[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 160 (2014), Part 4]
[Senate]
[Pages 5011-5018]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




         PROVIDING FOR THE COSTS OF LOAN GUARANTEES FOR UKRAINE

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senate will proceed to the consideration of H.R. 4152, which the clerk 
will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 4152) to provide for the costs of loan 
     guarantees for Ukraine.

  Pending:

       Reid (for Menendez/Corker) amendment No. 2867, to provide a 
     complete substitute.

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the time 
until 12 noon will be equally divided and controlled between the two 
leaders or their assigned designees.
  The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time 
under quorum calls be equally divided between the majority and the 
minority.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

[[Page 5012]]




                         Unemployment Insurance

  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise to urge my colleagues to support the 
bipartisan agreement I have reached with five of our colleagues from 
across the aisle Senators Heller, Collins, Portman, Murkowski, and Kirk 
to provide emergency unemployment insurance to 2.7 million Americans. 
This commonsense, bipartisan agreement is one of the many things the 
Senate should do to help create jobs and strengthen our Nation's 
economy so it works for every American, so everyone has a fair shot. So 
I hope my colleagues will join with us and pass this bill quickly so it 
can be taken up for a vote in the House.
  The individual and economic consequences of a lapse of these 
unemployment insurance funds are very clear. I have described many 
times, and my colleagues have come to the floor many times, and 
indicated the individual cases where people who have worked for years 
found themselves without a job, through no fault of their own, 
desperately needing some modest assistance--and these benefits are 
about $300 to $350 a week--just to keep going, to keep looking for 
work, to keep trying to be part of the workforce, which they 
desperately want to do. We have shared these stories. These individual 
hardships ripple across our entire economy.
  Indeed, the Congressional Budget Office and other economists looking 
at this, not from the individual perspective but from the overall 
economy, find this is one of the most effective ways to keep the 
economy moving forward. The CBO has indeed estimated our failure so far 
to extend benefits through 2014 would cost the economy 200,000 jobs. 
That is simply as a result of these payments to individuals going right 
back into the economy. It stimulates other workers who have work and 
creates demand.
  So restoring economic assistance for Americans who have lost their 
jobs and who are trying to find new ones is not only the right thing to 
do, but it is also the smart thing to do for our economy. That is why I 
have been pressing for an extension of these benefits over a longer 
period of time. But, we have reached a principled compromise--and I 
have to underscore the word ``compromise''--to do it over a 5-month 
period, with some retroactive and some, if we move quickly enough, 
prospective. But it is frustrating to realize that some in Congress 
don't want to do this. I think that is unfortunate not only because of 
the effect it has on individual constituents but also because it is 
going to adversely affect our economy. It is not going to add jobs. In 
fact, as CBO suggests, it could indeed take away jobs.
  Let me take a few moments to address some of the arguments being 
raised, particularly in the House of Representatives, as to why they 
can't support this. Basically, it comes from the notion that: Well, 
this is too hard to implement. Even if you concede these benefits are 
absolutely important, they would provide economic stimulus, we just 
can't implement them.
  These concerns were highlighted by a letter from the National 
Association of State Workforce Agencies. But all of these concerns are 
addressable. Indeed, the Secretary of Labor, Tom Perez, has addressed 
these concerns point by point in a recent letter, and he has, 
importantly, committed to work collaboratively with the States--as has 
been the case in all of the 12 extensions or expansions of this program 
since the great recession--to do this.
  We have repeatedly extended this program. There have been periods of 
time where there has been a gap between extensions, and they have had 
