a brief question? mr. mccain: i would be glad to. mr. murphy: thank you, senator mccain. senator mccain and i were in ukraine at the end of last year and we had the privilege to speak on the maidan in front of about half a million people, maybe even a million people who were there protesting the current government, the corruption that had reigned free, their decision to move away from an orientation towards europe, and after senator mccain's remarks, the crowd rose up with a chant of thank you, u.s.a., thank you, u.s.a. and wherever we went during that trip they were desperate for the help of the united states. and they are grateful for the fact that both the house and the senate is moving forward on the issue of providing loan guarantees, that aren't nearly enough, that's why we need to have the i.m.f. reform so they can deliver the bulk of the assistance but they feel they are standing virtually alone as russia marchs across their

borders and desperately want the united states to lead an international consensus to make it clear to the russians there's a price to be paid. the russians marched into crimea because they didn't believe the united states and europe would enact the kind of crippling sanctions that would have otherwise caused them to make a different decision. and what this moment could be about right now on the floor of the senate as we head back over to the ukraine to express our support that there is bipartisan consensus in the senate and the house that we're not only going to stand with them on the question of economic support but we are going to enact a set of sanctions that will make russia consider a different decision. and my question to senator mccain, as important as the economic support is, that's not what they're asking for here. they're not asking for the passage of the house bill. they're asking for the united states as we have time and time again to lead an international consensus to send a strong message to russia and we're going to go over there and have a good series of meetings this weekend but we could have had a

much stronger message to be brought to them if we answered their call ultimately to provide economic support and, and stand with our partners in europe sending a strong message to the russians. mr. mccain: i thank my friend from connecticut and i want to say that if we take up and pass the house bill, it does one thing. it gives them loan guarantees for $1 billion. there's not one single other binding provision in the house bill that my colleague from wyoming wanted to take up and pass instead of this bill which went through the committee with the input, by the way, of the administration, this bipartisan administration cooperation on it, and i would urge my colleagues to read the provisions of this bill. they are tough. they are tough, enforceable provisions that will make vladimir putin and his owing agark corruption uncomfortable. -- oligarch corruption uncomfortable. one of the reasons vladimir putin is doing what he's doing,

he's afraid of a free and independent and noncorrupt ukraine on his border might send a message to the russian people. sanctions on the russian federation complicit or responsible for significant corruption is a major provision of this bill. sanctions on persons responsible for violence or undermining the peace, security, stability, sovereignty or territorial integrity of ukraine. there are many other provisions in this bill which are binding which will make life very uncomfortable. instead my dear friend -- and he is my dear friend from wyoming wants us to take up and pass a bill that has one thing and one thing only, a billion-dollar loan guarantee. by the way, the e.u. has given them $15 billion. all i can say is we will pass this legislation and we will go and we will assure our ukranian friends this bill will be passed and we will act and i hope people at home, i hope people

that know ukraine and know the people of ukraine and know the friends and relatives and others will make it known to their elected representatives that for us to sit by and not help these people is would be writing a disgraceful chapter in american history. i thank my colleague. mr. corker: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from ken tennessee. mr. corker: if i could just add to the comments of senator mccain. we met last night mite knight with the prime minister -- last night with the prime minister. they don't need this economic aid today. they have to sign an i.m.f. agreement agreement first. it's weeks before they even need what the senator from wyoming wished to pass. on the other hand, what we're trying to do is to push russia back and as the leader mentioned, this bill has tough sanctions, and, by the way, europe is meeting on monday to begin looking at the sanctions they want to put in place.

so if we were to pass the sanctions that we have in this bill which are tough sanctions, sanctions that we have never imposed before, sanctions on economic extortion, sanctions on corruption, what that would do is help boost the european community along to do the same thing. our goal is to isolate russia, to keep them from continuing to put pressure on ukraine. i couldn't grate more. with why -- agree more. why would we pass a bill that does no good as it relates to trying to push russia back and isolate them when we have an opportunity right now to pass a bill that shows that we're willing to isolate russia and actually give strength to what european community is getting ready to do, hopefully this next week. so i agree, i wish we were taking up the bill that we all worked on together that passed by huge bipartisan majority and i wish we could send you off with the sanctions in hand

