the sanctions 
that are in place, which are for a handful of people, will be the 
extent of our reaction to the invasion of Crimea and the further 
violation of Ukrainian territory from the east.
  After Hitler invaded Austria in 1938, he gave a speech in Vienna, 
from the balcony of a hotel in Vienna. We should look back at that 
speech--and I will give more quotes from it. It is a carbon copy of 
what Vladimir Putin said about Crimea. Hitler said they had to go in 
and protect the German-speaking people and they had to do it with force 
of arms. But guess what. They were going to have a referendum. And they 
had--they used to call it plebiscites then--they had a referendum--a 
plebiscite--in Austria, and guess what. Ninety-six percent of the 
people voted that they wanted to be a part of Nazi Germany. This is an 
old playbook Vladimir Putin is operating from.
  So, tomorrow, fortunately, there is going to be a vote on some 
assistance to our beleaguered friends in Ukraine. I believe military 
assistance is a vital part of the assistance.
  I ask my friend from South Carolina: Isn't it true the first thing 
people need once they have been invaded, once part of their country has 
been taken over, is the ability to defend themselves? And isn't it a 
fact that the Ukrainian military, because of previous administrations, 
has been emasculated and they only have about 6,000 troops they can 
rely on? We just saw in Crimea their total inability to resist what the 
Russians did to their fleet and to their bases.
  Mr. GRAHAM. The Senator from Arizona is absolutely right.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, if I could interrupt to ask unanimous 
consent that the article entitled ``Russia's Aggression Is a Challenge 
to World Order'' by Lindsey Graham and Joe Lieberman, dated August 26, 
2008, be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

             [From the Wall Street Journal, Aug. 26, 2008]

           Russia's Aggression Is a Challenge to World Order

                 (By Lindsey Graham and Joe Lieberman)

       In the wake of Russia's invasion of Georgia, the United 
     States and its trans-Atlantic allies have rightly focused on 
     two urgent and immediate tasks: getting Russian soldiers out, 
     and humanitarian aid in.
       But having just returned from Georgia, Ukraine and Poland, 
     where we met with leaders of these countries, we believe it 
     is imperative for the West to look beyond the day-to-day 
     management of this crisis. The longer-term strategic 
     consequences, some of which are already being felt far beyond 
     the Caucasus, have to be addressed.
       Russia's aggression is not just a threat to a tiny 
     democracy on the edge of Europe. It is a challenge to the 
     political order and values at the heart of the continent.
       For more than 60 years, from World War II through the Cold 
     War to our intervention in the former Yugoslavia in the 
     1990s, the U.S. has fostered and fought for the creation of a 
     Europe that is whole, free and at peace. This stands as one 
     of the greatest strategic achievements of the 20th century: 
     the gradual transformation of a continent, once the scene of 
     the most violent and destructive wars ever waged, into an 
     oasis of peace and prosperity where borders are open and 
     uncontested and aggression unthinkable.
       Russia's invasion of Georgia represents the most serious 
     challenge to this political order since Slobodan Milosevic 
     unleashed the demons of ethnic nationalism in the Balkans. 
     What is happening in Georgia today, therefore, is not simply 
     a territorial dispute. It is a struggle about whether a new 
     dividing line is drawn across Europe: between nations that

[[Page 4909]]

     are free to determine their own destinies, and nations that 
     are consigned to the Kremlin's autocratic orbit.
       That is the reason countries like Poland, Ukraine and the 
     Baltic States are watching what happens in the Caucasus so 
     closely. We heard that last week in Warsaw, Kiev and Tbilisi. 
     There is no doubt in the minds of leaders in Ukraine and 
     Poland--if Moscow succeeds in Georgia, they may be next.
       There is disturbing evidence Russia is already laying the 
     groundwork to apply the same arguments used to justify its 
     intervention in Georgia to other parts of its near abroad--
     most ominously in Crimea. This strategically important 
     peninsula is part of Ukraine, but with a large ethnic Russian 
     population and the headquarters of Russia's Black Sea Fleet 
     at Sevastopol.
       The first priority of America and Europe must be to prevent 
     the Kremlin from achieving its strategic objectives in 
     Georgia. Having been deterred from marching on Tbilisi and 
     militarily overthrowing the democratically elected government 
     there, Russian forces spent last week destroying the 
     country's infrastructure, including roads, bridges, port and 
     security facilities. This was more than random looting. It 
     was a deliberate campaign to collapse the economy of Georgia, 
     in the hope of taking the government down with it.
       The humanitarian supplies the U.S. military is now ferrying 
     to Georgia are critically important to the innocent men, 
     women and children displaced by the fighting, some of whom we 
     saw last week. Also needed, immediately, is a joint 
     commitment by the U.S. and the European Union to fund a 
     large-scale, comprehensive reconstruction plan--developed by 
     the Georgian government, in consultation with the World Bank, 
     IMF and other international authorities--and for the U.S. 
     Congress to support this plan as soon as it returns to 
     session in September.
       Any assistance plan must also include the rebuilding of 
     Georgia's security forces. Our past aid to the Georgian 
     military focused on supporting the light, counterterrorism-
     oriented forces that facilitate Tbilisi's contribution to 
     coalition operations in Iraq. We avoided giving the types of 
     security aid that could have been used to blunt Russia's 
     conventional onslaught. It is time for that to change.
       Specifically, the Georgian military should be given the 
     antiaircraft and antiarmor systems necessary to deter any 
     renewed Russian aggression. These defensive capabilities will 
     help to prevent this conflict from erupting again, and make 
     clear we will not allow the Russians to forcibly redraw the 
     boundaries of sovereign nations.
       Our response to the invasion of Georgia must include 
     regional actions to reassure Russia's rattled neighbors and 
     strengthen trans-Atlantic solidarity. This means 
     reinvigorating NATO as a military alliance, not just a 
     political one. Contingency planning for the defense of all 
     member states against conventional and unconventional attack, 
     including cyber warfare, needs to be revived. The credibility 
     of Article Five of the NATO Charter--that an attack against 
     one really can and will be treated as an attack against all--
     needs to be bolstered.
       The U.S. must also reaffirm its commitment to allies that 
     have been the targets of Russian bullying because of their 
     willingness to work with Washington. The recent missile-
     defense agreement between Poland and the U.S., for instance, 
     is not aimed at Russia. But this has not stopped senior 
     Russian officials from speaking openly about military 
     retaliation against Warsaw. Irrespective of our political 
     differences over missile defense, Democrats and Republicans 
     should join together in Congress to pledge solidarity with 
     Poland, along with the Czech Republic, against these 
     outrageous Russian threats.
       Finally, the U.S. and Europe need a new trans-Atlantic 
     energy alliance. In recent years, Russia has proven all too 
     willing to use its oil and gas resources as a weapon, and to 
     try to consolidate control over the strategic energy 
     corridors to the West. By working together, an alliance can 
     frustrate these designs and diminish our dependence on the 
     foreign oil that is responsible for the higher energy prices 
     here at home.
       In crafting a response to the Georgia crisis, we must above 
     all reaffirm our conviction that Russia need not be a 
     competitor or an adversary. Since the collapse of the Soviet 
     Union, Democratic and Republican administrations have engaged 
     Russia, sending billions of dollars to speed its economic 
     recovery and welcoming its integration into the flagship 
     institutions of the international community. We did this 
     because we believed that a strong, prosperous Russia can be a 
     strategic partner and a friend. We still do.
       But Russia's leaders have made a different choice. While we 
     stand ready to rebuild relations with Moscow and work 
     together on shared challenges, Russia's current course will 
     only alienate and isolate it from the rest of the world.
       We believe history will judge the Russian invasion of 
     Georgia as a serious strategic miscalculation. Although it is 
     for the moment flush with oil wealth, Russia's political 
     elite remains kleptocratic, and its aggression exposed as 
     much weakness as strength. The invasion of Georgia will not 
     only have a unifying effect on the West, it also made clear 
     that Russia--unlike the Soviet Union--has few real allies of 
     strategic worth. To date, the only countries to defend 
     Russia's actions in the Caucasus have been Cuba and Belarus--
     and the latter, only after the Kremlin publicly complained 
     about its silence.
       In the long run, a Russia that tries to define its 
     greatness in terms of spheres of influence, client states and 
     forced fealty to Moscow will fail--impoverishing its citizens 
     in the process. The question is only how long until Russia's 
     leaders rediscover this lesson from their own history.
       Until they do, the watchword of the West must be 
     solidarity: solidarity with the people of Georgia and its 
     democratically elected government, solidarity with our allies 
     throughout the region, and above all, solidarity with the 
     values that have given meaning to our trans-Atlantic 
     community of democracies and our vision of a European 
     continent that is whole, free and at peace.

