copies of the amendment? >> and mr. chairman, could i make one quick response? no? yes? [inaudible] yes. >> be happy to return to you and then go to -- >> just a quick response. ..

>> that take care of their people and respect the human rights of their citizens. ukraine's gone through a difficult past. ukraine is critically important to the united states. it's in a strategic location, it is very important to regional stability. we have a lot of our nato partners in that region. this is a very important country. the corruption that you're referring to was under previous administration. that prime minister, as you know, is now hiding in russia, and ukraine is starting a new government, an inclusive government, a government that will represent all the people of the ukraine. and that is critically important that they have the economic underpinnings so that they can gain the confidence of people. that's why the imf provisions are particularly important, because it allows for the international monetary fund to be able to go in, do the necessary audits, put the country on the right path and allow it to become a viable

economic country. the loan guarantees is part of a package. as senator corker pointed out, it only becomes real under the imf plan, otherwise it doesn't become real. it's also not just the united states, it's europe, it is a coalition partnership that understand the importance of the ukraine. and, mr. chairman, this path, getting a country stable, is. so much more -- is so much more cost effective for the united states and the world community than the alternatives. and this is a relatively small investment to get the type of strategic partner, stable partner in that region which is important for u.s. interests. so i respect deeply senator paul's views on this, but i would urge my colleagues to reject the amendment. >> senator murphy. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. just briefly building on senator cardin's comments, with all of the attention on crimea, what has been lost in this fog is the fact that only about two million

of ukraine's residents live there, and the actions of russia have effectively predestined that the 43 million who live outside ukraine now have the opportunity to make good on the wishes of their people and join with the e.u. but the only way they to that is if we stabilize their economy this the short run. this is a matter of weeks before ukraine faces default, and there is only one alternative to support from the united states and europe, and that is russia. you want to guarantee that ukraine falls back into the russian orbit, then withhold aid from the united states and from europe. i know it's never an easy decision to commit this amount of money, but ultimately, this is a sign of russian weakness as they lose their foothold in ukraine the way that we guarantee that continued path into e.u. is to make sure that we are an option and that they aren't forced back to russian

funding and, ultimately, russian control. >> any other member? >> mr. chairman? >> senator mccain. >> at risk of being redundant, if we allow the ukrainian economy to collapse, all kinds of bad things happen. i have great confidence that the new leaders of ukraine are absolutely committed to erasing the corruption which has plagued that country and brought an otherwise rich country on the brink of economic collapse. i'd say to my friend from kentucky the prime minister of ukraine is here, and i hope that he would have a chance to hear from him how dire this situation is. and it isn't just the $1 billion in loan guarantees. they need a lot more help than that. they're going to get 15 billion from the european. but it's a sign, it's a signal,

it's a clear signal that this congress and this president working together are willing to help them and assist them at a time of the most critical need that they have. and, frankly, if we adopted the pending amendment, it would send exactly the opposite signal, and this whole situation in ukraine is extremely fragile. and i would think the worst thing that we could do right now is say that we aren't going to assist you. and i also would point out, again, imf loans -- which is really the long-term solution to their economic difficulties as senator murphy be pointed out -- they require reforms to be implemented as they give the money in tranches to this government. and i've seen the imf in action before in these kinds of situations, and i'm confident they would insist on the kind of reforms that are being promised now. i thank you, mr. chairman.

>> seeing no other member other than senator paul, i'm going to recognize you for a final comment, then i'll have a comment, and then we'll call for a vote. >> you know, i think when if you were a bank and you were going to give a loan, you would have system analysis of whether or not you can pay back the loan, what your assets are. i don't know that we've had any testimony on whether or not ukraine has the assets to be able to pay back any of this loan. so the real question would be if we're going to be more honest, we could just say if we really want to do this, we're just going to give them a gift maybe and not call it a loan. that would probably be much more honest because i don't know. i mean, be a person owes $150,000 on their house and their house is only worth $100,000 and they can only make payments really on $90,000, is it a good idea to give them more money? i don't know. i think maybe sometimes restructuring your debt and starting over might be a good idea, particularly if a lot of that debt's owed to the russians, you know?

really the money goes to somebody, some very wealthy people will profit off of this. maybe not the people of ukraine, but some banks will get, you know, their payments from this. very wealthy countries, countries we aren't particularly happy with will make money and profit off of this money. they owe $2 billion to russia directly through gas prom. they owe another 20 some odd million to banks. it's unclear how much will fine it way into government hands in russia. but realize when you give money to ukraine, you're giving it to russia. and you may think you're sending one signal, but i think you are in an unintended fashion sending the wrong signal. thank you. >> appreciate the senator's views. let me say the chair opposes the amendment. first of all, let's understand what the amendment does. it strikes all loan guarantees, it strikes the imf reform and, however, while it strikes that, it keeps rescissions that were originally included in the bill to offset the imf reform. so it doesn't seem to me we

should be having decisions if we were to adopt this amendment. the, there is no question more those who want to stand with the ukraine, for those who believe that in doing so is in the national interests and security of the united states, for those who are concerned about security issues that it is the imf that is going to play a critical role not only in the economic recovery and stability of the ukraine, but in doing so playing a national security issue. and it is also very clear that the imf is not going to give ukraine a single dime if, in fact, it does not meet a series of standards and only to gaitions in order to do so. -- obligations in order to do so. so our best guarantee of insuring both what has been stated on both sides of the aisle which is to promote the stability of the ukraine because it is in our national enters and national security -- interests and national security as well

as, obviously, the people of ukraine, and to have the imf be the vehicle to be able to insure that that happens in terms of the key role in developing an international assistance package to stabilize ukraine's economy, help implement critical economic reforms and reassure global financial markets. with regards to the loan guarantees in section four, this part of the bill closely reflects legislation that was passed by the house of representatives 385-23. the one thing that we do here that the house did not do is we actually have offsets to deal with the loan guarantee. so i think that for all of these reasons, i'd urge my colleagues to vote against the paul amendment, and i don't know if the senator is seeking a voice vote? does the senator accept a voice vote? all those in favor will say aye. all those opposed will say, no. no. the nos have it, and the amendment is not agreed to.

is there any other member wishing to offer amendments? senator barrasso. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i'd like to call up barrasso amendment number 1. mr. chairman, i see that "the new york times" thursday, march 6th, headline above the fold, page 1, u.s. hopes boom in natural gas concur putin easing yolk yoke on ukraine. this week on "wall street journal," moscow tightens squeeze on ukraine over energy. my amendment requires the united states department of energy to approve u.s. liquified natural gas exports to ukraine and our nato allies. if we are serious about helping the people of ukraine, we need to periodly expedite the approval process. russia has no problem with using its numbering sector to intimidate and to coerce other countries. the united states has the opportunity to be a strategic energy supplier of lng to our nato allieses and to the ukraine. but making it easier to export lng, this amendment would allow

an increase energy security among u.s. allies, help reduce their need to purchase oil and gas from countries such as russia and iran. as the situation in ukraine unfolds, the it's clear that exports to ukraine and other nato allies further both the public interest and national security for the united states. it would allow us to our newfound abundance of natural gas to help nations diversify their energy imports in order to break russian dominance over them through their control over natural gas supplies. >> mr. chairman? mr. chairman? >> yes, senator corker. >> i want to thank senator barrasso for his efforts in that regard. he's been way before this crisis out there on this issue. i have a second-degree amendment that i believe would bring this amendment more pulley in line with w -- fully in line with wto issues which i am afraid the base amendment bumps up against. and i also know there are some complexities. i know we had a discussion the

other day about lng and how you actually cause it to get to the place you want it to get to. but i'm going to not offer the second-degree amendment because my sense is this amendment is not going to pass, and i want to say to my friend from from wyoming that i'm going to vote for this, and i hope though as we move along if it's offered again on the floor, we might work together to try to overcome some of the issues we feel may exist to make this work better. but i really appreciate the thrust, and for that reason i'm going to support your amendment. >> before i recognize other members, which i will and i appreciate senator brasco's being a continuous -- barrasso's voice in this regard, there are others this the committee who join him on the issue. however, just to let members know it is the chair's intention to rule senator barrasso's amendment out of order because it's not. >> our jurisdiction. the bill that senator barrasso's