to look backwards, these State administrators. Secretary Perez is 
committed to do all he can and have all the efforts of the Department 
so this can be implemented successfully, and I am confident it can and 
he is confident it can.
  But there were four basic assertions that were made that I want to 
address.
  First, NASWA indicated that, well, States are struggling with 
antiquated computer systems that make it hard to implement changes 
quickly. Well, the States have received over the past 5 years $345 
million to modernize their unemployment insurance systems. That is 
Federal money going to States so they can fix their computer systems. 
So this is not exactly an area we have neglected in terms of helping 
them modernize their computer systems. Complex program changes we have 
made in the past--I was part of the effort in 2012 to extend 
unemployment compensation benefits--and we made some significant 
changes. We reduced the total number of weeks from 99 to 73.
  So we are not talking today about some complicated new system; we are 
simply extending the existing system. We are not changing the tiers. We 
are not changing any of the calculations they have to make. Indeed, 
that is one of the reasons why I have been arguing consistently for a 
straight extension--not altering the number of weeks you qualify for 
tier 1 or tier 2 or tier 3, but simply taking the system that was in 
place on December 28, and fund it retroactively to benefit those who 
have lost their benefits unexpectedly, and then prospectively as far 
forward as we could go.
  Let me also point out that I was making this request before December 
28. I would have hoped we could have moved in December or at least 
early in January to go ahead and extend this program so there would be 
absolutely no disruption whatsoever to the States or for the 
recipients. But it has been a difficult and long process to get here. 
Frankly, without the collaboration and efforts of many of my 
colleagues, and particularly, as I have indicated, my Republican 
colleagues--Senators Heller, Collins, Portman, Murkowski, and Kirk--and 
my Democratic colleagues, including Senator Booker, who is here, we 
would not be at this point. So I am glad we are here. But we would not 
have any of these implementation problems had we acted in December.
  Second, there was a concern that one provision relating to Federal 
funding for the administration of the program could be read in an 
overly broad fashion so that the State agencies would be so confused 
and it would be so complicated they could not function. So out of an 
abundance of caution, we have worked to address this. We have revised 
the legislation we had proposed to clarify the particular provision so 
it could not be misconstrued.
  In so doing, we make it crystal clear that the prohibition on the use 
of Federal funding is limited solely to eligibility determinations 
relating to ensuring millionaires do not receive emergency unemployment 
insurance benefits.
  Third--and this is a related issue to the whole millionaire issue--
there was some concern it would be difficult to administer this 
prohibition. Well, in our legislation, we have a pretty straightforward 
requirement that individuals certify their income in the preceding year 
was not more than $1 million. This is a simple certification that I 
think could be accomplished rather efficiently and quickly by the 
agencies. And the Secretary of Labor has committed to issuing guidance 
to help States with implementation, as the Department does when any new 
statutory provision is enacted.
  As I said before, the Secretary has assured all of the States that he 
is going to work to expeditiously and efficiently give them the tools 
to implement this program as soon as the Congress passes it and the 
President signs it.
  Finally, there was a concern about the retroactivity. That challenge, 
as I said before, is why I and others pressed so hard to get this done 
prior to December 28 of last year. But even so, States were able to 
successfully work with the Department of Labor during previous lapses 
to provide this aid to unemployed workers. We have had these situations 
before where there has been a disruption of benefits, and then we have 
renewed the program several weeks later. And the Department of Labor is 
confident these challenges can be overcome.
  Frankly, all of these administrative challenges for the States seem 
to me to pale in comparison to the challenges being faced by our 
constituents, who are in a job market where in some places there are 
three applicants for