  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, if people are wondering why Senator 
McCain's name wasn't on that article--he is on everything else Joe and 
I did--it is because he was running for President and just got the 
nomination.
  We were very much worried then, the three of us, that the Bush 
administration wasn't doing enough, and we needed to help the Georgian 
people as a signal not only to those in Georgia but other people in the 
neighborhood.
  Let's talk about the Ukrainian military. It has been devastated, it 
has been gutted, because Yanukovych, the Ukrainian President, who won 
the election by less than 1 million votes--if you take Crimea out of 
Ukraine electorally, then no pro-Russian candidate inside Ukraine has 
much of a chance to win. So now they have destroyed the balance of 
power inside Ukraine politically. So as those left in Ukraine, the 
Ukrainian people move west, they are going to have the ability to align 
themselves with Europe. Putin is, in my view, very much likely to take 
some eastern cities that may ask for his help, because the referendum 
by the Ukraine to move west they opposed, but they can't stop because 
of the electoral change.
  So watch out for a move by Ukraine to integrating the European Union 
in April or May when they have an election, and people in the east 
create a fake fight and Russia uses that as a reason to go further into 
the east.
  But to Senator McCain's point: President Obama has conceded Crimea. 
There is just no other way we can say it. Our European allies and our 
President have basically said, If you do any more, we are going to get 
tougher with you. The Senator from Arizona nailed this. What does that 
say to Putin? I got Crimea. Seven people and I may be sanctioned, but I 
have been given Crimea by Europe and the United States.
  The sanctions we are talking about get tougher only if he moves 
further into his sovereign neighbor.
  Six thousand troops are combat-ready in Ukraine. Why? Because the 
pro-Russian President and their Defense Minister, who got fired 
yesterday, gutted the Ukrainian military, setting up a scenario such as 
this, making it impossible for the Ukrainians to effectively defend 
themselves.
  Here is the question for us: Do we let the Russians get away with it? 
They have been planning this for a while. Clearly, the pro-Russian 
forces inside Ukraine took on the task of neutering the Ukrainian 
military and they have done a heck of a good job. Should the United 
States and our NATO partners, at the request of the Ukrainian people, 
supply them with defensive weapons to rebuild the military, gutted by 
pro-Russian elements? To me, the answer is yes. Because if we want to 
make Putin think twice about what he does next, he has to pay a price 
greater than he has for Crimea. If he gets away with this and he 
doesn't pay any price, he is going to be on steroids. But if he thinks 
about moving and he sees on the other side of Crimea a Ukrainian people 
willing to fight with some capacity, that will change the equation. 
Because it is one thing to cheer in Moscow for getting something for 
almost nothing in terms of effort. It will be another thing to talk 
about Russian soldiers getting killed to continue to be on the 
aggressive path.
  So if the NATO alliance, along with the United States, doesn't help 
rebuild the Ukrainian military so they can defend themselves without 
our troops being involved, we have made a historic mistake, because 
everybody in

[[Page 4910]]

the world is watching how this movie ends. The Iranians are watching, 
after Syria, now Russia. Does anybody in their right mind believe the 
Iranians take us seriously as a nation when it comes to stopping their 
nuclear program?
  So I say to Senator McCain, you have been a voice for realism, 
understanding Putin for who he is. For years, you have been telling the 
Senate and the country and the world at large: Watch this guy. There 
have been a series of foreign policy failures that have added up to 
make it confident to Putin that he can move forward without 
consequences.
  So I hope we can convince our colleagues in the Senate and the House 
to honor a reasonable request by the Ukrainian people to help them 
rebuild the military destroyed by pro-Russian forces.
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I would like to make a couple additional 
points to my friend from South Carolina, and I notice the Senator from 
New Hampshire is here.
  In 1994, an agreement, a treaty was reached which divested Ukraine of 
the world's third largest nuclear inventory. In return for Ukraine 
turning over that inventory of nuclear weapons, there was a pledge made 
by Russia, the United States, and the British that they would respect 
the territorial integrity of Ukraine, including Crimea. That was a part 
of the treaty. Obviously, Vladimir Putin violated that.
  The second point is, look, I have no illusions or worry about the 
long-term future of Russia. Russia is now a gas station masquerading as 
a country. Once we get the LNG and other energy to the European 
countries, it will dramatically reduce and eventually eliminate 
Vladimir Putin's influence because there is nothing but corruption and 
oligarchs in Russia today. One of the reasons Vladimir Putin wanted the 
Crimea and did not want Ukraine to be independent is because he was 
afraid this ``disease'' may spread to Russia. The Russian people are 
also sick and tired of the kleptocracy and the corruption.
  Finally, again we need--and we should have had in this legislation--a 
commitment to help export our excess energy to the Europeans so they 
then would be able to reduce their dependency--not just Ukraine but all 
of Europe on their dependency on Russian energy.
  So I have no doubt about the future of Russia. It will collapse like 
a house of cards. But in the short term, what Mr. Putin will do in 
committing further aggression--because this has raised his popularity 
dramatically at home. One of the most respected people whom Senator 
Graham and Senator Ayotte and I had to deal with over the years was Bob 
Gates. Mr. Gates served this country in a variety of posts, the latest 
of course being as an outstanding Secretary of Defense. This morning in 
the Wall Street Journal he wrote a piece called ``Putin's Challenge to 
the West.'' I am not going to read the whole thing.
  I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

             [From the Wall Street Journal, Mar. 25, 2014]

                     Putin's Challenge to the West

                          (By Robert M. Gates)

       Russia has thrown down a gauntlet that is not limited to 
     Crimea or even Ukraine.
       Russian President Vladimir Putin has a long-festering 
     grudge: He deeply resents the West for winning the Cold War. 
     He blames the United States in particular for the collapse of 
     his beloved Soviet Union, an event he has called the ``worst 
     geopolitical catastrophe of the 20th century.''
       His list of grievances is long and was on full display in 
     his March 18 speech announcing the annexation of Crimea by 
     Russia. He is bitter about what he sees as Russia's 
     humiliations in the 1990s--economic collapse; the expansion 
     of NATO to include members of the U.S.S.R.'s own 
     ``alliance,'' the Warsaw Pact; Russia's agreement to the 
     treaty limiting conventional forces in Europe, or as he calls 
     it, ``the colonial treaty''; the West's perceived dismissal 
     of Russian interests in Serbia and elsewhere; attempts to 
     bring Ukraine and Georgia into NATO and the European Union; 
     and Western governments, businessmen and scholars all telling 
     Russia how to conduct its affairs at home and abroad.
       Mr. Putin aspires to restore Russia's global power and 
     influence and to bring the now-independent states that were 
     once part of the Soviet Union back into Moscow's orbit. While 
     he has no apparent desire to recreate the Soviet Union (which 
     would include responsibility for a number of economic basket 
     cases), he is determined to create a Russian sphere of 
     influence--political, economic and security--and dominance. 
     There is no grand plan or strategy to do this, just 
     opportunistic and ruthless aspiration. And patience.
       Mr. Putin, who began his third, nonconsecutive presidential 
     term in 2012, is playing a long game. He can afford to: Under 
     the Russian Constitution, he could legally remain president 
     until 2024. After the internal chaos of the 1990s, he has 
     ruthlessly restored ``order'' to Russia, oblivious to 
     protests at home and abroad over his repression of nascent 
     Russian democracy and political freedoms.
       In recent years, he has turned his authoritarian eyes on 
     the ``near-abroad.'' In 2008, the West did little as he 
     invaded Georgia, and Russian troops still occupy the Abkhazia 
     and South Ossetia regions. He has forced Armenia to break off 
     its agreements with the European Union, and Moldova is under 
     similar pressure.
       Last November, through economic leverage and political 
     muscle, he forced then-President Viktor Yanukovych to abort a 
     Ukrainian agreement with the EU that would have drawn it 
     toward the West. When Mr. Yanukovych, his minion, was ousted 
     as a result, Mr. Putin seized Crimea and is now making 
     ominous claims and military movements regarding all of 
     eastern Ukraine.
       Ukraine is central to Mr. Putin's vision of a pro-Russian 
     bloc, partly because of its size and importantly because of 
     Kiev's role as the birthplace of the Russian Empire more than 
     a thousand years ago. He will not be satisfied or rest until 
     a pro-Russian government is restored in Kiev.
       He also has a dramatically different worldview than the 
     leaders of Europe and the U.S. He does not share Western 
     leaders' reverence for international law, the sanctity of 
     borders, which Westerners' believe should only be changed 
     through negotiation, due process and rule of law. He has no 
     concern for human and political rights. Above all, Mr. Putin 
     clings to a zero-sum worldview. Contrary to the West's belief 
     in the importance of win-win relationships among nations, for 
     Mr. Putin every transaction is win-lose; when one party 
     benefits, the other must lose. For him, attaining, keeping 
     and amassing power is the name of the game.
       The only way to counter Mr. Putin's aspirations on Russia's 
     periphery is for the West also to play a strategic long game. 
     That means to take actions that unambiguously demonstrate to 
     Russians that his worldview and goals--and his means of 
     achieving them--over time will dramatically weaken and 
     isolate Russia.
       Europe's reliance on Russian oil and gas must be reduced, 
     and truly meaningful economic sanctions must be imposed, 
     knowing there may be costs to the West as well. NATO allies 
     bordering Russia must be militarily strengthened and 
     reinforced with alliance forces; and the economic and cyber 
     vulnerabilities of the Baltic states to Russian actions must 
     be reduced (especially given the number of Russians and 
     Russian-speakers in Estonia and Latvia).
       Western investment in Russia should be curtailed; Russia 
     should be expelled from the G-8 and other forums that offer 
     respect and legitimacy; the U.S. defense budget should be 
     restored to the level proposed in the Obama administration's 
     2014 budget a year ago, and the Pentagon directed to cut 
     overhead drastically, with saved dollars going to enhanced 
     capabilities, such as additional Navy ships; U.S. military 
     withdrawals from Europe should be halted; and the EU should 
     be urged to grant associate agreements with Moldova, Georgia 
     and Ukraine.
       So far, however, the Western response has been anemic. Mr. 
     Putin is little influenced by seizure of personal assets of 
     his cronies or the oligarchs, or restrictions on their 
     travel. Unilateral U.S. sanctions, save on Russian banks, 
     will not be effective absent European cooperation. The gap 
     between Western rhetoric and Western actions in response to 
     out-and-out aggression is a yawning chasm. The message seems 
     to be that if Mr. Putin doesn't move troops into eastern 
     Ukraine, the West will impose no further sanctions or costs. 
     De facto, Russia's seizure of Crimea will stand and, except 
     for a handful of Russian officials, business will go on as 
     usual.
       No one wants a new Cold War, much less a military 
     confrontation. We want Russia to be a partner, but that is 
     now self-evidently not possible under Mr. Putin's leadership. 
     He has thrown down a gauntlet that is not limited to Crimea 
     or even Ukraine. His actions challenge the entire post-Cold 
     War order including, above all, the right of independent 
     states to align themselves and do business with whomever they 
     choose.
       Tacit acceptance of settling old revanchist scores by force 
     is a formula for ongoing crises and potential armed conflict, 
     whether in Europe, Asia or elsewhere. A China behaving with 
     increasing aggressiveness in the East and South China seas, 
     an Iran with nuclear aspirations and interventionist policies 
     in the Middle East, and a volatile and unpredictable North 
     Korea are all watching events