amendment was based on has been referred to the banking committee. i know the energy committee also has song jurisdictional interests on the matter. our committee does not examine the issue, and i certainly want to work with my colleagues who have strong feelings about this issue; senator barrasso, senator kaine, senator udall, senator markey in a different context and others to build a record and to try to forge where we might be headed. but for right now this amendment, which is, i believe, not in the jurisdiction of the committee, also i would urge that it be set aside because if it were, in fact, to pass, we would ultimately have this referred to two other committees, and we have the urgency, i think, of the moment. there is also a view that because we have that urgency of the moment that what is proposed on lng would not have an immediate impact for the ukraine because ukraine does not have

the import infrastructure to accept u.s. natural gas. it because not currently have the wherewithal to build that import infrastructure, and turkey -- which controls the basra strait -- has cold the ukraine -- told the ukraine it will likely block any lng shipments from entering the black sea out of safety concerns. so we can have a debate about all of that, but above all, i don't believe that the amendment is within the committee's jurisdiction, and i also believe that we would ultimately delay consideration of the bill. senator boxer, then senator durbin. >> mr. chairman, i strongly support the underlying bill, and i'm so happy and pleased that you've worked across the aisle with senator corker and all my colleagues to stand with ukraine. but i have to say this type of an amendment, which will lead to increases in electricity prices of up to 36% to our people, deserves more than just a cursory vote attached to a ukrainian bill.

and what's interesting is for those of us who support putting a price on carbon, we're yelled at every day because it might lead to a 20% increase in electricity. this is a huge increase. and for all the reasons you cited, we can't today resolve all these issues. now, someday it might be a terrific idea and might work real well. but right now i want to help ukraine. i don't want to hurt the american people. so i hope that we'll table this or perhaps it could be withdrawn. it needs a much longer discussion than we have time for today and, again, congratulations on the underlying amendment. bull. >> thank you, mr. chairman. senator barrasso raises a legitimate and important issue. we know that the ukraine as well as georgia, the baltics, the former warsaw pact countries and former soviet republics are all subject to extortion by vladimir

putin and the russians as well as the european union, i might add, over the availability and cost of natural gas. he as played that card every chance he gets to put pressure on them. i think we need to address the this, and i won't rule out the possibility, but some of the questions that have been raised here -- not just the environmental question and the cost of utilities in our country, but we are seeing a mini resurgence of manufacturing jobs in america because of the low cost of natural gas. i think it is incumbent upon us to ask the important question, what costs to the american economy will there be? how many jobs will we lose? we may create some jobs in liquified natural gas transport facilities and the like, but how many will we lose in the manufacturing sector if the price of natural gas in our country goes up because of this decision? these are all relevant, important questions, i don't know how they'd been -- be

resolved, but this needs to be brought to several committees to make sure we have a thoughtful approach. >> senator udall. >> thank you very much, chairman menendez. let me say to senator barrasso, i think the thrust of where you're going with this is a very good one, and i have supported it. i believe that the export of lng is something that we should be doing as a country. we somehow have to shake up the doe process that's going on right now because it is, in my opinion, going too slowly. there are several bills that have been introduced. senator barrasso, as you know my cousin and our colleague, mark udall, has introduced a bill that would expedite approval of exports to all wto countries from existing or future export facilities. i support this effort. the volume of our exports will be determined by the price of gas and the costs of facilities.

and the gas will likely go where there's the most need. and there's a strong interest, i think, in eastern europe given russia's aggressive economic behavior. last summer i joined a bipartisan letter with both democrats and republicans to support further lng exports, and i understand there's also a bipartisan op to decision to this -- opposition to this policy. but what the letter said -- and these are both democrats and republicans saying this and it's even more true to today -- the world is hungry for u.s. natural gas. so what you're doing i would really like to work with you on, but i think this could derail this very important bill we're working on, and so i'm going to support the chairman in terms of referring the jurisdiction and the ruling that he has made. thank you, chairman menendez. >> senator kaine. >> thank you, mr. chairman.

senator barrasso, i think just from listening to the discussions on topic over the last few months because it's come up a number of times, i can see at least three positions on this committee, and i imagine there'd be three in the body. one, the position articulated by senator boxer and that was articulated by senator markey, that it would be a bad idea to export lng because of domestic pricing concerns, second, that we should be exporting lng, and there's a third position, which is mine, that we should export it in a limited way to accomplish certain national security objectives. if this bill were just about the ukraine, i might be willing to support it, but frankly, there are three different positions about a pretty complex issue. i feel strongly about my point of view, but i acknowledge there's some good faith arguments that make me want to dig into it more. and i think doing it in the context of this bill when i hope we would send a strong support, a strong message of support for the ukraine, i think would complicate it. and for that reason, i'll support the chair, but i hope we

will be able to get to that debate, because these three positions ought to be thrashed out, have the kind of debate that senator markey was talking about last week and get to the bottom of it and, i think, adjust our policies. >> any other members? senator markey. >> purchase, thank you so much. -- mr. chairman, thank you so much. yeah, we need a timeout on this issue, you know? we don't know enough to make an informed judgment in this committee on an issue which is fundamental to american economic security. and i think that the more people understand about this issue is the more reluctant they're going to become in exporting our most valuable resource. you know? our oil, our natural gas. we're not in surplus in the united states at all. we still import natural gas, we still import oil. so we're not in a situation where we should just be sending in this valuable element many our security overseas -- in our security overseas as we export

young men and women over to the middle east to defend imports of oil into our country. that's a big decision for us to make in a foreign policy context, by the way, in terms of what does, in fact, enhance our security. last year natural gas prices went up 27% as a result, there was fuel shifting back over to coal. meaning that our greenhouse gases actually went up 2% last year. went up last year because of the shifting back to coal because of the price of natural gas went up. so that's a big decision as we talk about climate change in this committee. we we have jurisdiction over any climate treaty. should talk about it as we influence that and america's ability to meet its commitments at copenhagen, a 17% reduction in greenhouse gases by 2020. we have a responsibility to talk about that. we also have a responsibility to talk about the impact on the manufacturing industry, the natural gas vehicle industry and the utility industry and consumers in our country as

well. the more that we export, better it is. and by the way, this oil -- this natural gas is highly unlikely to ever go to the ukraine. let's just say that. they don't have plans to build an lng import facility, they don't have the capacity to build the terminal, and the turks say they would oppose it even giving access to it. this is a highly volatile, cryogenically-frozen fuel that would have almost a nuclear bomb-like impact if there was a terrorist attack or an accident that occurred as it was being transported. so i understand turkey's objection, but ukraine's unlikely to ever build an import terminal. moreover, as we look at this issue, we have to insure that we think about american consumers. there's always been a debate over what impacts a climate

change bill like waxman-markey would have on american consumers. well, this would have a dramatically larger impact than anything else that's ever been done. the energy information agency pretty much has concluded in its statement back to the congress that if four trillion cubic feet of lng are exported and they have already been permitted, that it would lead to close to a $62 billion increases in costs for american consumers. american consumers. now, if we talked here about a $62 billion tax on consumers each year in any other context but national security, people would be outraged, huh? and if i came from an energy exporting state, i understand that perspective. but 37 states are energy importers. they don't have any natural gas or coal or oil. we have to import it. so i understand the perspective of those states that, -- that

export, but this is our most valuable commodity, oil ask gas. >> thank you. >> it's not like a watch more manufacturer exporting. it's not like the come adequate industry -- kumquat industry exporting. this is special. oil and gas drive our foreign policy in the middle east. and if we're going to be talking about a country which is not in surplus right now, the united states, for short-term diplomatic reasons to be sending a signal, well, the signal is going to be to rio, to seoul, to tokyo and to beijing get ready to purchase all this very low-cost natural gas. as that low-cost natural gas goes out onto the open market, our prices go up because we have less of it. but the bonanza is this these other countries. and we have to talk about who the beneficiaries are this terms of their manufacturing of goods sold back to us. because the control of this is not in the congress, and it's not, for sure, in the white house. the control is in the ceos'