[[Page 5013]]

every job, in a job market where, if you have worked for 25 years, you 
are about 50 years old and you are competing with 25- and 30-year-olds 
who have gotten recent education. Maybe they have more high-tech skills 
and computer skills than you have in a market that is rapidly becoming 
more technologically oriented in terms of labor demand.
  They are facing severe challenges. These resources are not lavish. 
The idea that someone would not work because they are getting $300 a 
week is difficult, I think, to imagine for many people, particularly 
the people who have records of work for 10, 20, and 30 years. And what 
they are doing with this money is putting it right back in our economy. 
Many are trying to hold on to their homes, and we have heard stories 
about that. They are trying to put gas in the car. People have 
contacted me indicating that they use it to keep their phones working 
because without a phone they cannot get the callback for the job 
interview to go and find a job.
  So this is something that I think has to be considered and, in my 
book, weighs much more heavily than administrative issues, which the 
Secretary of Labor assures us will be dealt with, can be dealt with, 
and he will work with the States to make sure it is done effectively.
  Let me conclude by thanking our Republican colleagues who have joined 
with us. They have been extraordinarily thoughtful and collaborative. 
They have really contributed in an atmosphere of exchanging ideas of 
thoughtful consideration. It is a model, I think, of how this Senate 
should work more frequently, and I thank them and commend them. They 
have done a great service for their constituents and for the economy 
and the country. Indeed, ultimately, many Americans will benefit 
through their great contribution.
  So I will hope, as we come up to these procedural votes, that we can 
move forward, and then we could move this expeditiously. Then we would 
hope the House would respond appropriately, and we can give some hope 
and give some confidence to people who are struggling to find jobs in 
this very difficult time.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. BOOKER. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Booker). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise in support of the pending 
legislation before the body. I urge the vote of all of my colleagues. 
This legislation is a bipartisan effort led by Senators Menendez and 
Corker, the chairman and ranking member of the Foreign Relations 
Committee. It is very important.
  Today the people of Ukraine will be watching the Senate and later the 
House as to whether we are going to give them initially the support 
they need after their country has been dismembered by Vladimir Putin in 
a blatant act of aggression that cannot go unresponded to.
  A long time ago, 15 March 1938, Adolph Hitler made a speech to the 
Viennese people from a balcony of the Hofburg Palace, in the background 
of the heroic statue of Archduke Karl. The crowd in the square 
Heldenplatz numbered several hundred thousand. Hitler's words on that 
day about the obligation he had to take care of the German-speaking 
people and the German population in Austria is eerily reminiscent when 
we look at the speech Vladimir Putin made as he announced the 
absorption of Crimea into Russia.
  I am not predicting we will have a World War III. I am predicting 
that unless we act and act vigorously--and a lot more than this 
legislation today--Vladimir Putin will be dramatically encouraged to 
take further aggressive actions, whether it be in Eastern Ukraine, 
whether it be Moldova, whether it be the Baltic countries, where he has 
already put significant pressures. Or will we send a message to 
Vladimir Putin that the cost of further aggression will not be matched 
with the benefit?
  Have no doubt about the ambitions of Vladimir Putin; that is, to 
restore the Russian Empire. All of the illusions we had about him 
should have finally been dispelled. He must be treated for what he is, 
a KGB colonel who repeatedly stated the worst thing that happened in 
the 20th century was the dismemberment of the then-Soviet Union.
  What Vladimir Putin understands is strength. In the words of Ronald 
Reagan, we can achieve ``peace through strength.'' This legislation is 
a good start. It is important we get it done as quickly as possible, 
but we have to understand he will never be our partner. He will always 
insist on being our adversary, and he will continue, if unchecked, to 
continue that vision of his expansion of the old Russian Empire.
  I predicted that Vladimir Putin would go into Ukraine because he 
could not give up the Sevastopol naval base and access to the 
Mediterranean. I do not know exactly what Vladimir Putin will do in 
Eastern Ukraine as we speak, but there has been a buildup of Russian 
forces on the border of Ukraine and Russia.
  This should disturb all of us. All of us should be disturbed. All of 
us should recognize that the kind of signal he gets in response to his 
latest aggression will, in many ways, dictate his future behavior in 
the coming days and weeks. There are many steps we need to take. We 
have to support Ukraine. We have to give them the economic assistance 
they need. We have to ensure that the March elections in Ukraine occur 
on time, freely, and fairly.
  We have to meet Ukraine's request for immediate military assistance. 
Military assistance is their first priority. What did this 
administration do in response to their plea for the ability to defend 
themselves? Send them MREs. That is the same thing we did in Syria. We 
now have an MRE doctrine; that when a country is under threat, such as 
Ukraine and other countries are, we send them MREs.
  We need to send them defensive weapons, which we should have done 
with Georgia back in the Bush administration when Vladimir Putin 
annexed South Ossetia and Abkhazia. His troops are there today.
  We have to give them the military assistance, short term, and a long-
term military assistance program of training and equipping which, by 
the way, we do with about 50 other countries in the world. It is not a 
breakthrough.
  When my friends and colleagues in the administration say it would be 
provocative, what does it take to be further--the next time we provoke 
Vladimir Putin, is it going to be Alaska? We have to support countries 
such as Moldova and Georgia. Moldova is not a member of NATO. 
Transnistria is occupied by 1,500 Russian troops as we speak.
  We can see the same scenario taking place in Moldova as we have seen 
take place in Crimea. The Baltic countries are under pressure, and 
continuing and increasing pressure from Russia, particularly where the 
``Russian-speaking'' population is, especially in Latvia and Estonia. 
We have to expand sanctions under the Magnitsky Act, increase sanctions 
against Putin's sources of power, especially for corruption, target 
corrupt people, push for an arms embargo against Russia, prevent 
defense technology transfers, use the upcoming NATO summit to enlarge 
the alliance, move the process for Georgia into a membership action 
plan, expand NATO cooperation with Ukraine, conduct significant 
contingency plans within NATO to deter aggression, defend alliance 
members, especially along the eastern flank, strategically shift NATO 
military assets eastward to support deterrence. All of these things and 
more need to be done.
  I wish to emphasize that does not mean American boots on the ground. 
I repeat. It does not mean American boots on the ground. So the 
response by some of my colleagues and those in the commentary community 
is that the American people do not want us to do it. Sixty-three 
percent of the American people say leave it alone. Sixty-

[[Page 5014]]