[[Page 4911]]

     in Europe. They have witnessed the fecklessness of the West 
     in Syria. Similar division and weakness in responding to 
     Russia's most recent aggression will, I fear, have dangerous 
     consequences down the road.
       Mr. Putin's challenge comes at a most unpropitious time for 
     the West. Europe faces a weak economic recovery and 
     significant economic ties with Russia. The U.S. is emerging 
     from more than a dozen years at war and leaders in both 
     parties face growing isolationism among voters, with the 
     prospect of another major challenge abroad cutting across the 
     current political grain. Crimea and Ukraine are far away, and 
     their importance to Europe and America little understood by 
     the public.
       Therefore, the burden of explaining the need to act 
     forcefully falls, as always, on our leaders. As President 
     Franklin D. Roosevelt said, ``Government includes the act of 
     formulating a policy'' and ``persuading, leading, 
     sacrificing, teaching always, because the greatest duty of a 
     statesman is to educate.'' The aggressive, arrogant actions 
     of Vladimir Putin require from Western leaders strategic 
     thinking, bold leadership and steely resolve--now.

  Mr. McCAIN. This is very important for all of our colleagues and the 
American people to know, and they do not have to take Senator Graham's 
and my word for it. Already we are accused of being partisan--politics 
stops at the water's edge, all of that baloney. When they cannot rebut 
the message, they shoot the messengers. This is former Secretary of 
Defense Gates:

       So far, however, the Western response has been anemic. Mr. 
     Putin is little influenced by seizure of personal assets of 
     his cronies or the oligarchs, or restrictions on their 
     travel. Unilateral U.S. sanctions, save on Russian banks, 
     will not be effective absent European cooperation. The gap 
     between Western rhetoric and Western actions in response to 
     out-and-out aggression is a yawning chasm. The message seems 
     to be that if Mr. Putin doesn't move troops into eastern 
     Ukraine, the West will impose no further sanctions or costs. 
     De facto, Russia's seizure of Crimea will stand and, except 
     for a handful of Russian officials, business will go on as 
     usual.
       No one wants a new Cold War, much less a military 
     confrontation. We want Russia to be a partner, but that is 
     now self-evidently not possible under Mr. Putin's leadership. 
     He has thrown down a gauntlet that is not limited to Crimea 
     or even Ukraine. His actions challenge the entire post-Cold 
     War order including, above all, the right of independent 
     states to align themselves and do business with whomever they 
     choose.
       Tacit acceptance of settling old revanchist scores by force 
     is a formula for ongoing crises and potential armed conflict, 
     whether in Europe, Asia or elsewhere. A China behaving with 
     increasing aggressiveness in the East and South China seas, 
     an Iran with nuclear aspirations and interventionist policies 
     in the Middle East, and a volatile and unpredictable North 
     Korea are all watching events in Europe. They have witnessed 
     the fecklessness of the West in Syria. Similar division and 
     weakness in responding to Russia's most recent aggression 
     will, I fear, have dangerous consequences down the road.

  So we are not just even talking about Ukraine. We are not even 
talking about that part of Europe. We are talking about the lesson that 
bad people--whether they be Kim Jong Un or whether they be the Chinese 
who want to increase their influence in the South China Sea or whether 
they be the Iranians who continue to supply weapons to Hezbollah 
fighters to the fight in Syria, which the resistance is losing--in case 
you missed it, there was an interesting article this morning about how 
jihadists will establish a base in Syria with which to export terrorism 
throughout the Middle East and the world, including the United States 
of America.
  The President of the United States has to understand Vladimir Putin 
for what he is and what his ambitions are and what he will do.
  My friend from South Carolina and I are not sure what he will do now. 
But I think it is obvious, with his troops amassed on the boarder of 
Eastern Ukraine, he is contemplating further action. Whether he does 
so, I am not sure, but I think his calculation has to do with the cost-
benefit ratio of further aggression against a sovereign nation.
  I see my colleague.
  Could I just make one more comment because my colleague was in 
Ukraine recently. These are wonderful people. All they want is what we 
have. They do not want to be part of Russia. They are tired of their 
corrupt dictator, Yanukovych, whom they had. They are willing to stand 
for weeks in freezing weather in Maidan--this huge square in Ukraine. 
Madam President, 110 of them were assassinated by snipers.
  Can't we at least give them some weapons with which to defend 
themselves and speak up for them, rather than saying ``additional costs 
should Russia take [the] next step.''
  I yield for my colleague from New Hampshire.
  Ms. AYOTTE. Madam President, I wish to thank my colleague from 
Arizona and my colleague from South Carolina. I was in Ukraine on 
Sunday, and I was in Maidan, along with two of my colleagues: Senator 
Donnelly, who represents Indiana in the Senate, as well as 
Representative Stephen Lynch, who is a Congressman who represents 
Massachusetts.
  We had an opportunity, actually, to see and meet Ukrainians. In fact, 
when we went down to Maidan, there were 30,000 people there protesting. 
Do you know what they were protesting? They were protesting the Russian 
invasion and illegal annexation of Crimea. They were standing for their 
country, and they were standing against Russian aggression.
  In fact, one of the experiences we had is that as we walked along, so 
many people came up to us and said: Thank you, America. Thank you for 
standing with us. In fact, I met a mother and daughter who had come 
from Crimea. They were waiving a flag--a Ukrainian flag--and they gave 
me this, what I hold in my hand, and they put it around me. What they 
wanted me to know is that they were from Crimea and they did not accept 
the Russian aggression and invasion of their country. What they asked 
us to stand for is to stand for the freedom of the Ukrainian people to 
decide their future and to not let Russia interfere with their ability 
to decide what they want for their country.
  They are wonderful people. They are very patriotic. In Maidan there 
were over 100 Ukrainians who were killed. Many of them were murdered by 
snipers who were up on the rooftops, who were just killed in cold blood 
by the Yanukovych government, the pro-Russian-backed government, 
because they were simply doing what we in the United States of America 
call coming out and stating their viewpoint, saying: We want a 
government that is not corrupt. We want a government that will allow us 
to have a say in our future. For that they were murdered in cold blood.
  We are at an important moment for our country right now. What 
happened in Crimea and what is happening in Ukraine matters very much 
to the United States of America, because if we do not stop Russian 
aggression toward Ukraine, then I think this very much threatens the 
NATO alliance. It puts us in a position where our words do not have 
meaning because we were a signatory to the 1994 Budapest Memorandum, 
along with the United Kingdom.
  Russia violated that memorandum by invading Crimea. They have made 
further efforts to amass their troops on the boarder of Eastern 
Ukraine. In fact, what they are also doing is sending armed Russian 
agents into Eastern Ukraine to try--they are armed, they have money--
and they are trying to actually create artificial demonstrations in 
Eastern Ukraine so they can use the very same excuse they used in 
Crimea to go over and take more territory of Ukraine in violation of 
international law and in violation of all standards among civilized 
countries.
  I believe it is time for us to set forth--I appreciate what the 
President has done with the sanctions, but we need to do more. If we do 
not do more now, then Russia--I fear that Vladimir Putin in particular 
will move into the remainder of Ukraine and that we will undermine our 
agreement on the Budapest Memorandum. But, most important, we have a 
lot at stake.
  First, as my colleagues have said, if we do not stand with NATO to 
send a strong message to Vladimir Putin, by not just sanctioning 
individuals, we should sanction segments of the Russian economy so he 
understands there are serious consequences for invading another 
country.
  We should provide military assistance to the Ukraine military so they 
can defend themselves. We should revisit our decision and reinstate the