passed out of the senate to show the people of ukraine that while militarily there may not be involvement, we stand together with them to do everything we can to isolate russia, to isolate putin, and to make sure that economically they pay a huge price if they try to take any other actions in this area. so i agree with you. i yield the floor. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: there has been an objection, i think unfairly but there has been an objection today. but everyone should understand the first legislative matter we will take up when we get back here is going to be this. there's nothing that i know of at this time that's more important than this. so senators should be aware of this. this nothing we're going to run from. we're going to act on it shoes we get back. it's really too bad we haven't been able to move forwards on this. we would should have, a could have but we'll move to it as

soon as we get back. the presiding officer: the senator from alabama. mr. sessions: madam president, what's happening in the ukraine is a real disaster. it should never have happened, it's so bad, and it reflects a weakness in american foreign policy that goes deep, the american people understand that, i think the whole world is baffled at the lack of clarity in american foreign policy and by say if john mccain had been elected president and were president today we would never have had this invasion of the soviets, the russians in the ukraine, in the crimea. so this is a big problem. it's not going away. it's a very deep, serious problem. the fundamental thing that we can do today, we should do today is move forward with what the united states can contribute to this situation, which is pass the $1 billion loan fund. the european union is doing

that, 15 through the i.m.f. why don't we do that? why don't we do that? the reason is this leadership is determined to push forward a policy change in the international monetary fund that's been up here before the congress since 2010 and has not been passed and does not have to be passed today. they have insisted on that. they have placed the ukraine in second place to their reforms that they've been pushing for with the i.m.f. and there are serious problems with that. it gives russia more clout, among other things -- not a lot but gives them more clout in the international monetary fund. and it costs money and it violates the budget. i'm the ranking member on the budget committee. it's subject to a budget point of order. there's no doubt about that, anybody can suggest otherwise if they want to but it violates the

budget. and we ought not to be doing this in violation of the budget. we don't have to. we don't have to. but this administration negotiated with senator mccain and senator corker and the leadership of the -- the democratic leadership in the senate and they agreed, this would be the policy. not what the house passed but they would add more to it, they would reform the i.m.f. and we were all just supposed to accept it. and i told senator from tennessee, a very fine senator, that i'm be ranking on the budget. he knows that. we work together to try to adhere to the spending limits congress has imposed on ourselves. we just voted on this ten years ago, the president signed this reform, that raised the spending but limited it and they want to spend more than that in a way that's not legitimate.

so i'm just baffled, why in the world would we not take advantage of the -- yes, that the house has sent to us, pass this legislation, allow us to make our individual contribution of a billion dollars -- and, by the way, we're scoring it about $315 million -- about $50 million because it's unlikely we'll be fully paid back. so why don't we do that? is it pride? is it pique? is it politics? i can't imagine it. so you don't get everything you want, colleagues. take what you can get. it's really the only thing that amounts to anything now. the i.m.f. has put the $15 billion up. they don't need this reform to do their loan money, their aid to the ukraine. they don't need this legislation for that. why is it so important?

senator durbin said, well, we should -- why can't we debate this another day? right. why can't we debate the i.m.f. another day? the reason would be, if his bill were to pass, the debate is over. the law that the president wants to pass would pass without congressional involvement smith and -- in it and members of congress have been dealing with these issues for a long time. it's a serious question. it does not need to be here today on this legislation. it just does not. and like i said, i've warned our colleagues that we do not need to be passing legislation that's not paid for in this fashion, and i would object to it. they had time here to fix it. but no attempt to fix it. and so it's a little disturbing to me to see colleagues who

themselves have decided what the best solution is come to the floor and attack those of us who have a good-faith objection to it. when we're perfectly prepared to support the fundamental thing that needs to be done, and that is the $1 billion loan package, the united states pass agreed to fund, the congress -- the house has agreed to support, i support, virtually every member of congress supports but not this big reform package of i.m.f. that is not justified. i really feel deeply that this is a big mistake. why in the world we wouldn't act today and take yes for an answer, i can't imagine. this just goes beyond what i think is realistic. madam president, i would