one percent say do not get involved in any way.
  I understand that. There have been previous times in history where 
the American people did not want to be involved. Yet leaders stepped 
forward. Leaders explained to the American people why the United States 
has to be involved. I notice that the President's approval rating on 
the handling of foreign policy is sinking. I also understand the 
contradiction that over 60 percent of the American people do not want 
the United States engaged. That is because the American people have not 
been told what is at stake.
  Neville Chamberlain, in 1938, when talking about Czechoslovakia, 
said: We are not going to send our young men to a country that they do 
not speak our language and we do not know. Again, I am not predicting 
World War III, but I am predicting that Vladimir Putin will go as far 
as he thinks he can in order to realize his ambition, which he has 
stated on numerous occasions, to restore the Russian Empire.
  What does Vladimir Putin understand? Strong alliances, reprisals, 
consequences for misbehavior. That is what he would understand. This 
legislation before us, which I hope is passed 100 to 0, will indicate 
the first steps we are taking in response. I wish the President of the 
United States had not stated so clearly that we have now acquiesced to 
the absorption of Crimea into Ukraine.
  My message to the people of Ukraine is that in the Cold War it took a 
long time. But we will never give up. We will never give up in our 
efforts to see that their country is fully restored, as guaranteed by a 
solemn agreement when Ukraine gave up their nuclear weapons inventory. 
At the time they were the world's third largest nuclear power.
  In return for giving that up, their security and territory integrity, 
including Crimea, was maintained. There are other countries that may 
have nuclear weapons. What lesson do they take from this? Would 
Vladimir Putin have invaded Crimea if Ukraine still had nuclear 
weapons? That is an interesting question. So the point is that we have 
seen a blatant act of aggression.
  Sometimes I am astounded at the media reporting. An overwhelming 
majority, 96 percent, voted for Crimea to be part of Russia. My 
friends, 12 percent of the population of Ukraine are Tatars who were 
deported by Joseph Stalin; half of them killed, and they were allowed 
to come back. I can guarantee you there is no one in that 12 percent of 
the population who would ever vote to be part of Russia. It was a phony 
election. There were no observers. I know of a poll taken a few months 
ago that showed 53 percent of the people in Crimea wanted to be part of 
the Ukraine. But the point is, here today, I hope we are beginning a 
path to, one, recognizing Vladimir Putin for what he is and what his 
ambitions are; two, dedicating ourselves to supporting these countries, 
these fledgling democracies--it has not been that long since the end of 
the Cold War--to help them on the path as they move forward to 
democracy, particularly Ukraine, so we can help them rid that country 
of corruption, rid it of its dependency, long term, on energy supplies 
from Russia.
  We can, over a relatively short period of time, months if not years--
but probably months--arrange it so we can supply Ukraine and other 
European countries with energy to have them become independent of 
Russia.
  Finally, I have no illusions about what the Europeans are going to 
do. Very little, if anything. I have very little confidence in what 
this administration is going to do. So it is up to the Congress. It is 
up to us to act and to act decisively and send a clear message. By 
passing this bill today, hopefully with the House getting it done as 
quickly as possible, we send a message to the people of Ukraine: We 
stand with you. We will help you. We will do everything we can to see, 
over time, the restoration of your nation, as we have in times of old. 
We stand with you and we stand for freedom.
  Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota. Mr. President, today the Senate will 
finally adopt, after some unfortunate delays, urgent bipartisan aid and 
sanctions legislation on Ukraine developed with the cooperation of a 
number of committees here in the Senate, and constructed by Foreign 
Relations Committee Chairman Menendez and his ranking member, Senator 
Corker. Both are also distinguished senior members of the Banking 
Committee, which I chair, and which has jurisdiction over the economic 
sanctions provided for in the bill. I am pleased to have been able to 
work closely with them to ensure this sound result, including 
provisions to impose targeted asset freeze sanctions against 
individuals and businesses found by the President to have been 
responsible for threats to the territorial integrity of Ukraine, and 
for certain acts of corruption in Russia.
  Once we pass this bill, I hope the House will act quickly to approve 
it and send it to the President for his signature. With this 
legislation, Congress is providing the President with flexible new 
tools to make clear to President Putin and his allies that Russia's 
recent moves against Ukraine are unacceptable, and that there will be 
an increasingly painful economic and political price to pay for these 
actions.
  Economic sanctions are an important tool of American diplomacy. In 
Iran, years of tough, comprehensive economic sanctions have helped 
finally to bring Iran's leaders to the nuclear negotiating table. 
Sanctions have been wielded effectively against Sudan, North Korea, 
Yemen, former military and security officials in Burma, warlords in the 
Congo, and elsewhere. If developed in close consultation with 
administration officials at Treasury and the State Department who are 
responsible for implementing them, appropriately targeted, and applied 
multilaterally, sanctions can be a potent tool in the President's 
foreign policy arsenal. In the case of Ukraine, they will serve both to 
punish former Ukrainian officials and others responsible for the 
violence there, and to punish Russian officials for irresponsible 
behavior. If wielded effectively, as part of a larger diplomatic and 
political strategy, they can also help to deter future aggressive 
actions by Russia against Ukraine.
  That is why I support this legislation to provide critical economic 
and security assistance to Ukraine, and to provide new sanctions 
authority to the President. I support it even though I am deeply 
disappointed that opposition from some of my Republican colleagues here 
and in the House forced the removal of important International Monetary 
Fund, IMF, reforms that had been included in earlier versions of the 
bill. Those reforms would have enabled the IMF to better implement the 
economic aid and reform package it has developed with the new Ukrainian 
Government's leadership in recent weeks, which it announced yesterday. 
We must get those reforms enacted as soon as possible, by other means.
  This measure, along with the steps already taken by the President, 
the multilateral aid and sanctions measures adopted by our allies, and 
the economic stabilization package offered by the IMF should help to 
reduce tensions as this situation moves forward. I look forward to 
working with my colleagues not only to ensure Ukraine's stability but 
also the security of all our allies in Europe and beyond.
  Again, I thank my colleagues Chairman Menendez and Ranking Member 
Corker for working so hard to perfect this legislation and move it 
quickly.
  I urge my colleagues to support it and deliver on the promises this 
body and this country have made to support the people of Ukraine.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, the Russian invasion and annexation of 
Crimea is an affront to decent standards of international conduct. It 
is a violation of international law and of Russia's explicit commitment 
under the 1994 Bucharest Memorandum to respect Ukraine's territorial 
integrity. It has undermined the international order that has been put 
in place over the last 60 years to promote peace and stability.
  President Putin and his advisers in Russia have resorted to these 
illegitimate actions in order to seize 10,000 square miles of Ukrainian 
territory. Perhaps the Kremlin believes its robbery has paid off. If 
so, Putin and his