[[Page 4912]]

memorandums of understanding that we have with Poland and the Czech 
Republic for missile defense systems. We as a country should be looking 
to help Europe reduce their dependency on Russian natural gas and oil, 
and there are steps we can take that will be good for our economy but 
will also be good for the safety and security of the world.
  We should be doing all that now so Vladimir Putin, who is a 
schoolyard bully, understands we are very serious.
  Why does it matter? Not just NATO, but we had Ukraine give up their 
nuclear weapons in exchange for the agreement of the United Kingdom and 
the United States that we would respect their sovereignty, and they 
felt they had assurances of security from us.
  How are we going to deal with nuclear proliferation around the world 
and get other countries to give up their nuclear weapons if we are not 
serious and we do not say now: Vladimir Putin, we are serious--tough 
sanctions, much tougher than have been in place. We are going to 
support the Ukrainian military and we are not going to stand for any 
more aggression against the Ukrainian people--because otherwise why 
give up your nuclear weapons, again, if you are a country, if the 
United States of America does not mean anything they say on an 
agreement they have signed on to?
  In addition, what will the Chinese do? In the Senkaku Islands they 
have been very aggressive toward the territory of not only the Japanese 
but also the Philippines, the Vietnamese, and they are watching. They 
are watching whether we care whether Russia invades another country, 
whether we care that Vladimir Putin is pushing the Ukrainian people 
around.
  That is why this matters, not just because we stand in solidarity 
with the people of Ukraine--we do and we should--so they can decide 
their future, not Vladimir Putin--they, the people of their country, 
should decide their future--but also because it matters for us around 
the world, not just China, not just nuclear proliferation, but what do 
the ayatollahs in Iran think about how serious we are about ending 
their nuclear weapons program.
  This is an important moment for America, and it is time for our 
President to really step forward. The initial steps he took were in the 
right direction, but it is time not to continue saying there will be 
further costs. The costs must be rendered now. The Senate will be 
taking an important step in providing loan guarantees to Ukraine and a 
scheme for sanctions, but ultimately I call on the President of the 
United States to say to Vladimir Putin now--to recognize whom we are 
dealing with, the former KGB colonel--to say to him: We are going to 
impose sanctions on entire segments of your economy. We are going to 
hurt your ability to do business in the world because you have invaded 
another country. We are going to bolster NATO, and we are going to 
reinstate missile defense systems in the Czech Republic and Poland, 
that we will not accept this aggression.
  It is time for the President to say this very clearly and to impose 
the consequences on Russia now because after they invade Eastern 
Ukraine, it will be too late.
  Vladimir Putin needs to understand now that we are very serious about 
this, that we will stand by our word under the Budapest Memorandum, 
that we will stand with the Ukrainian people, and that we will make 
sure that we will not accept aggressions from Vladimir Putin, and that 
this school yard bully understands, through strength, that the United 
States of America will not be bullied around, nor will our friends and 
allies.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  There is the Membership Action Plan, MAP--I think that is the 
acronym--where a country gets ready to enter into NATO. Georgia would 
like that. I think Ukraine now would like that. Here is the basic 
tension; don't you agree?
  A plurality before Crimea was invaded wanted to move into the 
European Union and Ukraine. Now, I think clearly a majority, if you 
take the Crimea out, wants to associate with the European Union. Putin 
is saying hell no. So the Ukrainian people in the coming months are 
going to make a move toward the European Union and alliances with NATO, 
most likely, and the Russians are going to try to stop them.
  I fear the way they will choose to stop them is not to try to 
influence the vote but to try to grab some eastern cities where you 
will have vocal minority Russian populations saying: Come here and help 
your fellow Russians. We are being absorbed by a bunch of thugs in 
Kiev. Senator McCain made a good point while we are talking. The theory 
of the case for Russia is: We have a legitimate right to go into this 
area to protect native Russians, ethnic Russians. That has no limit in 
that region.
  If we adopt the theory of the case, ignore international law, let him 
break the 1994 agreement with no punishment for taking the Crimea, then 
I hope you understand what comes next. The theory of this case can 
apply to many countries in the region, not just Crimea and the Ukraine. 
So we need to reject this theory of the case.
  We need to make him pay a price for what he has done, not what he 
might do. If he does not pay a price for what he has done, I can assure 
you what he will do. He will do more. The last thought is that Senator 
McCain and I and Senator Ayotte have been talking about the Al Qaeda 
buildup in Syria.
  The Director of National Intelligence has testified before the 
country as a whole, before the Congress, that the Al Qaeda elements in 
Syria are representing a direct threat to our European allies and to 
our own homeland. There was a press report yesterday: What is your 
Congress and your Commander in Chief doing about it?
  We have been told as Members of the Senate that the 26,000-plus Al 
Qaeda fighters, many of them European, some American, are amassing in 
Syria. Al Qaeda leaders from the tribal regions in Afghanistan and 
Pakistan are moving into Syria to organize this cabal. One of the goals 
that they would like to achieve is to take this force that is in the 
fight in Syria and disperse it back to Europe and the United States.
  What are you doing about this threat, Mr. President? Members of the 
Senate, you have been told--11, 12 years after 9/11--that Al Qaeda is 
thinking about hitting us again. They exist in a certain part of the 
world. They are amassing capability. Their leaders are moving in to 
help organize this group. What is our response? What are we doing?
  It is just not Ukraine. The whole world is melting down. I would end 
with this thought. Ronald Reagan had a great slogan. It was not a 
slogan. It was a world view: Peace through strength. Here is what I 
will say to the times in which we live, and I will talk about this more 
later. I want to come with my colleagues and talk about the Al Qaeda 
threat in Syria and elsewhere.
  Peace is an illusion when it comes to radical Islam. It can never be 
achieved. But here is what can be achieved: security through strength. 
We need to have as a Nation security policies, national security 
policies that will deter aggression from nation-states and radical 
Islamic organizations who do not fear death. We have no such policy. We 
need to have security through strength. We are cutting our military. We 
are gutting our ability to defend ourselves through reducing 
intelligence capabilities at a time when the threats are on the rise.
  This is the most dangerous time in American history--since the end of 
the Cold War, in many ways since the end of World War II--because the 
enemies of this Nation are getting stronger and we are getting weaker. 
Somebody needs to change that calculation before it is too late.
  So to Senator McCain and Senator Ayotte, both of you have been to the 
Ukraine in the last couple of weeks. You have done the hard work of 
traveling away from your constituents and your families to find out 
first hand what is on the ground. I hope that people in the body will 
listen to their experiences. There are a lot of Democrats who seem to 
have the same experience.

[[Page 4913]]


  Mr. McCAIN. I thank my colleague, and I appreciate his longstanding 
support for freedom and democracy throughout the world, but also for a 
very prescient piece that he and Senator Lieberman wrote 6 years ago 
predicting the likelihood of the events that we have just observed 
taking place. There is an article in the Washington Post: ``Three ways 
NATO can bolster Ukraine's security,'' by Ian Brzezinski. I ask 
unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

               [From the Washington Post, Mar. 24, 2014]

             Three Ways NATO Can Bolster Ukraine's Security

                         (By Ian J. Brzezinski)

       NATO's response to Russia's invasion of Ukraine has drawn a 
     red line, but it is one that leaves Ukraine militarily 
     isolated, fending for itself. If the West's economic and 
     diplomatic sanctions are to deter Moscow from further 
     military aggression, they must be complemented by a robust 
     defensive strategy to reinforce Ukraine's armed forces.
       When Russia invaded Crimea, it mobilized 150,000 troops 
     along Ukraine's eastern frontier. Most of those forces still 
     menace Ukraine, with some 20,000 troops still occupying the 
     peninsula while provocateurs sent by Moscow continue to stir 
     unrest in the country's eastern regions.
       NATO's response has, by contrast, been underwhelming. The 
     United States and Britain reinforced the air space of 
     Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania with a handful of fighter jets, 
     and AWACs patrols fly over Poland and Romania. The United 
     States deployed about a dozen F-16s to Poland and sent an 
     additional ship to the Black Sea. No ally appears to have 
     mobilized any ground forces.
       When Ukrainian Prime Minster Arseniy Yatsenyuk met with 
     President Obama this month, his request for weapons that 
     would enable his military to better defend against Russia's 
     massed forces was politely declined. Instead, the Obama 
     administration offered uniforms and military meals.
       In a similarly negative move, Vice President Biden visited 
     Warsaw and Vilnius, Lithuania, last week to reassure them of 
     the U.S. military commitment to their security, but he 
     bypassed Kiev. This was surely noted by Moscow, as was 
     Obama's recent statement that he would not allow the United 
     States to get involved in a ``military excursion'' in 
     Ukraine.
       These U.S. and alliance actions constitute a red line that 
     depicts Kiev on the outside and on its own. This must be 
     deeply disillusioning for Ukrainians who in recent months 
     have so courageously expressed their desire for freedom and a 
     place in Europe--and whose forces participated in a NATO 
     collective defense exercise as recently as November. This red 
     line can only reassure Vladimir Putin and his military 
     planners, whose use of unmarked military personnel--and the 
     plausible deniability they provided--in Crimea reflected at 
     least initial concern about potential responses from the 
     West.
       There are prudent defensive measures the United States and 
     NATO can and should take to bolster Ukraine's security. 
     First, Yatsenyuk's request for military equipment should be 
     immediately approved, and anti-tank and anti-aircraft weapons 
     should be included. Equipment and weapons could quickly be 
     transferred from prepositioned U.S. military stocks in 
     Europe.
       If NATO cannot attain the consensus to initiate such 
     assistance, then Washington should forge a coalition of the 
     willing or act on its own. These weapons would complicate 
     Russian military planning and add risk to its operations 
     against Ukraine. U.S. equipment in particular would bring 
     back unpleasant memories of when Soviet forces encountered 
     Western weapons in Afghanistan.
       Second, the alliance or a U.S.-led coalition should back 
     that assistance with the deployment of intelligence and 
     surveillance capabilities and military trainers to Ukraine. 
     This would provide not only needed situational awareness and 
     help the Ukrainian military maximize its defensive 
     capacities, but it would also force Moscow to consider the 
     potential political and military repercussions of any actions 
     that affect that presence. The deployment of military 
     trainers to Georgia was one of the more effective elements of 
     the U.S. effort to bolster Georgia's security after it was 
     invaded by Russia in 2008.
       Third, NATO allies and partners should soon conduct a 
     military exercise in Ukraine as part of the effort to train 
     the Ukrainian military. The alliance's plan to wait until its 
     next scheduled exercise in Ukraine, this summer, could 
     incentivize Russia to take additional military action before 
     then.
       The NATO Response Force, created to deploy on short notice 
     a brigade-level force backed by combat air support, is well 
     suited for such an exercise. The force offers a means to 
     demonstrate Western resolve prudently and rapidly. It has the 
     potential to significantly reinforce Ukraine's defense 
     against a sudden Russian offensive, but it is not big enough 
     to jeopardize Russia's territorial integrity.
       Each of these initiatives would complicate Putin's 
     ambitions regarding Ukraine and could be executed in the near 
     term. None would present a threat to Russia. They would, 
     however, amend the red line the alliance has mistakenly 
     created, assure Ukrainians that they are not alone and force 
     Moscow to consider the possibility of a much more costly and 
     prolonged military conflict. The absence of a firm Western 
     response will only encourage Putin to act aggressively again, 
     be it to drive deeper into Ukraine, make another attempt to 
     seize Georgia, expand Russia's occupation of Moldovan 
     territory or grab other areas that were once part of the 
     Soviet Union.
       NATO's response to this crisis is critical to both 
     Ukraine's security and the alliance's long-term future. A 
     NATO summit planned for September is to focus on the 
     alliance's way forward in a new world. But what it does to 
     assist Ukraine today and in the coming weeks will have a far 
     more profound influence on its future and transatlantic 
     security.