conclude by saying again, something is very wrong with the foreign policy of the united states of america. and i don't think whether we reform the i.m.f. or not is not going to send a message to russia. so the idea that somehow we're going to affect them by exactly what is passed here today i believe is incorrect and i believe fundamentally that this package is what we can do, what we should do and we should do it today. and we should come back and be prepared to impose serious sanctions or whatever the president asks for. and finally i'm disappointed that the president of the united states is not more consultive with congress in order to determine what it is that we need to pass legislation, and would continue to insist on

passing reform legislation of the international monetary fund that in all likelihood will be rejected by the house. so i just feel like we're through the looking glass here. i hate the tensions are so high, but if we would take yes for an answer, pass this the house bill, -- have a full evaluation of reform of i.m.f. and pass sanctions as we go forward, that would be the right thing for us to do. i would yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cruz: madam president, i want to commend the senator from alabama and the senator from wyoming for their leadership on this important issue. the crisis in ukraine has riveted our attention for the last four months as we've seen brave men and women standing in the freezing cold, standing for freedom, standing for their desire to stand with the west, to stand with europe, to stand with america and be free from

the domination of putin's russia. we all strongly support the efforts of ukranian people to choose a different path from sub juggation to russia, to choose choose -- sub juggation with russia, and closer friendship with the west. all of us on both sides of the chamber are united in decrying the military aggression of russian strongman vladimir putin as he has invaded a sovereign nation with military force, committing an act of war, and no one should be confused as to what mr. putin is attempting to do, indeed acting ukranian prime minister said very clearly that putin is trying to reestablish the borders of the old soviet union, is expanding, expanding sadly into a vacuum of leadership the united states has not been filling, russia is filling that

vacuum. and the seizure of crimea is only the beginning of putin's aggressiveness and he will continue i would predict to be aggressive. unless he meets significant resistance. we're united in believing that there is an important role for the united states to play in responding to this crisis. i believe that we should take concrete actions to respond to russia's invasion of the crimea. number one, we should press to expel russia from the g-8. number two, the administration should immediately begin enforcing the magnitsky act, which it has failed to do up to this point, designed to punish human rights atrocities by russian officials. and indeed we should expand it to include ukrainian human rightrights abusers.

and we should immediately reinstall the anti-ballistic missiles that president obama mistakenly canceled in an effort to appease mr. putin. that effort did not succeed and we should go forward with allowing eastern europe to defend itself. additionally, there is a great deal we can do to aid the people of ukraine. the people should immediately offer the government of ukraine a free trade agreement, indicating that their goods are welcome in the united states and our goods in their country, and we should explore other options to assist them in economic recovery, consistent with free market principles. including a moving as quickly as possible to allow them access to u.s. energy exports, and in particular liquid natural gas. russia uses liquid natural gas as a tool of economic blame.

this is critical to the source of russia's power, not just over ukraine but over much of europe. the united states is blessed with abundant supplies of natural gas, and it is only foolhardy government policy that hands in the way of our exporting that natural gas, meeting the need and helping ukraine be free of the economic blackmail. we should move immediately in that regard not just because it would help ukraine, not just because it would represent a serious blow to russia, which russia relies on the energy exports. and if the united states provides them instead, that's a serious economic blow to russia, but because it makes perfect sense from the perspective of the united states of america, from our economic interests, at a time when we've got the lowest labor rate participation, when millions of people are out of work and hurting, we should be developing and expanding our resources, and energy provides an opportunity to transform the

geopolitical playing field, to use our abundant resources i s n this a -- resources in a free market manner to free and liberate the people of ukraine. there is also a financial component of the assistance to ukraine that it makes a sense should come from the international monetary fund. that's what it was created to do. and the i.m.f. today stands fully capable of meeting that need. now, madam president, my friend from arizona has an admirable passion on this issue for the people of ukraine and for stand up to mr. putin, and i commend my friend from arizona for his passion in this regard. however, the reason this bill has not passed today is because the majority of this chamber, the majority leader made a decision, the chairman of the senate foreign relations committee made a decision to inject into the aid and