[[Page 5015]]

advisers have miscalculated. And we will aid in the task of making 
clear the costs of Russia's actions today with passage of this 
legislation.
  This bill sends a message to the people of Ukraine and all those in 
Europe concerned about Russia's aggressive provocations. We provide 
important loan guarantees that will help stabilize a Ukrainian economy 
that was struggling even before Russia's aggression. We authorize 
funding to help the Ukrainian government provide the fundamental 
necessities of democratic governance, including free and fair 
elections, strong civic institutions and protections against 
corruption. It will aid the Ukrainian government in recovering assets 
stolen by its disgraced former prime minister and other kleptocratic 
public officials. It will support Ukraine's efforts to free itself from 
captivity to Russian energy supplies. And it provides for increased 
security cooperation with Ukraine and with other nations in Central and 
Eastern Europe, including military assistance, training, and advice.
  Passage of this bill would also send a strong message to Russia. It 
mandates sanctions and asset freezes that target Russian and Ukrainian 
individuals responsible for the human rights abuses against peaceful 
protesters in Kiev under the previous Ukrainian government. It also 
targets those Russians or Ukrainians whose actions have undermined 
Ukraine's territorial integrity.
  By demonstrating our support for Ukraine and the other democratic 
nations of Central and Eastern Europe, and by taking action against the 
individuals who have participated in Russia's aggression against 
Ukraine, Congress can provide a key element in the broad, sustained, 
and energetic diplomatic approach this situation requires. The United 
States must act together with our European allies and other nations 
around the world who have an interest in maintaining respect for 
established borders and international law. Key to exacting a high price 
for Russia's actions is isolating Russia in the international 
community.
  While this legislation is important to accomplishing our goals, it 
must be part of a sustained and, if necessary, intensifying effort in 
Congress, by the administration, and internationally. President Obama 
has wisely refrained from responding to Russian provocation with 
actions that would further destabilize matters or work against 
Ukraine's interests or our own. One important step in de-escalating the 
tension in Ukraine is the dispatch of international observers to 
eastern Ukraine to monitor the ground truth and hopefully discourage 
further provocations. But, along with NATO, we have made clear that 
Russia's actions will not go without response. President Obama has 
stated that Russia will face an escalating diplomatic and economic 
response if it does not reverse its course. Russia should be under no 
illusion that the U.S. response to its actions ends today with the 
passage of this legislation. We must remain prepared to take additional 
steps to ratchet up the pressure on Russia and to help stabilize 
Eastern Europe.
  Russia also should have no doubt that the United States and our NATO 
allies take seriously our responsibilities under article 5 of the NATO 
treaty. Under article 5, an armed attack against any NATO ally is 
considered an attack against all members, and will draw any actions 
deemed necessary to assist the ally under attack, which may include the 
use of military force. Actions such as redeployment of military assets, 
adding aircraft to the NATO Baltic Air Policing Mission and 
surveillance flights over Poland and Romania are evidence that we take 
those article 5 responsibilities seriously. And, as our NATO commander 
in Europe, General Breedlove, has said, if Russia continues such 
provocative actions, ``we need to think about our allies, the 
positioning of our forces in the alliance and the readiness of those 
forces in the alliance, such that we can be there to defend against 
it.''
  And as this legislation makes clear, we will continue to enhance our 
security cooperation with Ukraine and other Eastern European nations. 
One important step will be for our uniformed military professionals to 
expand their relationships with counterparts in Ukraine and other 
Eastern European nations to help build the kind of capable, 
professional forces that can improve their security.
  Some may wonder what these events in a distant land involving old 
territorial disputes have to do with us as a nation. But Russia's 
blatant flouting of its commitments, of the territorial integrity of 
its European neighbors, and its trampling on the international order is 
damaging to our security and to the values that define us.
  By passing this legislation, supporting U.S. and international 
actions to impose consequences on Russia and reassure the nations of 
Eastern Europe, and standing ready to take additional actions if 
required, we protect our interests and the interests of those who value 
peace and stability.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. CORKER. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CORKER. I rise today to speak about the bill we are going to vote 
on at 12:15 p.m. relative to Ukraine.
  First, I wish to say it speaks to the best of the Senate, where by 
working together we are going to end with a bill that sends a very 
strong signal to Russia but also to Ukraine in support and to the 
world. I believe it will be done in an overwhelming fashion in the 
Senate today and hopefully later today or tomorrow in the House. It is 
exactly what we should be doing at this time.
  First, I thank Senator Menendez for the way he marshalled this 
through the committee. I was pleased to work with him as ranking 
member.
  I know our original piece of legislation had in it the IMF reforms 
that I strongly support. It was evident that the IMF reforms were not 
going to make it through the House and actually become law.
  We all felt it was incredibly important that all of us speak in a 
united voice to push back on Russia's illegal actions in Crimea and 
potentially in Ukraine but also to do what we really need to do to 
support our friends in Ukraine and in the region. This bill does that. 
It passed out of committee with strong bipartisan support. My sense is 
today it will pass out of the Senate with incredibly strong bipartisan 
support. It will become law soon and will tremendously reinforce the 
way our Nation feels about what Russia is doing in such an illegal 
fashion--that was outmoded centuries ago--and support the people of 
Ukraine.
  All of us know this bill provides economic support for Ukraine. We 
all know they are entering into an agreement with the IMF. The IMF is 
going to be providing some loans to help move them through the problems 
they have had. They have tremendous corruption in their country. They 
use far too much energy. They have massive deficits. Through working 
with the IMF and signing on to agreements, ultimately they will be 
forced as a nation to move ahead and to orient themselves toward 
stronger countries or toward the West and operate in a more 
democratically free manner and certainly in a way that would allow them 
to economically sustain themselves over time.
  In this bill we also provide additional loan guarantee support, which 
they will need. They are facing extreme difficulties. I believe people 
know that recently they have agreed to charge their citizens twice as 
much for natural gas usage there to try to get their budgets back in 
balance. But it is very important that we send this signal and this 
strength of economic health through this $1 billion loan guarantee, 
which is a part of this bill today.
  Another important part is sending a strong signal to Putin and to 
Russia. If they feel they have no price to pay for the activities they 
have already undertaken, they will continue to do more.