  Mr. McCAIN. It goes on to say:

       These U.S. and alliance actions constitute a red line that 
     depicts Kiev on the outside and on its own. This must be 
     deeply disillusioning for Ukrainians who in recent months 
     have so courageously expressed their desire for freedom and a 
     place in Europe--and whose forces participated in a NATO 
     collective defense exercise as recently as November. This red 
     line can only reassure Vladimir Putin and his military 
     planners, whose use of unmarked military personnel--and the 
     plausible deniability they provided--in Crimea reflected at 
     least initial concern about potential responses from the 
     West.

  One of the more remarkable returns to the days of the Soviet Union 
was when Vladimir Putin had the press conference and was asked if those 
were Russian military in Crimea, and he said: Well, they can buy old 
uniforms from most any store in the region.
  He not only denied that Russian troops were there, but he added to 
the flat-out lie with a statement so ridiculous that he must have known 
that we knew that he was absolutely lying through his teeth. Let me 
just say to my colleagues what we need to do is we must recognize the 
reality that President Putin is not, and will never be, our partner. He 
will always insist on being our adversary and working to revise the 
entire post Cold War vision of a Europe whole, free, and at peace--and 
the security architecture that supports it. Our policy must begin with 
the reality of what Vladimir Putin is, what his ambitions are, and what 
he is willing to do.
  We have to support Ukraine's emergence as a successful democracy with 
a thriving economy, fighting corruption, and with a strengthened 
national unity. We must ensure that the March elections in Ukraine 
occur on time, freely, and fairly. We must meet Ukraine's request for 
immediate military assistance as part of a larger, long-term initiative 
to help the Ukrainian armed forces rebuild and reform into an effective 
force that can deter aggression and defend their nation; support 
countries such as Moldova and Georgia in deepening democratic, 
economic, and military reforms that can hasten their integration into 
the Euro-Atlantic community; expand sanctions under the Magnitsky Act; 
increase targeted sanctions against Putin's sources of power, 
especially for corruption; push for an arms embargo against Russia; 
prevent defense technology transfers; use the upcoming NATO summit to 
enlarge the alliance; move Georgia into the Membership Action Plan; 
expand NATO cooperation with Ukraine; conduct significant contingency 
planning within NATO to deter aggression and defend alliance members, 
especially along the eastern flank; strategically shift NATO military 
assets eastward to support deterrence.
  We must take these actions. None of them, by the way, entail the 
commitment of American troops. I also want to make one additional 
comment. I hope that the Senator from New Hampshire would comment as 
well. Whenever I see a news story--no matter which network it is on--
the overwhelming majority of American people do not want to have 
anything to do with Syria.
  The overwhelming majority of Americans do not want to have anything 
to do with Ukraine. We do not even want to assist the people of 
Ukraine. We do not want to assist the people of Syria that are fighting 
and struggling--140,000 of whom have been slaughtered

[[Page 4914]]

already in the most atrocious fashion. I say to my colleagues and to 
the American people: We cannot ignore the lessons of history. We cannot 
revert to the 1930s when isolationist impetus in this country kept us 
out of being prepared for a conflict.
  If it had not been for Franklin Delano Roosevelt and the actions he 
took in the late 1930s, we would have had an even worse time after 
Pearl Harbor. It is up to the President of the United States to inform 
the American people of what our vital national security interests are. 
That does not mean involvement in another war.
  But we cannot leave the world because the world will not leave us. So 
the President of the United States--rather than announcing that if the 
Russians go any further there will be punishment for it, the President 
of the United States needs to go before the American people and say: 
Here is what we are facing. We are facing what Senator Graham just 
talked about: the rise of Al Qaeda across the Middle East; the failure 
in Syria, which is now becoming a breeding ground for Islamic 
extremism; the Chinese assertiveness in the South China Sea; the 
Iranian talks which are ``failing;'' and of course this latest and most 
outrageous aggression committed by Vladimir Putin.
  The world is a dangerous place. It cries out for American leadership. 
As Lindsey Graham said, there was a guy, in the words of Margaret 
Thatcher, who won the Cold War without firing a shot. It is called 
peace through strength. It is through being steadfast.
  Right now, when the Chinese announced that they are increasing their 
defense spending by 12.2 percent, we are announcing that we are cutting 
our defense dramatically. That is a long series of cuts in defense, 
which can put this Nation's national security interests further in 
danger.
  I thank my colleague from New Hampshire for going to Kiev. It is an 
uplifting and wonderful experience to see how much they want to be like 
us, how much they appreciate what little we do, how much it matters to 
them to be able to be part of Europe and free, and to have an economic 
system that is not beset with the corruption and kleptocracy that 
devastated their economy.
  They need our help. I hope tomorrow we will be passing legislation 
which will be the first step in providing that assistance to this 
Nation. I say to my colleagues, the people of Ukraine will be watching 
us. They are watching what we do. The sooner we guarantee $1 billion of 
loan guarantees to them, the sooner we impose these sanctions which are 
embodied in this bill in a bipartisan fashion, the better it will be 
for the people of Ukraine to know that we stand with them.
  Ms. AYOTTE. Madam President, I want to thank the senior Senator from 
Arizona for his leadership and to really frame what Ronald Reagan said. 
It is so important at this moment. He said: Of the four wars in my 
lifetime, none came about because the U.S. was too strong. So when we 
talk about peace through strength, we are talking about ensuring that 
we do not have to get involved in another conflict. Before I went to 
Ukraine I was in Afghanistan. One of the commanders that I was speaking 
with in Afghanistan said to me: You know, Senator Ayotte, I worry about 
America's span of attention. I am worried. I have fought here. I have 
done multiple tours here. We sacrificed here. I am really worried. I 
understand how people at home view where things are in Afghanistan. But 
for us just to throw our hands up right now and what that will do--I am 
just worried that we are forgetting the lessons of what happened on 
September 11, when we thought that we did not have to be engaged, when 
we thought that the fight could stay over here and that this country 
Afghanistan, which was a haven for Al Qaeda, that they would just leave 
us alone.
  Unfortunately, in this fight with Al Qaeda, they won't leave us 
alone. Now we are facing a situation in Syria where our Secretary of 
Homeland Security or our Director of National Intelligence has said the 
threat of Al Qaeda in Syria is a threat to our homeland.
  As we look at events unfolding around the world, what is happening in 
Ukraine does matter to the United States of America.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
  Ms. AYOTTE. I ask unanimous consent for 1 additional minute.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. AYOTTE. I would say in order that we don't have to deal with wars 
here and that we hopefully don't have to send our men and women in 
uniform to war, we have to maintain a strong position in the United 
States and Ukraine using the strongest sanctions we can, having a 
prepared military, and supporting our allies to ensure that we don't 
fall back into forgetting the lessons we have seen. When America 
disengages, it becomes dangerous for America. That is what this is 
about.
  I am pleased we are going to pass
bipartisan legislation to support Ukraine. I ask the President to issue 
even stronger sanctions against Russia, Vladimir Putin, and to ensure 
we stand with the people of Ukraine, because when we stand with them we 
stand for ourselves as well and what we believe in.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.