sanctions plan for ukraine an extraneous issue, an issue of the i.m.f. that has nothing to do with the underlying issue. that was a mistake. that was a mistake, and i would suggest these so-called i.m.f. reforms are misguided policy. they don't make sense for four separate reasons. number one, they're unnecessary. there is no need whatsoever for these reforms. indeed, the i.m.f. is perfectly capable of managing the task on hand, and estimates have shown ukrainian aid would cost no more than 5% of its current resources. so this -- the i.m.f. portions are unnecessary, extrinsic. i agree with the speaker of the house, john boehner, who says these i.m.f. so-called reforms are unnecessary and extrinsic to this bill. but, number two, these i.m.f. provisions, if passed into law, would dramatically expand the financial exposure of the united states of america, effectively

doubling our contribution, expanding our exposure. now, if that is good policy, that should be debated on its merits. we should not be opening up the u.s. taxpayers to billions in additional financial reliability. it shouldn't just be tied to ukrainian aid and forced through the senate. that's the wrong approach. but, number three, most inexexplicably, these so-called reforms, if passed, would diminish u.s. influence on the i.m.f., would reduce our ability to control the decisions of the i.m.f., would move the funds from one in which we have veto authority to one we have no veto authority. astoastonishingly, madam presid, this bill would expand russia's influence and control over the i.m.f. let me repeat that. a bill that is being ostensibly

introduced to punish russia for their act of war and act of aggression, would expand russia's influence over the i.m.f. and decrease the united states of america's influence. madam president, i agree with my friend from alabama, who suggested moments ago this is through the looking glass. this makes no sense. i would challenge any of my friends here to stand up here and explain why a sensible response to what russia has done is to expand russia's influence in the i.m.f. and to diminish america's influence. that makes no sense whatsoever. and, madam president, i want to close with two points. number one, we could pass aid for the people of ukraine right now today. the senator from wyoming rose and asked for unanimous consent to pass the bill that has already passed the house. had the majority leader not stood up and objected on behalf of senate democrats, that bill would have passed into law. it would be already headed to

the president's desk for signature. it is only because the majority leader objected that we are not sitting here today having already passed aid for the people of ukraine. i would note, by the way, the majority leader had extended commentary about two businessmen, the koch brothers, who i'm beginning to think are a character almost out of dr. seuss in the majority leader's mind. they are the grinch who stole christmas. i notice he focuses on the i.m.f. rules, not focusing on the abuse of power by the ris i.m.f., but instead on the need for a vote to regulate the i.r.s.'s abuse of power. let me say, the house bill on ukraine doesn't mention the i.r.s. at all, doesn't mention c-4*s at all. that issue is not covered. so when the majority leader said this is all because of the nefarious koch brothers, set aside the impropriety of the majority leader of the united

states senate picking two private citizens, individuals who are engaged in political speech, standing up for what they believe, and the majority leader using his position of political power to lambaste them, to target them. interestingly enough, the majority leader does not seem to have a problem with a california billionaire who's publicly pledged to put $100 million behind democrats to press them to pass climate change legislation that would cost millions of jobs across this country, from blue-collar workers, from hardworking americans. that billionaire in the majority leader's view is perfectly fine to spend $100 million in the election, but the koch brokers because the two of them -- but the koch brothers, because the two of them have stood up and expressed their views, are subject to vilification and personal afa tac attack from the majority leader. the senate rules allow a member of this body, if his or her

integrity is imiewnd to raise -- is impugned, to raise an objection. what senate rule allows a private citizen to raise an objection when his integrity is impugned by the majority leader? those two brothers are not members of this body, so they can have their reputation dragged through the mud and yet they are denied a point of personal privilege to come and defend themselves. that is not the job of the united states senate to vilify private citizens, and i would note that the provision he's talking about is not in the house bill, which means, when the senator from wyoming stood up and asked for consent to pass the house bill, if the majority leader had simply refrained from objecting, we would have passed aid to ukraine tonight. nothing to do with the koch brothers, nothing to do with the i.r.s. that's not in the house bill. the reason the majority leader objected is that he wants to hold aid to the ukraine hostage