[[Page 5016]]

  What this bill allows us to do is show strong support for what the 
administration has already done but, in addition to that, to make these 
sanctions mandatory and actually add additional elements should Russia 
continue to do the things they are doing in such a terrible way.
  I do want to say relative to the sanctions--I appreciate the 
Executive order the President signed the other day that gave them the 
ability to put sectoral sanctions in place. The energy sector, the 
banking sector, and other sectors of the economy can now be targeted 
with sanctions.
  I understand the balance that has to be put in place with sanctions 
where if we throw in everything but the kitchen sink on the front end, 
then Russia really has nothing to lose by going on into Ukraine. So we 
want to calibrate those in a way that deters their behavior but also 
gives them the ability to de-escalate.
  I will say that I do think the President's comments over the past 
several days in Europe have seemed cautious, have seemed timid. What I 
hope the administration will do very soon is turn up the volume 
dramatically and actually send some strong sanctions into some of these 
sectors--into the energy and banking sectors. We don't have to do all 
of the companies in those areas, but if we were to do that especially 
with three or four additional banks in Russia, it would send a strong 
signal to their economy, continue to weaken their economy and to show 
Putin there is a heavy price to pay for the activities he is engaged in 
and may engage in further relative to Ukraine itself.
  I encourage the administration to step ahead stronger. The European 
Union follows our lead, let's face it. If we act in a timid, cautious 
way, they are going to do the same. I think everybody in this body 
knows we do about $40 billion worth of trade annually with Russia, but 
the European Union community does $450 billion worth of trade. 
Generally, we are trying to work in unison, but if we as a nation act 
in a timid way, it encourages them as multiple countries to do the 
same.
  Again, I do hope we will turn up the volume, and I do hope we will go 
ahead and sanction some additional entities in Russia. There are many 
state-owned enterprises there. We all know that. That is one problem 
with the Russian economy right now. I think we all know they are really 
an autocratic petrostate. We know that they are not doing well, that 
their budget is based on the fact that oil sells at $110 per barrel, 
and that really that is mostly their economy.
  Again, what we need to do as a nation--we are supporting the 
administration in this bill. We are supporting Ukraine with this bill. 
We are also authorizing some assistance to some of our allies in the 
region. We are also authorizing some democracy assistance. The bill has 
no fiscal areas that are not paid for. This is a great piece of 
legislation.
  I do hope that over time Senator Reid will allow us to revisit the 
issue because, let's face it, we created this piece of legislation 
about 2 weeks ago. The events in Ukraine continue to unfold. So I hope 
we will come back again as changes occur. I know there are many people 
in this body who are actually trying to put additional pieces of 
legislation into place not only to sanction Russia even more fully, not 
only to assist Ukraine in other than economic ways, but also to use 
some of the strategic assets we have as a nation not only to benefit 
our economy but also to help our allies in the region so that they are 
not really subject to the economic extortion we have seen Russia try to 
carry out with our friends and also try to carry out with Ukraine, 
which this bill is all about.
  I close by thanking Senator Menendez.
  I thank Senator Reid for filing cloture on a bill that came out of 
the committee immediately so we would be in a place today to deal with 
this.
  I thank Senator McConnell, who was able to work with Senator Reid and 
the House to deal with this legislatively in a very creative way, using 
a vehicle that came from the House and sending something back to the 
House so that this can become law very quickly.
  I thank the House for cooperating with us on this bill because to 
have a piece of legislation go out of the Senate today and likely 
become law very soon is something that takes a lot of coordination. I 
thank the leadership in the House for helping us make this happen.
  I again thank the administration for their focus on this issue. I 
hope this bill will show strong support for some of the efforts that 
have already taken place, and I do hope the administration will not 
undercalculate. I think that right now Putin doesn't yet know what he 
is going to do relative to South and Eastern Ukraine. I don't think he 
knows, and I think he is watching us and he is calibrating what his 
steps are going to be based on the pain his own country will receive if 
they take the wrong steps. It is very important that the President send 
additional sanctions into Russia, send additional signals, and that we 
send shock waves into their economy now--not everything we have to 
throw at them but some of it--so they know that if they take additional 
steps, real pain is on the way.
  This bill supports those efforts of the administration, it supports 
Ukraine, it pushes back on Russia, and it shows support for allies in 
the region. It is a great piece of legislation. It is the first step. 
More should come.
  I am pleased we are at this point today. I thank all those involved, 
and I look forward to a very strong vote in the Senate at 12:15 p.m.
  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. MENENDEZ. 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. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I come to the floor as we are at a 
moment of truth and a moment of incredible importance, and I wish to 
start off by acknowledging the distinguished Republican ranking member 
on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Corker, for the 
spirit in which we have worked together to marshal forces to bring 
critical legislation to the floor at a critical time in history. This 
is the type of relationship we have had for the last 15 months, during 
which time we have often seen such partisanship, where on every major 
piece of legislation that has passed out of the Senate Foreign 
Relations Committee, it has passed on a strong bipartisan vote, and I 
appreciate his leadership and his working with us.
  Let me reiterate what I have said on the Senate floor. President 
Putin is watching. He is waiting to see what we will do, waiting to see 
if we have the resolve to act, waiting to see if he has a green light 
to take the next step. I believe we need to act now and pass this 
legislation, and I welcome the flexibility the House has shown in its 
resolve to move this quickly upon receipt.
  Although I believe our response to Russia's annexation of Crimea 
should have included IMF reforms to strengthen the U.S. role in the 
international community, that will not be the case, but we still need 
to act on this issue today. So I hope, in short order, we can have the 
IMF reform legislation on the floor and take a responsible vote on an 
important issue.
  But let us be clear where we are at this moment. Let us be clear 
about what happened in Ukraine over the last several years and what is 
happening now as Ukraine simply looks westward. Former Ukrainian 
President Viktor Yanukovych was elected on a platform that advocated 
closer ties to Europe. In fact, his first trip abroad was not to Moscow 
but to Brussels to meet with European Union officials. For 3 years 
Ukraine officials voted in good faith with their European counterparts. 
They believed they did so with their President's support. Ukrainian 
public opinion polls favored the conclusion of an agreement between the 
EU and the Ukraine that would increase trade and cooperation, allowing 
more people,