offices of energy companies in the united states. they're going to take it to the highest price. and the highest price by far is china, by the way, and japan and rio. going south and going east, okay? but it's not going west, to europe. the hands on the tiller of those ships is controlled by rex tillerson, exxonmobil, and he has a fiduciary responsibility to his shareholders to get the highest price. and the ukraine can't compete, and europe can't compete. it's the bottom line. and so that's just the reality where it's going to go, but the reality is the american consumer who's going to be the one to have this energy tax put on their shoulders and hurt all aspects of our economic growth. i thank you, mr. chairman. >> i'll continue to recognize members, but i urge members since i am going to rule out of order -- rule in this out of order that this may with a debate for another time. senator johnson. >> thank you, mr. chairman. just briefly, senator markey mentioned reality. and i've heard it repeatedly

said that russia's moving to crimea demonstrates their weakness. to me, it seems like a pretty strong move. and what i like about senator barrasso's amendment here is it highlights the strategic weakness that has allowed this. so, i mean, the fact is that the west is, certainly europe, ukraine is feint on russian oil to. -- dependent on russian oil. if we're going to strategically prevent russia from further expansion, we need to recognize that reality, we need to try and weaken vladimir putin's hand and start strengthening ours. i realize this is a quick fix, but long term strategically we need to have this discussion, this debate and, again, what i certainly appreciate about senator barrasso's amendment. thank you. >> senator shaheen? >> mr. chairman, i certainly applaud senator barrasso for raising this issue. i think it's a conversation that we really need to have in congress as we think about how we can use this issue to address our strategic interests around the world. but given that you're intending

to rule this amendment and i assume the other out of order, i would hope that we would discontinue our debate before we lose our quorum. >> i appreciate the senator's observation. senator barrasso. >> mr. chairman, i recognize that you have the power to make certain rulings in this committee. obviously, i disagree with your conclusion that this amendment shouldn't be considered today. but the underlying bill includes other provisions that are not in the jurisdiction, i believe, of this committee. sections dealing with loan guarantees and sanctions which are under the jurisdiction of the banking committee, different issues regarding reprogramming of funds from the u.s. department of defense is not if necessarily the jurisdiction of this committee. i appreciate the many kind comments from the members of the committee. many members of the committee have said they also want to take real steps to help ukraine. i'm offering an opportunity for congress to help ukraine and help our nato allies, and the

message that we're sending right now is that we're actually more willing to protect russia's energy monopoly. the irony of what's happening today is certainly not going to be lost on the people of the ukraine or our allies or the leaders in the kremlin. finish it is clear that by not voting, we're rewarding russia with more power at the international monetary fund while denying ukraine the important allies and the opportunity to be more energy independent from russian energy sources. if members are willing to provide american taxpayer dollars for ukraine to pay russian gas bill, then congress should work to insure that ukraine has the opportunity to buy natural gas. i'd say by passing my amendment, the united states has the potential to be the strategic energy supplier to our nato allies this the ukraine -- in the ukraine. it's worth noting, mr. chairman, that my amendment on lng exports has strong bipartisan support in the body. i will, of course, be offering this amendment this the full senate.

i expect our bipartisan coalition to pass an amendment that actually helps ukraine escape the grip of russia. i'll push for a vote, and i look forward to traveling to the ukraine tomorrow and directly speaking with leaders in the region about their desire to buy american natural gas to escape russia's grip on their economy and future. thank you, mr. chairman. >> appreciate the senator's remarks and concern and commitment to the issue. the chair rules the amendment out of order as a topic outside the jurisdiction of the committee. in the interests of the committee's interest, the chair would ask unanimous consent to have other comments entered at in this point in time as it relates to other elements of senator barrasso's comments about the jurisdictional elements. i'd be happy to go through those, but i think in the vs. of time we'll just put that into the record. without objection, so ordered. the amendment is ruled out of order. is there anyone else wishing to submit an amendment?

senator johnson. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i'd like to offer my amendment, number 1. my amendment just strikes section nine, the imf reforms, and section eleven, the related offsets in the department of defense. the amendment leaves the international assistance rescissions in place in order to help offset the costs for section six democracy, civil society and governance funding as well as the enhanced security cooperation in section seven. my primary point, and senator cardin said earlier he didn't want to slow down the progress on this bill. wanted us to speak with one voice. i certainly don't believe and i realize there's differences of opinion here, i don't believe this is essential for this, for this bill. it is controversial, it is going to divide us. we will not be, you know, providing a unified front in a situation where we think we should. so i do not support senator paul's amendment where we struck out the loan provision. again, i think it's important

that we send that very strong signal, but i'm highly concerned that this provision is simply not needed, does divide us, weakens that unified front. and so i hope to get some support for this. thank you. >> is there any other pen wishing to speak to this -- member wishing to speak to this -- >> just very briefly. we've covered this point, i think, in senator paul's amendment. without an effective u.s. participation in the imf, you're not going to have of the type of input for the type of economic plan that can work in ukraine. the loan guarantees are part of a package. imf is in ukraine. they're coming up with a plan. united states needs to participate in that, and these imf reforms are reduced so we can fully participate many these types of -- in these types of decisions. so i would -- the costs are fully offset, and i think that's been one of the controversial issues that the -- so i would hope that we would recognize for the united states to be able to

fully engage on this economic package which is in our national security interests, and i just really wanted to underscore the point senator murphy made, ukraine was being pulled in two directions. whether they're going to have an alliance with russia or be part of europe. it's so much in our interest. the ukrainian people want to be with europe. we shouldn't force them economically to have to make a choice to be dependent upon russia. imf is part of that solution, united states has to be part of the modernized imf reforms, and these changes are desperately needed. >> senator murphy. >> just very briefly. isn't theoretical, this is practical. it's no secret that the developing nations are increasingly hesitant to to join with imf efforts to provide relief with the proper strings attached in places like ukraine so long as the united states stands on the sidelines. and so this has real, practical

consequences for our ability to help lead the imf into situations where they are best equipped to do so. and if we continue to sit on the sidelines and this committee continues to be unwilling to have the united states join all of the other nations in approving these reforms, there will be justification for those developing nations to provide road blocks to the type of assistance that, ultimately, adds to u.s. security interests hoar in the case of ukraine. >> if there are no other members, let me just say that i respect senator johnson's views. i disagree on the imf and particularly in this package, but i disagree in a broader context. you know, the imf is playing the central, anchoring role in developing an international assistance package to stabilize ukraine's economy, help implement critical economic reforms and reassure global financial markets.

the reason we seek to strengthen the imf's efforts by approving the pending 2010 imf quote on governance reforms, it would increase available imf emergency funding to ukraine by 60%, sending an important signal to other potential donors such as the e.u. and world bank. it's also crucial to insure that the united states maintains its preeminent leadership and influence within the

. >> the position to do that is through the imf. even our loan guarantee which is certainly desirable is nowhere

near what you're going to need to accomplish to the imf. so, you know, we need to get this done for the ukraine, and we need to get it done for the next global crisis and for us to be in a preeminent leadership position with influence over what the imf does. and we do that by meeting our obligation. and so i think it's very important to do so. i oppose the gentleman's amendment. i respect his views. i think we have had a full debate here. does the gentleman want a roll call vote? >> i'd like a roll call, but just quickly to respond, i don't believe the imf would not be able to act. i just want to refute a number of those charges coming back. this is simply not necessary for this package, but i would request a roll call vote, thank you. >> all right. i will just say to the gentleman that i spoke to christine lagarde today, and she sees this

as an essential element of being able to move forward not only be in this crisis, but in others that, unfortunately, will likely come. so part of my remarks is reflected from my conversation with her. the gentleman -- senator'sed for a roll call vote. the clerk will call the vote. [roll call] [roll call]

>> clerk will continue the roll. [roll call] [inaudible conversations]