to force through these misguided i.m.f. reforms. that is the wrong decision. final point i want to make, madam president: the world should understand -- russia should understand, the people of ukraine should understand, mr. putin should understand that all of us are united in standing with the people of ukraine, that the united states will act -- i am convinced it will act decisively to impose sanctions and serious consequences on russia for this unprovoked act of war. we will act decisively to stand with the people of ukraine. there should be no doubt in any observer's mind that this will unify both parties. we will stand together. we would have done so tonight

had the majority leader not made the sing cal decisio cynical ded hostage. politics should end at the water's edge, and i think it's unfortunate to see the majority leader trying to use the crisis in ukraine for political advantage. that's the mistake. but there should be no ambiguity. we will impose sanctions. we will stand with ukraine. and the people of america understand that mr. putin's aggression is reliving the days when the soviet union was an evil empire. it's reliving those days. mr. putin calls the collapse of the soviet union the greatest catastrophe of modern times. well, all of us surely hope he does not succeed in his intentions of restoring the

soviet union, restoring that evil empire, restoring the cloud of oppression across europe and across the world. and we stand united with the people of ukraine and with the people surrounding russia in support of freedom and against his unconscionable act of war. madam president, i yield the floor. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from alabama. mr. sessions: i'd like to thank the senator from texas for his comments and for his eloquence. i believe he's touched on the right issue. i would just add one thing. i was in the ukraine about three years ago. a delegation was there. we met with state department people. we met with ti tymoshenko, the fabulous leader of the orange revolution. he had those beautifushe had ths in her hair, and she was

concerned that she would be put in jail. i just can believe it. the ambassador told us she hadn't committed any crime. but she was placed in jail, served two and a half years. they released her her now. she was in a wheelchair. you could see she had suffered from that. the people of ukraine did a fab- did a fabulous, wonderful thing when they stupid for democracy. -- when they stood up for democracy. i stand with them, just like i stood with the people of georgia when the russians invaded kosovo. so i would say unequivocally, bipartisanly, this congress, house and senate, stands firmly with the people of the ukraine. we want to help them. the one thing substantively we could do today to make a difference for the people of ukraine is to pass this bill

that would provide $1 billion in loans to them. i truly believe we should do that. i'm deeply disappointed that the majority insists that unless they get their reform of the international monetary fund that they want to see happen -- it's unrelated directly to the needs of ukraine -- that they won't accept that legislation that the house has already passed. i -- i think that's a bigamies take. i thank the chair and would yield the floor. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from new jersey. mr. menendez: madam president, i returned to the floor because i just can't let some of what has been said go unchallenged. first of all, as it relates to the majority leader, the issue of the connection that's been made between i.m.f. reform and the c-4 investigation, the

unlimited, undefined, not known secret money that goes into these entities and elections was not first raised by the majority leader. it was first raised by senator corker in an article. it was subsequently raised today on the floor by senator mccain. so casting aspersions upon the majority leader suggesting that he is ultimately impugning the reputation of anyone is pretty outrageous when the members of his own side of the aisle recognize that it was simply wrong to connect i.m.f. reform and the ability to help the ukraine in the most powerful way now with some c-4 investigation. secondly, only in washington, only in washington could someone have you believe that the i.m.f.

reforms that we are promoting means more power for russia. yeah, we're rushing in this chamber. john mccain is rushing in this chamber. bob corker is rushing in this chamber to give more power to russia. only in washington could anybody believe that. or that our other colleagues on the committee who voted for the legislation to have i.m.f. reform were actually voting, our republican colleagues were voting to give russia more power, more power, so they could impress people more. it stretches the incredulous nature of that argument. on the contrary, why are we in part of the mess we're in?

because when ukraine was having serious economic challenges, it was putin and russia that was coming with their money, not the i.m.f. in a way which ultimately might have been important because the i.m.f. needs the resources, the leveraging that we create by virtue of this legislation. so you can't divorce it. if you really want to help the ukraine, you need to have the resources to the nism that ultimately guarantees the full ability to bring the ukraine back into economic order, and from that bill, then all the other elements of security as well. thirdly, the budget point of order. you know, the ranking member on our committee made it very clear, i want to be supportive but we have to have this paid for, and we did. now, people can disagree with the pay-for, but it's paid for. it's paid for. something the house of