                              Health Care

  Mr. MURPHY. Yesterday, healthcare.gov saw about 1.2 million visits to 
the site. The call centers, which are busy enrolling people at a pace 
that is now exceeding 50,000 to 100,000 people a day, saw 390,000 phone 
calls.
  A new poll just came out suggesting that a full 60 percent of 
Americans want the Affordable Care Act to stay in place, and if they 
want changes, they only want minor changes. Only 11 percent of people 
in this poll said they want to repeal and replace the law, and only 18 
percent said they wanted to repeal it completely.
  It is not rocket science to figure out why we have hundreds of 
thousands of people lining up as we approach the deadline for 
enrollment seeking to get care. It is not rocket science why there are 
over 1 million people only yesterday alone going to the Web site trying 
to find out what their options are.
  The simple fact is that even today, as we stand on the brink of the 
enrollment deadline, there are still millions of Americans who remain 
on the outside of the best health care system in the world. There are 
still millions of families who are waking up today, as they have week 
after week, year after year, wondering how they are going to pay the 
medical bills that are piling up for a sick father and worrying what 
would happen if their child were diagnosed with a disease, having no 
way to pay for it. That is a reality still today for millions of 
families. Many of them, frankly, have stayed away from the Web site 
because of the misinformation that has been spread by opponents of the 
health care law.
  Now as we are coming to the enrollment deadline, we are seeing a 
surge of interest, much of it from families who are desperate to 
finally get access to health care insurance that will allow them to 
avoid the fate of millions of other Americans who have fallen into 
bankruptcy, have lost their homes, have lost their cars, and who have 
lost their savings simply because of a mistimed illness.
  I was pleased today to see the President make a very simple 
announcement. What he said is that people who are in line trying to 
apply for health care insurance when the deadline hits on Monday are 
going to get a shot to complete their application.
  For very complex cases, for instance, women who are in a situation of 
extreme domestic violence who don't want to apply jointly and have to 
apply themselves, they are going to be able to have a little extra time 
as well. For most of the people I represent, that is just common sense.
  If someone is desperately in need of health care and if they have 
gone months, years, and maybe even decades without health care and they 
have this chance--a chance that will expire Monday this year--then if 
they are in line trying to fill out an application, they should be able 
to get through that application even if the midnight clock hits.

[[Page 4915]]

  I heard my friend from Wyoming speak on the floor earlier today and 
criticize this announcement from the President. I thought it was 
worthwhile to come to the floor and make it clear that if someone is 
criticizing a simple decision to allow people a little bit of extra 
time, they are essentially rooting for people to stay outside of the 
ranks of those who are insured. They are essentially guaranteeing that 
people who could get insurance, because they have the ability now over 
the course of the next few days to sign up, aren't going to be able to 
get it.
  Of course, I think people understand this concept because there is 
plenty of precedent. When folks rush home from work late on election 
day to go vote, they often see very long lines outside of the polling 
place. But we don't shut down the polls at 8 o'clock when there is a 
line outside. We allow people who are in line to vote because they 
worked hard to get there, to get in line. They deserve a chance to 
express their choice in an election. That is essentially what the 
President has announced today, that individuals who are in line on 
March 31 are going to get a chance to sign up, because why on Earth 
would we deny people the ability to get insurance? I get it that there 
are people who oppose this law, who want it repealed, and many people 
of good faith who want it replaced with something else. But the reality 
of here and now is that there are millions of people who are going onto 
the Web site every day. There are hundreds of thousands of people who 
are calling, and they deserve a chance to get health care insurance, to 
be able to treat their loved ones for the diseases that they have today 
or may incur.
  I would note that there is precedence to this. When President Bush 
was managing the enrollment process for Medicare Part D, he did, in 
fact, the same thing. He extended the enrollment deadline for people 
who were in process and for complex cases. People who were trying to 
sign up for Medicare Part D at the enrollment deadline received extra 
time, and there were plenty of Republicans who supported that effort.
  I come to the floor today to make it clear that for a lot of folks it 
makes sense that if people are so desperate for health care and they 
are in the process of filling out these applications, they should get 
the chance to finish the job.
  I am continuing to receive letters and emails from people who have 
gone through the process and whose lives have been transformed. I 
simply want to make sure that on Monday, if people are in the process 
of signing up, they don't get foreclosed from the possibility of 
experiencing a reality such as one of my constituents, Sean Hannon, 
from Weston, CT. I will finish by reading a letter he sent to our 
office.
  Speaking for himself and his wife he said:

       As working freelancers, my wife and I are not covered by 
     company health plans and we have had to buy private health 
     insurance out of pocket. It has been our largest financial 
     burden. Last year, our monthly premium for Golden Rule was 
     $1,216. That came to $14,592 annually. This plan also came 
     with a huge deductible that needed to be met completely 
     before any payout.
       This year, Golden Rule increased our premium to $1,476 a 
     month, or $17,712 annually.
       On February 1, thanks to the Affordable Care Act, we were 
     able to switch from Golden Rule to Connecticare on the CT 
     Exchange. It wasn't easy to go through enrollment, but we had 
     great assistance from a woman at the enrollment center in New 
     Haven, and she stuck with us until we got it right.
       Let me tell you what the new healthcare plan has done for 
     us . . .
       First and foremost, we lowered our monthly premium of 
     $1,475 to $309. Let me spell that out so you know it wasn't a 
     typo: three hundred and nine dollars. That is a savings of 
     nearly 80%!
       So now I am sure you are thinking that we must have made a 
     huge sacrifice in quality of care or services. Just the 
     opposite. We have lost none of the benefits we previously 
     had. We were able to keep all of our doctors, our primary GP 
     and specialists. They all accept the insurance.
       While we still have a high deductible, unlike the previous 
     plan that didn't pay anything until the deductible was met, 
     we now have co-pays for doctor visits of $30, and procedures 
     such as CAT scans and MRIs are $75 for each visit, and the 
     remainder of the expense is covered COMPLETELY, even before 
     the deductible is met.
       And we have the peace of mind of not being dropped or 
     penalized for pre-existing conditions.

  They finish by saying:

       Despite the messed up rollout and the attendant growing 
     pains of a massive program, ObamaCare has been a Godsend, and 
     we are overwhelmed and ecstatic over the dramatic difference 
     this has made in our family budget.
       We are sharing all of this personal information here 
     because there is an aggressive campaign underway to dismantle 
     this valuable program. The misinformation being put out there 
     is skewing public opinion and this must not happen. . . . 
     This treasure is ours to lose if we do not speak up now.

  Yesterday 1.2 million people went to the Web site and 400,000 people 
called in to seek help. I imagine those numbers will continue to 
escalate as we move through the weekend. They deserve to be able to get 
to a reality that Sean Hannon and his family are experiencing now. They 
deserve to have a chance at paying lower premiums, 80 percent savings, 
for some individuals, to finally get insured for the diseases, 
illnesses, and conditions that have plagued these families for years.
  I applaud the President for allowing these families the ability to 
complete their applications, and I hope that many of them get to see 
the same final reality that the Hannons of Weston, CT, have.
  I yield back the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coons). The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I come to the floor, having heard my 
colleague's concerns and story of a family who was helped by the 
President's health care law. We want people in this country to be 
helped. My concern is there are a lot of people who are actually being 
hurt by the President's health care law. We shouldn't have to hurt 
people, specifically people who have had insurance, to try to help 
people who haven't had insurance. That is the big concern that my 
friend from Connecticut referred to as I came to the floor this morning 
to discuss.
  I have grave concerns about the impact on the people of Wyoming and 
all around the country as we are getting letters and concerns. We were 
told on the floor that all of these stories--nine of us were reading 
different stories--that all of these are lies.
  These are not lies. These are people hurt by the President's health 
care law. We see them in States all around the country.
  We don't know how many people have signed up, how many have gone to 
the Web site. The White House can't even tell us if they know how many 
have insurance.
  Sure, they may have had a lot of people visit the Web site. I wonder 
how many people have actually paid to have insurance? What the 
President asked for is he said: We are going to get 30 million people 
who didn't have insurance to have insurance.
  It looks as if there may be fewer than 2 million who go through that. 
We know that fewer than 1 in 10 young people--the people who are 
supposed to pay for this program--young people paying more so that 
older, sicker people will pay less, those people aren't signing up. 
Only 1 in 10 of those eligible at that age is signing up.
  That is what we are seeing across the country, and that is why the 
worry is that there is going to need to be a big bailout of this 
program because the money that is being spent by the taxpayers is not 
getting the job done. They are not doing it in a way to actually help 
the people who need help without hurting so many other people, the 5 
million people who received letters of cancellation.
  I hear my friend and colleague from Connecticut. It is not only 
people--one person who may have gotten insurance in Connecticut who may 
have been helped in that situation. The impact on jobs and communities 
has been dramatic. When I looked at the State of Connecticut, there was 
a story in the New York Times only last month about the impact of this 
law that my colleague and friend has voted for that has now been 
changed over two dozen times. They are interviewing a superintendent of 
schools in Meriden, CT.
  We just heard a story of somebody who was helped by the health care 
law. Now let's look at what has happened to the superintendent of 
schools in Meriden, CT, Mark Benigni. He is also a

[[Page 4916]]

board member of the American Association of School Administrators.
  In an interview with the New York Times, he said that the new health 
care law was having ``unintended consequences for school systems across 
the Nation.''
  We have a letter from somebody in Connecticut, but let's see what 
happened to school systems across the country. Maybe they have children 
in school, I don't know.
  The article states:

       In Connecticut, as in many States, significant numbers of 
     part-time school employees work more than 30 hours a week and 
     do not receive health benefits.

  We know the health care law defines a workweek as anything above 30 
hours. They have people who are working part time with more than 30 
hours, and  according to the health care law those are full-time 
employees. So they have workers with more than 30 but who do not 
receive health benefits, and he says:

       Are we supposed to lay off full-time teachers so that we 
     can provide insurance coverage to part-time employees?

  That is a question asked by the superintendent of schools in a town 
in central Connecticut. He says:

       If we have to cut five reading teachers to pay for the 
     benefits for substitute teachers, I'm not sure that would be 
     best for our students.