>> he's not coming. okay. the clerk are report. will report. >> [inaudible] >> excuse me? [inaudible conversations] >> i know washington counts in unique ways -- [laughter] all right. the amendment is not agreed to. is there anyone else wishing the offer an amendment? senator shaheen. >> thank you, mr. chairman. you have an amendment from me -- [inaudible] what the amendment would do is to add number 8 to section 6a which would support the efforts of the government of ukraine, civil society and international organizations to enhance the economic and political empowerment of women and to also address violence against women and girls in the ukraine. and i want to thank senators johnson, boxer, durbin for

cosponsoring the amendment and senator cardin has also asked to be added as a cosponsor. and let me just point out the reason that i thought this would be be important to add to this legislation is because if we look at how ukraine fares when it comes to their treatment of women, they rank very low in terms of women's political participation. they're 119th out of 136 countries. only 10% of women in parliament in ukraine are women, and 45% of women in the ukraine report that they have been subject to violence at some point if their lifetime. in their lifetime. so i think this is an issue that it's important for us to continue to focus on, and i hope the committee will support this amendment. >> mr. chairman? >> senator corker. >> i want to thank the senator

for her amendment, and i hope we'll adopt it by unanimous consent. >> i share senator corker's sentiments. is there anyone who wishes to speak to the amendment? if not, all those in favor will say aye. aye. all those opposed will say nay. the ayes have it, and the amendment is agreed to. is there any other member wishing to offer an amendment? senator risch. >> mr. chairman, you have the risch amendment that's a very simple amendment. currently, we have prepared every year a report regarding chinese military activities and modernization. this does the same thing for russia. admittedly, a similar report was included in the defense authorization bill with, but it was for one year only as opposed to the chinese type report which goes on every year. given the activities of russia recently, it appears to me that we need to have this as an ongoing report. it adds a few other things to what was in the annual report that was asked for in the defense authorization bill such as an update on russia's nuclear

modernization programs, weapons proliferation and some others, but it should be relatively noncontroversial. i know the bill attempts two things; number one, to support the ukraine, number two, to at least take a hard look at the russians if not actually do some appropriate discipline. and this falls in the latter category. thank you, mr. chairman. >> i generally am supportive of the thrust of what the senator wants to do. the amendment asks the dod to prepare an unclassified/classified report to congress on the current and future military power of the russian federation. it would assess the security of military strategy of russia. that's fine. but the amendment also requires a full accounting of our military-to-military engagement with russia and russia's military cooperation with other countries. it asks for a detailed summary of the topics discussed and

questions asked by russian participation. that, to me, would likely curtail the potential for any productive meetings between u.s. and russian defense officials. if agreed to as written, the amendment likely would enhance -- would likely end any chances of future u.s./russia military cooperation should the appropriate time be there. would the gentleman consider taking that section out of his amendment in which case i'd be prepared to accept his amendment? >> yes, i would. thank you. >> okay. >> mr. chairman, just -- >> yes. >> i think that's a pretty broad interpretation. having said that, to get your support, i'll be happy to take that out. >> so i'll make a motion that we, that i, that the menendez amendment to strike the language that i just referred to be accepted. is there a second? >> second. >> second. all those in favor will say aye.

>> with aye. >> all those opposed will say no the aye z have it, and senator risch's amendment is amended as per the menendez amendment. senator risch, are you willing to accept a voice vote? >> i am. >> all those in favor will say aye. >> aye. >> opposed, no? the ayes have it. and the amendment is adopted. is there any other amendment who -- yes, senator senator risu have another amendment? >> mr. chairman, although senator ruin a owe is not here, here's here in spirit. he has got jury duty today and has asked me to offer on his behalf rubio number 3. i am doing -- number 1. i am doing so enthusiastically. rubio number 1 adds some language to paragraph 15 of section three, and that language simply strengthens the language regarding the situation with russia's participation in the g8.

the most language that is in this bill puts sideboards or restrictions, if you would, on russia's participation in the g8. this simply adds language that -- and that particular language, i think, is very strong talking about them not invading their neighbors which is a neighborly thing to do. this adds additional language that says accepting and adhering to the norms and standards of free democratic societies as generally practiced by every other member nation of the g8. that would be added after discouraging them from entering and violating territorial integrity of its neighbors. thank you, mr. chairman. >> is there anyone who wishes to speak to this amendment? may i inquire of the senator, do you have other amendments that you're offering on behalf of -- >> no. that would be the only one i'm offering. >> okay. because i'm inclined to be more accepting if -- [laughter] there are limits --

>> i already gave you my answer. >> especially when i'm not getting, when i'm not getting an underlying vote on the bill. so okay, is there -- any member wish to speak to this amendment? if not, all those in favor will say aye. >> aye. >> all those opposed will say no. the ayes have it, and the amendment is agreed to. >> mr. rubio thanks you. [laughter] ..

this would strike epa grants of $9.3 million also and a $50 million fund the u.s.-russia investment fund. i've been made aware that apparently there are clever washington mathematicians who have concluded that cutting spending is increasing spending. i don't agree with that assessment, and i think that this wasn't a good signal if not a great deal of money but would send a signal to russia that we are unhappy with their behavior and we're putting our money where our mouth is by reducing some funds sent to russia. >> is there any other member who wishes to speak to this amendment? >> and if we could have a roll call on this one, i would appreciate it, thank you. >> well, while i appreciate senator paul's thinking in

tapping the u.s.-russia investment trust funds, recent events in my mind have underscored the need for more systems to democracy rule of law and civil society, organizations in russia, not less. ascenders amendment is also technically not possible -- the senator's amendment. the funds is not free for reprogramming. it must score it's an independent capital fund and corporate in delaware with special restrictions on its extenders, one of which is the money needs to be spent in russia. since we already have offsets and the legislation that are drawn from accounts of underperforming programs that have been counseled, i think that what we need to do is help democracy rule of law and civil society in russia, not take away resources from it so i would have to oppose the senator's amendment. >> if i could, i know the house looked at this same and realize

the cbo would actually score this as spending, not as a reduction because they are already counting this money to come back to the treasury. so just what it's worth, appreciate the intent of reducing spending, but i think it's been indicated they will score it's exactly the opposite direction. not only does it take money out of the fund, i think, so anyway i would just point that out, and for that reason do not support the amendment. >> does the senator asked for a recorded vote blacks the clerk will call the road -- recorded vote? the clerk will call the roll. [roll call]

an[roll call] >> thank you very much. the amendment is not agree to. is there any other member wishing to offer any amendments? one final comment then before we vote on final passage. with reference to the revisions to the defense appropriations under this bill, these are rescinded from an obligation balances from other procurement. it's a fund that is currently under executing and the funds are available for him on an obligated balances.

this is out of a $6.4 billion appropriation that procures various types of equipment. so we are talking about $157 in budget authority out of $6.4 billion. it's also out of the program which -- $157 million. the termination of a certain program has old we decided to retire, all of what they called the warrior helicopters of the upgrade programs not needed. and the program is proposed for cancellation in the budget request. and the bottom line is that on all of these defense appropriations, the reality is its embedded with the appropriators. we are talking about either underperforming and/or programs that the department itself has canceled so, therefore, we feel it's fitting appropriate women

have a national security issue like the ukraine to share with both the state department and dod. senator durbin. >> mr. chairman, we are happy in our subcommittee to work with you to find these recession. of ackerley described them. i was informed by the comptroller's office and the department of defense that they have no objection to these defense offsets. >> i appreciate senator durbin in his role as chair of the subcommittee on the appropriations to give us that inside. with that, i hope -- it eliminates any questions. the boat is now on final passage of the bill. >> mr. chairman? >> senator risch. >> briefly on going to vote against us and i'm really disappointed in this. i truly wanted to do the things, we all wanted to do as far as the ukraine is concerned. i'm deeply disappointed that we've included in this the matters regarding the imf that i think should be debated separately, the i and those have strong feelings on. so as a result of that i'm going

to cast a no vote. i'm hoping when it comes back from the house, and that's out of their i'm going to be able to cast a positive vote. so thank you, mr. chairman. >> is there any other member? if not, all those in favor -- >> roll call vote? >> senator asked for a roll call vote. the clerk will call the roll. [roll call] [roll call]

>> 14-3. the legislation is favorably reported to the senate. i ask unanimous consent that step be permitted to take changes to the bill, but if there are no objection so ordered and with that this hearing is adjourned. [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> the interim prime minister of ukraine was in washington, d.c. wednesday to discuss the situation in his country. arseniy yatsenyuk spoke at the atlantic council after meeting with president obama. this is 35 minutes.