[[Page 5017]]

goods, services, and ideas to cross the border from the West.
  On November 21, Yanukovych flipped 180 degrees. He announced an end 
to talks with the European Union, and Ukrainians felt bitterly 
betrayed. For 20 years, Ukraine has struggled to economically develop. 
They have struggled to establish representative government. They have 
struggled to achieve a stable way forward, a path of economic security 
and political democracy. The association agreement with the European 
Union had promised a path toward those goals. So people were furious, 
and they took to the streets. They knew from personal experience what 
the world now knows--that Yanukovych and his government and his family 
had stolen tens of billions of dollars from Ukrainian taxpayers, 
jeopardizing the solvency and independence of their country to support 
a lavish lifestyle while the public went without.
  The people who took to the Maidan Square in the freezing cold were 
simply looking westward. They believed the European Union was their 
last best hope to break the cycle of corruption. They knew their future 
was being stolen. So they marched and they took beatings from 
Yanukovych's paramilitary forces, not for a treaty but for the hope of 
a better, more honest and free Ukraine that it promised.
  Putin resorted to outright extortion to keep Ukraine in his sphere of 
influence, essentially offering to buy Ukraine by offering Yanukovych 
$15 billion, and it would have worked but for the uprising of the 
Ukrainian people who realized this was a Faustian bargain and that 
Putin was the devil, not their savior.
  Hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians demonstrated for 3 months to call 
for the President's resignation. On February 22 of this year, President 
Yanukovych fled to Russia and an interim government was installed in 
Ukraine.
  Almost immediately, Russian forces took control of the Crimean 
Peninsula, a clear violation of international law and Russia's own 
commitments under the Budapest agreement and the Helsinki Final Act. 
This demands a swift and coordinated and powerful response from the 
international community and from this Congress. It demands a message to 
Putin of our resolve and to the Ukrainian people of our support.
  That message came, in part, on March 13, when the Senate Foreign 
Relations Committee passed, by a bipartisan vote of 14 to 3, the 
Support for the Sovereignty, Integrity, Democracy, and Economic 
Stability of Ukraine Act of 2014.
  In addition to providing $1 billion in loan guarantees for Ukraine to 
provide crucial support to stabilize Ukraine's economy, this 
legislation authorizes assistance for democracy, governance, and civil 
society programs as well as for enhanced security cooperation. It 
provides support to the Ukrainian Government to help recover access 
linked to corruption by former President Yanukovych, his family, and 
other government officials.
  It imposes sanctions against those who are responsible for violent 
human rights abuses against antigovernment protesters as well as those 
responsible for undermining the peace, security, stability, sovereignty 
or territorial integrity of the Ukraine. It imposes asset freezes and 
visa revocations on Russian officials and their associates who are 
complicit in or responsible for significant corruption in Ukraine and 
authorizes sanctions against any Russian official engaged in corruption 
in the Ukraine or in Russia. Putin's cronies should recognize that 
Putin may not be the right horse to be betting on any longer. Finally, 
it sends a powerful message to Russia that there are consequences for 
using force to annex sovereign territory against the established norms 
of the international community.
  I will take one other moment to say that I have read some editorials 
suggesting that Ukraine is not that important to us; that it is more 
important to Europe than it is to us, so what could be our interest. 
Let me offer a few observations of what the interest of the United 
States is.
  For some time we have been working to see Ukraine move to a 
democratic, stable government, looking westward, and in doing so 
strengthening a big part of Eastern Europe at the end of the day in a 
way that strengthens the security of that region and the fiscal 
opportunities of that region.
  We look at the Ukraine and we say to ourselves, well, they are not a 
NATO member. But other NATO allies--some of which I met with when I was 
in Brussels this past week--who are NATO members are watching and 
asking: What will Europe and the United States do in the face of 
Russian aggression? What is our ultimate security going to depend on? 