  The impact of this health care law and the mandate and the costs go 
way beyond the health care of an individual or a family or a community. 
It goes to so many other things, including the education of our young 
people. And those are some of the tradeoffs and the unintended 
consequences that have developed since passing a 2,700-page health care 
law.
  Whether they delay the signup date to allow more people to sign up, 
as a doctor, my concern is for those people who do sign up, what kind 
of care are they going to get. Are they going to be able to keep their 
doctor, which the President promised. The deadline date is less 
important than the kind of care people can get with the insurance they 
are mandated to buy as a result of the health care law, and pay a lot 
more than they would have paid had the law not been passed. Will they 
be able to keep their doctor? Will they be able to see a doctor?
  We know there is a shortage coming of about 90,000 physicians, half 
of them specialists, half of them primary care physicians around the 
country. This is coming in the next 5 or 6 years. We know the things 
that are happening along those lines with not enough nurses, not enough 
physician assistants, not enough EMTs, paramedics--across the board not 
enough people to take care of the population of this country. Having 
insurance is not enough to provide care.
  The President made promises that are not being kept. That is a 
concern I have when I hear the deadline is extended. My concern is what 
happens after they sign up. Will they be able to get the care they 
need?
  Last week, the Associated Press reported the results of a poll of all 
these different cancer hospitals. My wife is a cancer survivor, so I 
know how important it is for people to have the peace of mind to get 
the care they need. Of the 19 hospitals that responded to the 
Associated Press, only 4 of the 19 said, yes, they will be able to 
accept all of the plans of the people who are signing up on the Web 
site in those States where those hospitals are located. So it is not 
just a matter of keeping your own doctor, but it is getting the doctor 
you need at a time of family crisis, personal family concern--the time 
when people are most vulnerable. Will the fact they have some coverage 
bought through a Web site actually help them get the care they need? 
And will the doctor who happens to see them--even if they are able to 
keep their own doctor--be able to spend the time interacting with the 
patient or, with all the additional paperwork and time-consumption 
activities, will the doctor have to cut the visit short, spend time 
looking more at the computer screen than looking at the patient? There 
are complaints in every State of the Union from patients who are 
complaining either to their doctor or the nurse at the office or at the 
checkout area of the office saying, you know, I would have liked to 
have had the doctor look more at me and not so much at the computer 
screen.
  There are many components of this health care law that are harmful to 
health care delivery and to patient care in this country, and so the 
President decides to unilaterally delay a part of the law that this 
last week or the week before the Secretary of Health and Human Services 
said will not be done; this is the deadline; this is it. When is the 
law not the law anymore? When it is just Swiss cheese? When do you 
trust somebody, take them at their word? Words have meanings.
  It is time for this President and this administration to actually 
realize the American people see what is happening. Each time they do a 
delay or do a change or do this or that, it has a huge impact on 
people's lives as they try to decide what to do and what matters and 
what doesn't matter under this administration. People are very 
disappointed as a result of the health care law. Those who were looking 
for something better haven't found it.
  We still don't know how many people actually have paid for insurance. 
We may know how many went to the Web site, but we don't know how many 
of those who bought insurance through the Web site actually had their 
own insurance and got one of those letters--of the 5 million people who 
got letters of cancellation--canceling their insurance or how many were 
uninsured.
  It looks as though the Web site doesn't even want to look into that. 
On the paper application there is actually a box to check off. It says: 
I didn't have insurance but now I am going to get it. The Web site left 
that off. I don't know if that was ineptitude on the part of the 
designers of the Web site or if it was left off or fell through the 
cracks in the disastrous rollout. I don't know, but it wasn't there. So 
the administration, which said our goal is that of the 30 million 
people who do not have insurance, getting them insured, will never know 
the answer to that. Then there is the question of who are these folks, 
in terms of young or old, sick or not sick. And we know of those 
eligible, only about 1 in 10 has signed up.
  But the big concern is--regardless of some of these things the 
President is doing to delay this and let others sign up or not sign up 
for a bit of time--what kind of care are they going to get? Whether 
they are insured through the Web site this week, next week, or the week 
after, what kind of care is going to be available to them? And what 
happens when they find the cost of the care--as for so many people I 
hear from in Wyoming--is much higher than they were paying before? And 
if they had a policy they liked--or are still finding, if they didn't 
have insurance--many of them still think the rates are unaffordable.
  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 bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. VITTER. 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. VITTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be recognized 
for up to 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                  Unanimous consent Request--H.R. 3521

  Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I come to the floor again to try to move 
forward on a bill with near unanimous support. In fact, with regard to 
the actual substance of the bill, within the four corners of the bill, 
it has unanimous support because it would advance 27 community-based 
health care clinics for veterans in the VA system immediately, around 
the country, which would serve hundreds of thousands of veterans in 
communities that absolutely need this type of expanded community-based 
clinic. Two are in my State--one in Lafayette, one in Lake Charles, LA.
  All of these community-based clinics--including the ones in Lafayette 
and Lake Charles--have been fully authorized by the VA and throughout 
the

[[Page 4917]]

process. They have been on the books. We have been planning on them and 
moving forward with them for some time. But they have hit a series of 
bureaucratic glitches.
  For the Lafayette and Lake Charles facilities in particular, first 
they hit a big VA glitch when the VA just screwed up--and those are 
their words, not mine--just screwed up in the letting process to put 
out contracts to locate land and to build or lease these facilities. 
Because of that bureaucratic mistake, the VA lost a whole year in the 
process in terms of moving forward with these clinics that are fully 
approved, fully authorized.
  During that year of delay, out of the blue CBO decided to score how 
these clinics are financed differently than it ever did before. I won't 
go into the weeds, but suffice it to say that under this new scoring 
method, it created a scoring issue, which it never did before. Well, 
that was an additional hurdle and additional point of delay to which we 
had to respond. We overcame it with a proposal that ensures the VA 
funds and handles this correctly so there is no scoring issue. The bill 
passed the House nearly unanimously. In fact, the vote in the House was 
346 to 1. As the Presiding Officer knows, not much passes either body 
nearly unanimously, but this did with very widespread bipartisan 
support, 346 to 1. This is the bill which has come over here to get 
final approval.
  With the addition of an amendment to help pay for any costs 
associated with the bill--and the amendment has been fully vetted and 
is supported in a bipartisan way--with the addition of an amendment, we 
have no opposition here in the Senate on the actual substance of my 
proposal, on moving forward with these 27 important VA clinics around 
the country, two of which are in Louisiana.
  Unfortunately, the only objection that appears to reside here in the 
Senate is from the Senator from Vermont, Mr. Sanders, who does not 
object to this bill as amended, who does not object to the substance 
within the four corners of this bill, but who simply wants his much 
bigger, much broader VA bill passed. I applaud his passion to advocate 
for it, but there is significant concern with that much bigger, much 
more complicated proposal. There are 43 Senators, including myself, who 
have very significant concerns about that proposal.
  I think it is really unfortunate for him to block something where 
there are no concerns--it has been vetted, it has bipartisan support, 
and every conceivable substantive issue has been worked out--simply to 
hold that as hostage for a much broader bill that has concerns and 
opposition from almost half of the Senate, 43 Senators. So I hope we 
can avoid that, and I come to the floor to ask for unanimous consent.
  I think the American people want us to work together. I think the 
American people want us to agree on things we can agree on. There is a 
lot to fight about, there is a lot to wrestle with, there is a lot to 
disagree about, and we should work on that stuff too, toward an 
agreement. I am open to doing so with Senator Sanders. But in the 
meantime, I firmly believe the American people want us to agree where 
we do agree. Don't create disagreements that don't exist. They want us 
to move forward where we can move forward. They want us to make 
progress where we can and keep working on the rest.
  In that spirit, I ask unanimous consent that the Veterans' Affairs 
Committee be discharged from further consideration of my bill, H.R. 
3521, and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration; that my 
amendment, which is at the desk, be agreed to; the bill, as amended, be 
read a third time and passed; and that the motion to reconsider be laid 
upon the table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. SANDERS. Reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I appreciate the interest my colleague 
from Louisiana has on this very important issue. I agree with him that 
we want to expand VA health care, that we have run into a bureaucratic 
morass, and there are 27 facilities in 18 States that can and should be 
approved. If the Senator from Louisiana is prepared to join with me, we 
can pass his concern today or within the next couple of weeks, along 
with many other provisions the veterans community is deeply concerned 
about.
  During the last government shutdown, it is not widely known but the 
truth is that we were 7 to 10 days away from a situation where 
veterans--disabled veterans, veterans who have pensions--were not going 
to get their benefits. The comprehensive bipartisan legislation that 
received 56 votes here on the floor--unfortunately, not the vote from 
my colleague from Louisiana but 56 votes, and we are working to get the 
60 votes we need to overcome a Republican point of order, and we are 
going to get those 60 votes--makes sure we do have advanced 
appropriations so no disabled veteran will not get a check in the event 
of another government shutdown.
  My colleague from Louisiana may or may not think that is an important 
issue. I don't know. I think it is an important issue. And I can tell 
him the reason the legislation I introduced has the support of the 
American Legion--and, by the way, 500 of them were here this morning at 
a very interesting hearing--has the support of the VFW, the DAV, the 
Vietnam Veterans of America, the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of 
America, Gold Star Wives of America, and virtually every organization 
is because they understand that the veterans community has very serious 
problems we have to address.
  My friend from Louisiana may or may not have concerns about making 
sure that every veteran gets their benefits in an expedited way and 
that we don't have this backlog. Our legislation addresses that. My 
friend from Louisiana may or may not be concerned that there are 
veterans who want to take advantage of the post-9/11 GI bill--which 
over 1 million people are now having advantage of--and are having 
problems with getting instate tuition. Our legislation addresses that. 
Our legislation for the first time makes sure dental care will be part 
of VA health care. Our legislation addresses the reprehensible 
situation faced by many women and men in the military who had to deal 
with sexual assault. We think they should get the care they need. And 
on and on and on.
  So we have a comprehensive piece of legislation which is supported by 
virtually every veterans organization in this country. We received 56 
votes--1 person was absent who would have voted for it--57 votes, and 
we are now working with some of our Republican colleagues to make sure 
we get the 60 votes. And I say to my colleague from Louisiana, work 
with us. Bring some of your other colleagues on board. Please don't 
tell me this is too expensive. If it is too expensive to take care of 
our veterans, then let's not go to war in the first place.
  So I give my colleague from Louisiana the opportunity now to do 
something really extraordinary, to do something the veterans' committee 
wants.
  I object to the proposal from my colleague from Louisiana, and in its 
place I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the 
consideration of Calendar No. 297, S. 1950; that a Sanders substitute 
amendment, the text of S. 1982, the Comprehensive Veterans Health and 
Benefits and Military Retirement Pay Restoration Act, be agreed to; the 
bill, as amended, be read a third time and passed; and the motions to 
reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no 
intervening action or debate.
  If we pass this right now, we deal with the Senator's concerns and a 
lot of other concerns.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard to the request of the 
Senator from Louisiana.
  Is there objection to the request of the Senator from Vermont?
  Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I object on behalf of 43 Senators, 
including myself.
  Reclaiming the floor and reclaiming my time, I would say we all want 
to work very hard to help veterans. We all acknowledge that the health 
care and work claim backlog issues are extremely important. That is why 
I am