>> it's a great pleasure and honor to address such a distinguished audience. usually people, here to make lectures. let me change these rules, and probably i'll give a very short introduction. it's much more important for me to listen to your visors and to listen to questions, and i'm ready answer any question. this is a very dramatic time for my country. and what's going on, and entirely unpredictable for me, and unacceptable for the world. with no reason, with no grounds, our partner in the past, but i still believe that this country

would be a partner in the future, started an incursion into the ukraine territory. started to invade an independent and sovereign country. my country is facing both military and economic challenges. we still believe that the reason option to tackle this military crisis with the political and diplomatic tool. as time is going and clock is ticking, these chances are not as deep as work, for example, last week. but these options, these tools are still on the table. we are urged russian federation immediately to pull back its forces, and to start real talks,

negotiations. we as the new ukrainian government are ready to hold an open dialogue, how to tackle these dramatic crises of the 21st century. and this is not a crisis just between ukraine and russia. it's worse. this is the global crisis. in case if russia moves further, this will definitely undermine the entire global security. and i am wondering about the goals of russia, to draw the new lines, to revise the outcomes of the second world war, to restore the soviet union, or to preserve peace and stability in the region, and to stick to its international obligation. on half of the ukrainian

government, i would like to underline that we adhere to all, to all international, multilateral, and bilateral obligations. including the russian deployment treaty. but we urge russia to stick to its conditions, and to execute the international obligations. we are facing an ongoing economic crisis which is the consequences of the rampant corruption of the former president and the former government. and we do believe that the talks that we resumed with the imf was successfully accomplished. we fully realize that the imf program is not sweet candy, but on the other hand, my country,

desperately needs real reforms to stabilize ukrainian economic, to overhaul the entire financial sector, and to move further in terms of economic success and economic prosperity. we relaunched and restarted negotiations with our european partners, and we command a strong support of the american people, that you demonstrated to the ukrainian people of all eu member states, heads of government and presidents, that they made in their statements last week, saying that ukraine needs to be a sovereign, independent country. and i am sure that next week ukraine is to sign a political part of the association

agreement, and to make a very solid and strong step in order to make ukraine eighth federal part of the european union. what's at stake today? the future of my country and the freedom of my people here it's all about freedom. and we want to be very clear, we will never surrender. we will do everything in order to save the country, in order to save my people, and in order to have my country as an independent one. we heavily rely on the support of the western world. and we do get the support. and we do understand that it's up to ukrainian people to shape our future. the new ukrainian government is

ready to deliver changes. we are ready to implement refo reform. but you can't do it having russian tanks and russian soldiers on your soil. i feel very optimistic. i feel very optimistic because you always need to believe. and i believe that we will find a solution, that we will tackle this crisis, and that we will do everything to make ukraine prosperous european state. ready for any kind of q&a. so let's go down to business. [applause] >> mr. prime minister, thank you so much for those remarks. i'm damon wilson, executive vice president here at the atlantic council. i want to reiterate fred givens welcome to you, mr. bayh mr.

conn and to all of our guests. thank you for those remarks. it's all about freedom. ukraine will never surrender and an inordinate sense of optimism and this time a child i want to get our conversation with a few questions and then return to the audience. you're just coming from the white house. many of us were watching sort of in real-time as you're sitting with president obama in the oval office getting a very strong statement of support from the united states, your visitor on the eve of the vote in crimea is that symbol of support. in private conversations but what were you seeking on your visit to washington? how have your talks gone? do you feel comfortable that the united states and the european union are now prepared to act in concrete terms in support of ukraine? >> i will try to do everything i can. it was very open and frank discussion, and we avoided in all this diplomatic language.

we appreciate the support that the american people and the u.s. president and the u.s. government and this bipartisan support that you demonstrate. and it's great to have the eu and the u.s. speaking in one voice, speaking in single voice. i see that the western world is determined to preserve ukraine integrity and to preserve ukraine independence. what we already got, we already got a package of financial aid. it's on the table. both from -- we need to accomplish the imf deal, but the key factor is the united states already announced $1 billion of guarantees for the stabilization of the ukrainian economy. and we got a very strong

statement of the european union, of the united states, saying that they will do whatever they can to support the ukrainian people, and actually to protect ukraine. i'm satisfied with the way the u.s. and the eu helps us to handle this crisis. >> mr. prime minister, if i may, you said in your remarks that you would never surrender, ukraine would never surrender. we've heard in many regards, the strategy that you had on the my dawn has become a strategy for you gain the ukraine today in this crisis. how do you see this playing out? what is ukraine's strategy? in your remarks you said you followed a peaceful diplomatic process but that is not inevitable that i can continue. help us understand what you

think in terms of ukraine's strategy in this crisis. >> much will depend on the strategy of russia. much will depend on the personal vision and stance of president putin. i would like to reiterate that we still want to have a free, equal, and positive relations with russia. and you can't do it having and i military incursion -- having a military incursion. we did not consider a military option as the best option how to fix this crisis. no. in the new globalized world we need to find out the better offramp strategies. and i still insist on political and diplomatic tools. what is the best strategy?

the best strategy is to sit and to negotiate. what is the best approach? for russia, just to stall and to calm down. >> so what do you think present proven strategies are? what are his goals to the ukraine? how far is he going to take this? do this calculation affected by what's happening in brussels and in washington today? >> it is better to ask president putin because it seems to me he is the only person who knows. but there are different case scenarios. you know, the day they made this incursion on the artificial grounds, saying that russia decided to protect russian speaking minority. and i was astonished with this. and that's not only because my wife speaks russian, she doesn't need any kind of protection.

and my kids, too. we as the new ukrainian government, we will preserve the rights of all minorities, including russian speaking, and you probably know this in the first days of new house, not new house, of new government, a law of language was repealed, decided not to sign this law. and it means that russian speaking minorities is under the full and entire protection. so no grounds at all. another reason was so-called anti-semitic. probably president putin doesn't know this is the first government where a deputy prime minister represented the jewish community. then president putin said some stuff about fascists, proteste

protesters. no evidence at all, and we are the government, will fight with anyone who proclaims something that resembles that. the first scenario for president putin is to take over crimea in one or another form. but he can move further. and they definitely have another case scenario, how to grab and take over entire ukraine. including the ukrainian capital. again, it all depends on his personal goals. you probably do remember his speech a few years ago saying that the biggest disaster of the last century is the collapse of the soviet union.

i will say that the biggest disaster of this century would be the restoring of the soviet union. >> thank you, mr. prime minister. i think that's actually an important statement. let me ask one last question and then turn to the audience. i've just come back from key of, and in meetings with government come with society walking or even the streets of the maidan today, you feel an incredible sense of unity, steady resolve the folks recognize ukraine is in a crisis and needs to come together. but we for study operating to meet in 2004, 2005. how is this time different? you recall back then the great optimism was undermined as inciting undermine unity, as political jockeying challenged efforts of actual good governance. how is this limited opportunity for ukraine? how do you get your tasks right?

>> very different i would say. but look what has happened. the previous regime killed 101 innocent people. the death toll is more than 100 people, for what? for their fight, to have the free country? for their freedom and liberties? so the revolution of 2004, it was a peaceful one. the revolution of 2014, in 10 years, this was the revolution with the bloodstains on the jacket of the former president. and the former government. and sentiments are very

different. but on the other hand, people are very united, people have shown their courage, and their determination to fight for the country. and this is really a great sign for this country. we have not just the territory after this revolution. we have the country and we have not just the people, but we have the nation. and this is the outcome. >> thank you, mr. prime minister. there's a huge number of folks were quite interested in your country, working on it on a long time. as i call on you, take the mic. we will start right here near please introduce yourself, your affiliation, and ask a quick question please. the prime minister is on a tight question. >> michael gordon, "new york times." usage are interested in a

political solution with russia. could you elaborate on the look at your of what a political situation -- political social might look like? also what circumstances might there be a referendum in crimea or ukraine, nationally, as part of that political solution? thank you. >> thank you, sir. so, first we need to start the dialogue of negotiations. if it's about crimea we as the korean government are ready to start a nationwide dialogue on how to increase the rights of those. starting with -- in with another like language issue. we are ready to start this dialogue. but the constitutional one in the ukrainian parliament, having everyone sitting at the table discussing every single issue and making each step in a

constitutional manner. you mentioned this so-called referendum. this is a pre-ordered referendum with an expected result. it seems to me that they already count the ballots. there is no legal ground for this referendum at all. what we need to do, we need to pass a law in the house which allows so-called local referendum. and afterwards this referendum could be a constitutional one. but my message is very clear. this is illegitimate, unconstitutional referendum. there is no legitimate government in crimea. there are some folks who get the support of 18,000 russian soldiers, and who seized unconstitutionally and grabbed the power in crimea. >> let me pick up two questions

are too this woman and next to you, please. >> thank you so much. i'm from china central television. as we know, the crimea referendum is getting near. so how positive do you think by negotiation to solve this kind of problem, especially since waiting for days? after you met barack obama and john kerry today, what's the most difficulty thing here in solving ukraine crisis? thank you. >> hiccup the second question right next to her. >> thank you for your stirring remarks. i want to fast-forward a bit. if putin doesn't withdraw from crimea and, indeed, moved westward, this could easily make crimea into his afghanistan. could you just comment on the prospects of an insurgency? there are reports of jihadi's moving to crimea. >> that's what we want to avoid.