We are a NATO member. We are, under article 5 of NATO's treaty, 
ultimately supposed to be protected because we are committed to the 
protection of all our other neighbors under NATO. Some of those 
countries actually meet the full responsibility they have under NATO to 
pay their quota for the collective defense.
  So Ukraine is not a NATO member, but they are looking at what the 
West's resolve is in the face of this aggression and the possibility of 
Russian forces moving further west, asking: Is NATO going to stand up 
for me? That agreement is one of the fundamental institutions that has 
created security on the European Continent and for which America 
twice--twice--sent its sons and daughters abroad to ultimately 
guarantee that security. We need to ensure that NATO continues to be a 
vibrant entity for the collective security of the United States and of 
Europe. This is another reason we are interested.
  Thirdly, I would just simply say, as I have said on the Senate floor 
before, the world is watching. China is watching, and they are 
wondering what America and the West will do as they look at territories 
they dispute with our allies--Japan and South Korea in the South China 
Sea. They say: The West let Putin get away with this. Why should we not 
take those territories? There will be no consequence. Or as we are 
negotiating with Iran across the table to stop their nuclear weapons 
program, the Iranians look and ask: How much will the West punish 
Russia for this aggression, because if there isn't much consequence, 
then why should I not try to get the maximum of this deal or not accept 
the deal at all. Or North Korea, which wants to advance even further 
its missile program, which already possesses nuclear capability, what 
is their calculation?
  I could go around the globe describing at this moment, beyond the 
Ukraine, how the European Union and the United States acts will send a 
very clear message to world actors, and that message hopefully will be 
one of strength, because in doing so we may avert the consequences of 
security challenges around the globe, avert the possibility we will 
have to send our sons and daughters into harm's way if we act 
decisively, if we act with strength.
  That is the opportunity we have. The world is watching, and we must 
rise to the challenge. Passing this legislation goes a long way toward 
that goal, and that is both the opportunity and the responsibility 
before the Senate. I urge my colleagues to speak with one voice.
  I hope we get as near to unanimity as possible, as we have done at 
other times; for example, on the question of sanctions on Iran. This is 
such a moment. If the Senate speaks with one voice, I think President 
Putin will understand the consequences of miscalculating further. I 
hope that is the opportunity of which we will avail ourselves and, in 
doing so, send a message beyond Putin to the rest of the world that we 
have the resolve necessary to rise to such challenges.
  With that, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. JOHANNS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Baldwin). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. JOHANNS. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.

[[Page 5018]]

  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. PRYOR. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. PRYOR. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  All time is expired.
  Under the previous order, the question is on agreeing to amendment 
No. 2867, offered by the Senator from Nevada, Mr. Reid.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  The result was announced--yeas 98, nays 2, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 88 Leg.]

                                YEAS--98

     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
     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
     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

                                NAYS--2

     Heller
     Paul
       
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I am hopeful and confident the next two 
votes will be by voice. We expect to have the next vote around 1:45 
p.m. today.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the engrossment of the 
amendment and third reading of the bill.
  The amendment was ordered to be engrossed and the bill to be read a 
third time.
  The bill was read the third time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill having been read the third time, the 
question is, Shall it pass?
  The bill (H.R. 4152), as amended, was passed.

                          ____________________