[[Page 4918]]

very involved in all of those issues across the board. That is why, for 
instance, I am an active member of the claims backlog working group, 
working with the VA to improve that situation and proposing focused 
legislation. We all care very much about that.
  But right now Senator Sanders' comprehensive bill has significant 
concerns in opposition--43 Senators, over 40 percent of the whole body. 
I do object on behalf of myself and the rest of those folks. I do 
commit to continuing to work on those issues, but I also express real 
regret that when this body is very divided on the important details of 
that bill--and the details do matter--we don't come together on 
something we agree on, and we can't accomplish a few important steps at 
a time.
  Perhaps Senator Sanders thinks that if we do this, somehow it takes 
away momentum for his larger bill. I think that is nonsense. These 27 
clinics in 18 States are important, but they are a trivial part of that 
broader bill. They are a trivial part of all of the proposals in that 
broader bill. I don't think it takes away any momentum in any way, 
shape, or form for that broader bill. I will continue to be just as 
committed and just as interested in VA health care issues and working 
down the claims backlog and everything else. These clinics are a tiny 
part of that. So he doesn't lose any advantage. He doesn't lose any 
momentum. We could move forward on something we do agree on and build 
from there. I think that is more reasonable and more constructive.
  There is literally no disagreement among any of us in this body about 
these clinics. I have worked hard with several other colleagues to 
address every question and every concern out there. The amendment at 
the desk erases some of those concerns. We have covered the waterfront 
on this clinics issue in particular.
  I am very disappointed that we can't move forward as a first step and 
agree on what we agree on. We disagree on enough. Let's agree on what 
we agree on. Let's move forward on what we agree on and pass these 27 
clinics and start that progress and certainly continue to work on 
important compromise on the much bigger piece represented by the 
Sanders bill.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to use leader time 
for a few minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                              Health Care

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, the junior Senator from Wyoming has come to 
the floor several times recently talking about the fact that examples 
he and other Republicans have given dealing with ObamaCare, examples 
they think are bad, I call lies. That is simply untrue. I have never 
come to the floor, to my recollection, and said a word about any of the 
examples Republicans have given regarding ObamaCare and how it is not 
very good. But I have come to the floor--I think my friend, the junior 
Senator from Wyoming, must be getting mixed up about what I have said 
about the Koch brothers and what they have done regarding health care. 
But it is easy to get mixed up because I think it is hard to separate 
the Koch brothers from the Republican caucus, anyway.
  Mr. President, I have asserted and I will continue to assert that the 
Koch brothers are trying to buy America, and they are doing it in a 
number of different ways. They don't believe in Social Security. They 
don't believe in minimum wage. They don't believe in benefits--
unemployment benefits. They don't believe in environmental laws. As you 
know and read in the paper, they have a chemical plant. They were fined 
about $400,000 over the last week or 10 days and ordered to pay about 
$50 million to bring it up to standard because it was deleterious to 
the health of people in the area.
  The Koch brothers are running false and misleading ads all around the 
country against Democratic Senators dealing with health care. Do they 
care about health care? Of course not. These are false and misleading 
ads, and they have gone so far as to have actors there pretending they 
are from the States, and they not only have done that in one State; 
they used the same actor in different States. So the record should be 
very clear. Yes, I have called many, if not most, of the anti-Obama ads 
by the Koch brothers false and misleading because they are.


                       Vote on Cooper Nomination

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there is now 2 
minutes of debate, equally divided, prior to a vote on the Cooper 
nomination.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. I yield back all time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is yielded back.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The question is, Will the Senate advise and consent to the nomination 
of Christopher Reid Cooper, of the District of Columbia, to be United 
States District Judge for the District of Columbia?
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  The result was announced--yeas 100, nays 0, as follows:

                       [Rollcall Vote No. 84 Ex.]

                               YEAS--100

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Baldwin
     Barrasso
     Begich
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Blunt
     Booker
     Boozman
     Boxer
     Brown
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Chambliss
     Coats
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Collins
     Coons
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Donnelly
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Feinstein
     Fischer
     Flake
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Heller
     Hirono
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson (WI)
     Kaine
     King
     Kirk
     Klobuchar
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Lee
     Levin
     Manchin
     Markey
     McCain
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Paul
     Portman
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Rubio
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Scott
     Sessions
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Thune
     Toomey
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Vitter
     Walsh
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden
  The nomination was confirmed.


                       Vote on Harpool Nomination

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there is now 2 
minutes of debate equally divided prior to a vote on the Harpool 
nomination.
  The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. I yield back all time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, all time is yielded back.
  The question is, Will the Senate advise and consent to the nomination 
of M. Douglas Harpool, of Missouri, to be United States District Judge 
for the Western District of Missouri?
  Mr. WICKER. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. 
Menendez) is necessarily absent.
  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Tennessee (Mr. Corker).
  Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. 
Corker) would have voted ``yea.''
  The result was announced--yeas 93, nays 5, as follows:

                       [Rollcall Vote No. 85 Ex.]

                                YEAS--93

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Baldwin
     Barrasso
     Begich
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Blunt
     Booker
     Boozman
     Boxer
     Brown
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Chambliss
     Coats
     Cochran
     Collins

[[Page 4919]]


     Coons
     Cornyn
     Cruz
     Donnelly
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Feinstein
     Fischer
     Flake
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Heller
     Hirono
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson (WI)
     Kaine
     King
     Kirk
     Klobuchar
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Lee
     Levin
     Manchin
     Markey
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Paul
     Portman
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Rubio
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Scott
     Sessions
     Shaheen
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Thune
     Toomey
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Vitter
     Walsh
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden

                                NAYS--5

     Coburn
     Crapo
     McCain
     Risch
     Shelby

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Corker
     Menendez
       
  The nomination was confirmed.


                       Vote On McHugh Nomination

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there is now 2 
minutes of debate equally divided prior to a vote on the McHugh 
nomination.
  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. I yield back time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, all time is yielded back.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The question is, Will the Senate advise and consent to the nomination 
of Gerald Austin McHugh, Jr., of Pennsylvania, to be United States 
District Judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania?
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  The result was announced--yeas 59, nays 41, as follows:

                       [Rollcall Vote No. 86 Ex.]

                                YEAS--59

     Baldwin
     Begich
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Boxer
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Coats
     Collins
     Coons
     Donnelly
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Hirono
     Johnson (SD)
     Kaine
     King
     Klobuchar
     Leahy
     Levin
     Manchin
     Markey
     McCain
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Toomey
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Walsh
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--41

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Enzi
     Fischer
     Flake
     Graham
     Grassley
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Johnson (WI)
     Kirk
     Landrieu
     Lee
     McConnell
     Moran
     Paul
     Portman
     Pryor
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rubio
     Scott
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Thune
     Vitter
     Wicker
  The nomination was confirmed.


                        Vote on Smith Nomination

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Baldwin). Under the previous order, there 
is now 2 minutes of debate equally divided prior to a vote on the Smith 
nomination. Who yields time?
  Mr. CORKER. Madam President, I yield back all time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is yielded back.
  The question is, Will the Senate advise and consent to the nomination 
of Edward G. Smith, of Pennsylvania, to be U.S. District Judge for the 
Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
  Mr. CORKER. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  The result was announced--yeas 69, nays 31, as follows:

                       [Rollcall Vote No. 87 Ex.]

                                YEAS--69

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Bennet
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Brown
     Burr
     Carper
     Casey
     Chambliss
     Coats
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Collins
     Coons
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Fischer
     Flake
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Heitkamp
     Heller
     Hirono
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson (WI)
     Kaine
     King
     Kirk
     Klobuchar
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Lee
     Levin
     Manchin
     McCain
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Nelson
     Paul
     Portman
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rubio
     Scott
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Thune
     Toomey
     Vitter
     Warner
     Whitehouse
     Wicker

                                NAYS--31

     Baldwin
     Begich
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Boxer
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Donnelly
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Heinrich
     Markey
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Walsh
     Warren
     Wyden
  The nomination was confirmed.

                          ____________________