and just take into consideration that crimea is a heavily and highly populated area. and this could raised and ethnic question, too. that's the reason why ukraine government is very cautious and prudent. they tried to provoke us a number of times, and when russian dumas allows russian president to use military force on the ukrainian territory, they expected us to do the same, to impose a marshall law and distort a military operation. we do understand the ratio in the military strength between ukraine and russia. i can, for example, give you the numbers of aircraft facility. one to 98, excluding the nuclear aspect. so i would like to reiterate again, we need to do everything

we can, i mean, if we, we, everyone, everyone in the world wants to preserve peace and stability in order to avoid the bloodshed. because if it starts, there will be no end you. >> let me turn to the next question. over here. and they will pick up david kramer right here in the front to ask the cycling. >> u.s. ukraine foundation. mr. prime minister, how confident can the people of ukraine and your government, that the western support that is being promised, including economic sanctions will actually be realized? history of assurances to ukraine is not very encouraging, and i only will cite one. and no international pledging conference for chernobyl met its goal. >> thanks. and perhaps we'll pick up a

david here as well. >> mr. prime minister, a war come to you here in washington. david kramer with freedom house. dealing with russian occupation of their territory is an urgent crisis, trying to fix the economy is an urgent crisis, but in a little more than two months presidential elections is scheduled. there are reports, rumors of postponing the elections. how confident are you that ukraine will be ready to hold elections on the 25th? and how ready will it be to have credible elections that everyone can recognize? thank you. >> thank you, david. starting with the first question. it's not just about ukraine, what i already mentioned. it's about the global security. because let me remind you that in 1994, a budapest memorandum emerged where signatories, guarantees, and independence and

territorial integrity for the ukrainian state. and look at what has happened. we abandoned our nuclear weapon, right? we did. we executed this memorandum, and today, we ask for the protection. if we don't get this protection, tell me the way how the world is to reinforce, or ask, in other countries to stop their nuclear programs. it's impossible to convince, in this case, someone to hold nuclear proliferation programs. this is the global problem. and it's up to all of us to fix

it. david, on the elections, on the presidential elections, elections are scheduled the 25th of march -- sorry, may. and we are ready to hold free and fair election. we understand that a number of folks will do everything in order to undermine these elections, to stop them, to postpone, to delay, to have another kind of mass uncertainty in my country. the center election commission isn't working on its schedule. we amended the state budget, so we are ready to hold free and fair presidential election. we asked an international observers to observe these elections, and i still believe, not just belief, i'm sure that the elections are to be held as scheduled. and on the 25th of may, the

new president will -- not the new president come but on the 25th of may, we will have a clearer picture who is to be the new president, because this is a two round election and a horse race and another two weeks. >> let me take two questions up front and then i will move to the back. >> i'd like to first congratulate you on rising to the challenge of this situation, which poses a risk to ukraine, obviously. and you and your government and the people as a whole have obviously risen to this challenge with great fortitude and conviction. because you in the nation recognize the risk. my question is, does the rest of

the world, in your estimation, also recognize the risk that this is not just a risk to ukraine, but it's a risk really to the stable world order, it's a risk that for both the possibility of a new wave of aggression that spreads not just in eastern europe but throughout the globe. and in your estimation in dealing with this problem, do you feel that the international community sufficiently recognizes what's at stake? >> thank you. just pass the mic down. >> thank you. mr. prime minister, first of all i would like to express my sympathy and support on behalf of my government to just cause for sake of the united and democratic ukraine. >> this is the ambassador of georgia. >> my question is, obviously what we are witnessing these days is not the first instance

when russia is violating law at the end of the cold war. five years ago on a smaller scale, the same thing happened in georgia. so my question would be, what are the lessons learned, on one hand, for your government in order to navigate in this very difficult circumstances? and on the other hand, what are the lessons to be learned by international unity to be more effective in this case, in this crisis? thank you. >> why do we take those and then i'll move to the back. >> thank you, congratulation to ask some folks sent me condolences. but again, i am optimistic. we are ready to sacrifice, i mean, my government is ready to sacrifice its political capital in order to tackle this crisis.

me personally, to. >> you refer to the task of political suicide. >> sometimes it happens. so let me put it this way. on the conflict that happen into those and eight in georgia, these are the implications of -- holding nato, map. if you don't have map, you have something else, like military aggression. and this is the dramatic lesson for all of us. and we need to articulate a real response to this kind of

situation. and let's be frank, there is no clear-cut response. we are trying to find a way out, how to handle it. but the collective bodies that are responsible for the global security are not as sufficient as they have to be. in this way i used a very diplomatic language. >> with that let me move to the back. i want to pick up this woman right here, and then on dirt right here. this will be our last round, please. >> jackson diehl, "washington post." the eu and the united states are talking about adopting additional sanctions on monday or early next week if the referendum goes for. is the government of ukraine contemplating any sanctions towards crimea? in particular, are you planning to continue the provision of water, energy, and other imports to crimea?

>> why don't you pass the mic down to this woman? [inaudible] mr. prime minister we would like to know what kind of action do you expect in next week from your neighboring countries like slovakia, hungary, romania and poland? thank you. >> let me take the final question here. >> thank you very much for a very impressive statement to us today, mr. prime minister. we really wish you all the very best. and on that line, what is the wish list with regard to national security that you would put to the united states and the european union today? thank you. >> on our ability to provide water and electricity to crimea, i want to be very clear that

crimea is an integral part of ukraine, and we will do everything in order to deliver food, water, electricity to our people. because this is our territory and they are our citizens. on the european side, we expect that on the 21st, the ukraine means is to sign and association agreement. this is the best plan, the best answer what kind of contribution the eu could make. the eu already made a statement that they will unilaterally apply an economic package, and this would substantially support the ukrainian economy. what is the best way to reform the country, is to stick to the political association agreement and to execute everything that was in this deal.

and the last question, what we ask for, i already unfolded everything. we need to undertake, we need to act boldly, wisely and strongly. and to use all tools, all tools that are acceptable to tackle this crisis. the u.s. is a powerful country. the eu is a very strong unity and can and will, i believe, do everything to preserve ukrainian independence. i would be happy in case of ukraine can handle this crisis solidly. and again, i want to be open and

frank. we are not as powerful and we don't have enough to base to withstand, but if we speak in one voice, if we act in concert we can save my country and preserve peace and stability in the region. >> thank you very much, mr. prime minister. please join me in thanking the prime minister. [applause] >> thank you later gentlemen for joining us. please remain seated while the prime minister exits. thank you. [inaudible conversations]

>> the u.s. senate continues work today on ago rick authorizing a program that distributes federal funds to states to low income families pay for childcare. it also adds new standards for child care facilities. senators started work on the bill yesterday. they hope to finish it this afternoon to a number of amendments have been offered and votes could occur throughout the day. and now live to the floor of the u.s. senate here on c-span2. ord. today's opening prayer will be offered by guest chaplain dean chambers, associate pastor of mount pleasant baptist church, elkview, west virginia. please join me in the pledge of allegiance. the guest chaplain. let us pray. our heavenly father, we come before you humbly to thank you for the awesome privilege it is to live in this great nation. thank you for all the many

blessings you have given us past and present, as well as the continued blessings of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as we continue toward the future. we ask that you protect us from all who threaten the cause of liberty. we especially pray that your hand of protection be upon all those serving in our armed forces and all those who serve the cause of freedom around our world. in this assembly today, we invite your leadership and guidance as the affairs of state are pursued this day. i ask also that you give to each person wisdom and understanding for the decisions that are made. in times of debate and difference, may we remember that at the end of the day we are, indeed, "one nation under god." may the love of god the father, the grace and mercy of the lord jesus, and the communion of your spirit rest upon the members of our senate this day. in jesus' name. amen. the presiding officer: please join me in reciting

the pledge of allegiance i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the presiding officer: the clerk will read a communication to the senate. mr. reid: mr. president? mr. president? mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: my mistake. not yours. please proceed. the clerk: washington d.c., march 13. 2014. to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable john walsh, a senator from the state of montana, to perform the duties of the chair. signed: patrick j. leahy, president pro tempore. mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: that was my fault. when the president pro tempore

is here, we don't have that communication read. i assumed he was here, and he's not here. you're here. so thank you very much. mr. president, following my remarks and those of the republican leader, the senate will be in morning business until 10:30 this morning. republicans will control the first half. the majority the final half. following that morning business, the senate will resume consideration of the child care and development block grant. we did extremely well yesterday. i expect more roll call votes on that today. we are working on an agreement on flood insurance. we're working on additional executive nominations. we're seeing what we can do on minimum wage. we've got the ukraine sanctions out there someplace. and we're trying to put it all together. we hope we can finish that today. it's not guaranteed. senators will be notified when votes are scheduled, with as much notice as possible. over the last couple weeks i've taken some heat from senate

republicans and conservative pundits for exposing two multibillionaires. these are two oil barons, and they're trying to rig the political system to favor the rich and especially favor themselves. after the 14th statement issued by a spokesman for the koch brothers adverse to me, it seems abundantly clear that i've gotten under their skin. but as the saying goes, and the saying goes that this came from the great senator pat moynihan, who said "everyone is entitled to their own opinion but not to their own facts." but i had guessed the koch brothers had been able to buy their facts over the years not paying attention to whether they were true or false. this week media outlets from new york, and especially "the times" to "the washington post" to the detroit news have revealed the

truth, and here's the truth. millions in political ads sponsored by these two multibillionaires are misleading, at best, and outright false in many instances. mr. president, the truth is the koch brothers are willing to do anything, even exploit americans suffering from cancer, to advance their campaign of distortion. mr. president, i'm not afraid of the koch brothers. none of us should be afraid of the koch brothers. these two multibillionaires can spend millions of dollars of their money rigging the political process for their own benefit, but that doesn't mean we have to lay down and take it, because we're not going to. they may believe that whoever has the most money gets the most free speech. mr. president, that is wrong. it's unfair. and it's untrue. i'll do whatever it takes to expose their campaign, their campaign to rig the american

political system to benefit the wealthy at the expense of the middle class. a number of republican senators have rushed over here to defend the koch brothers. that's hard to comprehend, but they've done it. if you ask me -- and no one has, but i'll give you my opinion anyway. the billionaires seem perfectly capable of defending themselves. they do it with hundreds of millions of dollars. i'm sure that over the last couple of years has reached close to a billion dollars spreading these falsehoods. now remember, mr. president, they don't just do it under this americans for prosperity phony banner they have. they divert money to a lot of other organizations. for example, millions of dollars to the chamber of commerce who runs ads against democratic senators. so i think they're capable of defending themselves. but when senate republicans senators rush to defend the koch brothers, they are also defending the koch brothers'

radical philosophy. and it's radical. how do we know it's radical? they said so. i'm not making those words up. they said -- one of the brothers kept harping on the fact that he has a radical philosophy. and they do. so i ask my republican colleagues in the senate, is even one of you -- is even one of you willing to stand up and disavow the koch brothers' radical agenda? it's radical. it's radical because they say it's radical. and it is radical; all you have to do is look at it. will senate republicans reject the koch brothers plan? will they end the koch brothers radical plan to end medicare as we know it? will senate republicans reject the koch brothers' radical plan to put insurance companies back in charge so tens of millions of americans again are one heart attack away from bankruptcy? will senate republican senators

reject the koch brothers' radical plan to allow insurance companies to deny coverage for a child with a heart murmur? a survivor of breast cancer? a teen who suffers from acne? or absolutely anyone with a preexisting condition no matter how minor? will senate republicans reject the koch brothers radical plan to eliminate minimum-wage laws and workplace safety standards? that's what the koch brothers want? will senate republican senators reject the koch brothers' radical plan to decimate americans' public education system? that's what they want. will senate republicans reject the koch brothers plan to roll back environmental safeguards and give themselves the unfettered right to pollute our air and water? we have to, mr. president, look out for our children, our grandchildren having pure water to drink, good air to breathe.

not with the koch brothers. that isn't what they want. will senate republicans reject the koch brothers' radical plan to give more tax breaks to the richest of the rich, to profitable oil companies, corporations that ship jobs overseas and billionaires who pay lower taxes than their secretaries? not one republican stepped forward, so obviously they must agree with the koch brothers' radical philosophy. republicans are willing to defend the koch brothers on the floor of this senate, but are they willing to defend the koch brothers' radical agenda as well? i guess that's what they're doing by coming to the floor. if republicans don't support the koch brothers' survival of the richest philosophy, all they have to do is say so. because the truth is it would be a terrible thing to allow the koch brothers to buy congress and to buy our country, and that's what they're trying to do. but it would be catastrophic to allow the koch brothers' congress to devastate the american middle class and their

richest take all policy agenda. this discussion isn't just about fairness or the democratic way. this discussion isn't just about the inherent danger in allowing two multibillionaire oil barons to buy america's political system. this is also about how these two multibillionaires would use their political system once they bought it and how they would abuse it in order to add zeros to the bottom line while hurting middle-class families. i would note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the republican leader. mr. mcconnell: i ask that further proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i want to start this morning by just extending my deep sympathy to the families of the victims in yesterday's explosion in harlem. news reports suggest a truly tragic loss of life and a lot of

injuries. so it's a very sad day in new york today. as usual in a catastrophe like this, the response from firemen, police and first responders was both quick and courageous. and many ordinary citizens who just happened to be in the area showed a lot of humanity and a lot of heroism too. so we're grateful for them and we're all hoping and praying for a full and speedy recovery for those who were injured. these kinds of tragic accidents always take a big toll on the communities where they take place. a few months back there was a horrible, horrible house fire in western kentucky that took the lives of eight children and their mother. it was just devastating to the entire community, and still is. so we're thinking of them too today. now, mr. president, on another

matter, i'd like to take a moment to address the antifree speech regulation the obama administration has made a priority for this term. it's a regulation that comes in the wake of an unprecedented i.r.s. attack on american civil liberties, and it represents a direct assault on the first amendment. first, let's be clear, this is not some partisan issue. right across the political spectrum, the american people agree that this regulation is a terrible, terrible idea. that's probably why it's generated more public backlash than any similar regulation in our entire lifetime. americans on the left hate it. americans on the right hate it. unions, business groups, environmentalists, conservatives, the aclu, all of

them have expressed concern. it is pretty rare to see a coalition that broad to agree on anything in this town and yet it's easy to see why americans would be so united in opposition to this regulation. the first amendment skpeufts exists to protect political speech. that was what the founders had in mind when they wrote the first amendment, political speech. and the g -- government should be doing everything it can to protect that right, not hurt it. that's why you saw a record number of americans register their complaints with the i.r.s. in fact, there were more than 140,000 comments, 140,000 comments on this regulation, which i hear is the highest number ever received in the agency's entire history. and let's not forget the i.r.s. has a long way to go to regain public trust these days. too many americans look at the agency and see an instrument of

political harassment rather than a bureau of tax processors. so if the agency wants to regain trust and return to its true mission, then it's simply got to get out of the speech regulation base all together. the i.r.s. needs to get out of the i.r.s. speech regulation business all together, and the obama administration can do that. look, the administration ran this idea up the flagpole, it decided in the midst of a historic crisis of public confidence at the i.r.s. to up end more than half a century of practice and rewrite the rules on how americans could express themselves, how they could be heard. they asked for comments and the american people let them know what they thought. over 140,000 comments, almost all of them in opposition, so this regulation needs to go. this regulation needsing to and

it needs to go now. it's in the administration's power to make that happen. all it has to do is to listen to the american people who are speaking out in record numbers, record numbers and put an end for good to the idea that the law should be used to harm political enemies. let's protect the first amendment and restore integrity to the i.r.s. at the same time by withdrawing this awful regulation.

mr. mcconnell: now, mr. president, i want to speak about a united states airman lost in battle who has left behind a saddened but grateful country. captain david leon of sand -- david i.lyo no. of sand point, idaho, was killed in kabul, afghanistan, when his convoy was intentionally and deliberately attacked by the enemy with explosive devices. captain lyon's mission was an advisory one for the afghan national army commandos. he was 28 years old. for his service in uniform, captain lyon received several medals, awards and decorations, including the bronze star, the purple heart, the meritorious service medal, the air force combat action medal, the meritorious unit award, the air

force outstanding unit award, the air force organizational excellence award, the air force good conduct medal, the national defense service medal, a global war on terrorism service medal, a small arms expert marksmanship ribbon and the air force training ribbon. as a cadet at the u.s. air force academy, david was a star track and field athlete. as a team captain, who is still ranked third all time in academy history for indoor and outdoor shot put, his teammates gave david a nickname, lyonitis, after the ancient greek warrior king of sparta for his courage against fearful odds. o captain, my captain lyonitis,

we salute you, you will never be forgotten, said scott irwin who was david's assistant coach. david knew the risks he was taking and embraced it without hesitation or fear, scott adds. that's another lyonitis trait. captain lyon's wife is an air force graduate where she was herself a two-time ncaa champion in the javelin throw. her family hails from lexington, kentucky, and i had the honor of speaking with them and hearing firsthand about david's service and tragic sacrifice. dave was known as a tender warrior and a protector, says rick pounds, dana's father and david's father-in-law. he was lighthearted and a gentle giant. kind and compassionate to everyone he met, dave's smile would literally light up a room. if my daughter would have given

me the task of go find me a husband anywhere, he's who i would have picked. dave loved the principles upon which our country was founded and died in defense of them. more importantly, he was a faithful follower of our lord and savior jesus christ in whom our liberty and freedom is derived. david attended the air force academy where he graduated in 2008. while there, he was a three-year letter winner for the track and field team. he became a mountain west conference champion and was named to the national strength and conditioning association all-american team and received the laura piper ironman award. this award is named for a 1991 air force academy graduate and former track and field star who was killed in action in operation desert shield in iraq.

david's shot put throw of 57 feet 11 inches earned him a place in the academy's record books. that gives you a sense of his intensity and his drive and his determination, says scott irvin. when he was team captain, he would get upset with others if they didn't give everything they could give. it bothered him if they didn't try to thank their god--- take their god-given talents to the highest level. that was david day in and day out. after graduation from the academy, david excelled in his air force career. lieutenant colonel james lovewell, his former squadron commander, recalls how much david impressed him. the consistency of his character showed across many facets of his life, lieutenant colonel lovewell says. he was very humble and tireless in serving others. he had a superb work ethic.

he was a servant leader. he served people just as much as he led them. assigned to the 21st logistics readiness squadron at peterson air force base, colorado, david was picked over more senior officers to become the group's commander's right-hand man. he worked above and beyond what was asked of him. i joked i was going to start calling him boomerang because he would come into work and i told him there was nothing more he could do and invariably he would just come back, said lieutenant colonel lovewell. he was sticking around to make sure i was taken care of. david and dana were both serving their country in afghanistan at the same time. david worked in logistics, dana in acquisitions. he would always talk about how proud he was of her over there taking care of the mission as he was, lieutenant colonel lovewell recalls.

just before david's tragic death, the couple were able to have christmas dinner together one final time. every day was always the best day of my life with him, so every day just got better, dana says. the last two days were the best two days we ever spent together. because they were based in colorado springs, david and dana maintained their ties to the air force academy. they coached and mentored young athletes, sponsored cadets and volunteered with the air force wounded warrior program. they had members of the academy track and field team over for meals. david also enjoyed camping, hiking, lifting weights and listening to country music with the windows down with his wife. dana's brother eric pounds is also an air force captain and admired his brother-in-law both as a dedicated and a beloved

member of the family. they both love the air force. eric says that his sister and brother-in-law. they both wanted to fight and they both wanted to protect their country. david did that at home and dethat in the air force. he was a protector and a provider, and i'm just really proud of him. so we're thinking of david lyon's beloved ones today, including his wife dana, his parents bob and jennie lyon, his parents-in-law rick and nancy pounds, his grandparents ray and imogene davis, his step grandmother beth davis, his brothers-in-law eric pounds and david pounds and many other beloved family members and friends. mr. president, it was my honor to speak with the family members of captain lyon just as it is an

honor for me to share his story with my colleagues in the u.s. senate today. i know that we as a nation send our condolences to this brave military family for the loss of such an incredible husband, son, friend and dedicated airman. i want them to know that the u.s. senate has paused today in memoriam to captain david i.lyon to pay tribute to his life of service and sacrifice half a world away. he will be remembered and he will be missed by those who knew him and loved him. mr. president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved. under the previous order, the senate will be in a period of morning business until 10:30 a.m., with senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes each and with time equally divided between the two leaders or their designees,

with the republicans controlling the first half. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from wyoming. mr. barrasso: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, tomorrow, president obama is scheduled to sit down for an interview with a health care web site called webmd. the president is going to take questions about his health care law and he is going to try one more time to convince people across the country that his health care law hasn't really been a complete disaster. it's a little bit ironic that the president will be doing this interview because under his health care law, before we know it, health care.gov is going to be linking directly to web md. people are going to have to spend a lot more time on web sites like that one because the president's health care law is going to make it tougher for many of them to see a real health care provider. america's facing a looming

shortage of doctors, of nurses, of physicians assistants. when president obama and democrats were ramming obamacare through this congress, they focused on hiring i.r.s. agents, agents to force americans to buy expensive coverage instead of training more doctors and more nurses to deliver care to patients. now, according to the association of american medical colleges, we're looking at a shortage of 90,000 physicians by the end of this decade. about half of those, family physicians, primary care providers, and about half of them specialists. we see the same numbers if not even higher shortages in terms of nurses. you know, there is an old proverb, physician heal thyself. well, certainly the slogan of obamacare is going to be patient heal thyself. the old doctor-patient relationship is going to be gone. medicine as we know it is going to continue to change. even if you can get time with your doctor, you know, there is

going to be a lot more of that time spent with the doctor looking not at you but at a computer screen because of the law. and that's because of the burdensome new rules, the recordkeeping requirements under the law. as more people try to get appointments with fewer doctors, some americans are going to start seeing actual rationing of care. here's how one economist described it in a blog pest for "the new york times" -- blog post for "the new york times." talked about the health care law on limits of payments to providers and doctors. he wrote, if patients are lucky, the demand for doctors will be low enough that the limits will not matter, but if the new law results in a signet increase in physician demand, the payment limits will help remind us of, as they say, soviet-era limits on the price of bread with queues and black markets to follow. now, we know that the president's web site back this fall was a complete failure.

four days before it was unveiled, the president said it was going to be easier to use than amazon, the rates will be cheaper than your cell phone bill, you will be able to keep your doctor. but again, the web site was just the tip of the iceberg. people are seeing higher premiums, and it's interesting, mr. president, as i was putting this together and looking about what remarks i would make, i hadn't even seen this morning's newspaper today, "wall street journal," today, thursday, march 13. sebelius, secretary of health and human services, says higher premiums likely in 2015, higher premiums. what did the president promise? he saidpremiums would go down. the web site was the tip of the iceberg, people seeing higher premiums now, and now our secretary of health and human services says higher premiums again in 2015. people have gotten notices of cancellation, over five million of those across the country. many people can keep their