representatives didn't do. and by the way, let me tell you what else the house of representatives didn't do. they didn't do anything about sanctions, nothing, zero, nada. so the bottom line is we would send the message that, yes, we want to partially help the ukraine but not in the most significant way we can, which is with i.m.f. reform and the leveraging of the resources we would bring to that and the leveraging of our voice that we would bring to that and determining the future there and for the next crisis in the world, which is unfortunately around the corner. so for those who claim they are all for helping the ukraine and national security, you should have allowed us to have this vote tonight. lastly, with reference to my dear friend and colleague who i have a great deal of respect for, senator barrasso, who said i didn't permit his amendment on l & g to move forward, his amendment was ruled out of order

because it was not within the jurisdiction of the committee, and the reality is on the merits of it, it's not about the representing the ukraine right now. the ukraine doesn't have the infrastructure for l.n.g., they obviously don't have the resources to build the infrastructure for l.n.g. turkey which controls the strait has said they are not going to let l.n.g. go through it because of their concerns for security. so the bottom line is that is not about helping the ukraine today. maybe if all of those issues, infrastructure, the resources to build it, getting turkey on board, if all of that can be done, then maybe in the future that's part of a further, longer term solution, but it's not about right now. what was about right now was the loan guarantees. it was about the sanctions to make sure that the russians and those within the ukraine understand that they are going to be subject to real consequences by virtue of

corrupting the ukraine and undermining its territorial integrity, and then lastly having a long-term ability through the i.m.f. to achieve the goals of stabilizing the ukraine economically and also preparing for the next emergency. that's what was at stake tonight. now, we'll get there, but when you see movements of russian troops, when you see the circumstances that are unfolding, when i hear colleagues that say we're not doing enough and then just want to do a fraction of what is necessary to really help the ukraine, i begin to seriously wonder. so, madam president, i hope the majority leader will have this as the first order of business when we return. i think there is bipartisan support for the package the way it is. it's unfortunate that as our colleagues travel to the

ukraine, they can't go with the final message that this was passed today, but it will pass, and as i said to the prime minister of the ukraine yesterday, an extraordinary individual who met with members of the senate foreign relations committee, in the long history of the world, only a few are called upon to answer the call of freedom in some of its most dangerous moments of history. he has been called upon to do that on behalf of his country at this time, and we are called upon to stand against the aggression and to help a country be able to do so, and i hope that we'll get past this issue of linking i.m.f. reform with the whole economy of campaign finance issues here so that we can achieve that goal. with that, madam president, i yield the floor. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from arkansas. mr. boozman: thank you, madam president. i very much appreciate the importance of the discussion that's going on, but i'd like to

turn to another direction for just a few minutes and talk about another very, very important issue that is facing us. one of the biggest problems that our current faces at the current time is one that washington has created, the out-of-control spending and our lack of fiscal discipline to put our country back on a path to fiscal responsibility. last week, president obama released his budget proposal for fiscal year 2015. that proposal continues washington's reckless spending. it offers little in the way of real help to the millions of americans struggling to get by in this very stagnant economy, which is not being helped by the president's policies. what's worse is that the president finds a way to support the projects and priorities of his base but can't continue our country's commitment to our men and women who served and are serving in our nation in

uniform. the defense budget proposal to slash even more benefits our military families need. the military offers -- military officers association of america is rightfully highlighting these proposed cuts to military compensation and health care benefits, and "the washington times" published a story on this topic yesterday, saying retired service members weighed in with frustration and anger and certainly rightfully so. the proposal again caps the military pay raise of 1%, although the private sector wage growth is 1.8%. m.o.a., the military officers association, calculated what these cuts would mean to the bottom line of our active duty military. an army sergeant stands to lose nearly $5,000 in benefits annually, and an army captain nearly $6,000 in benefits annually. this is certainly the wrong message to send to our men and

women who put their lives on the line for this country. when the president was elected, he promised to go through the budget with a scalpel. however, the only thing he seems capable of dissecting is military pay and benefits. i'm here today to say that these cuts on our military families are unacceptable. i will fight to preserve the benefits our military families were promised. fortunately, this has been the case with the president's budgets from the past few years. this proposal will likely never see the light of day. even the majority here in the senate doesn't have the desire to bring that proposal up for a vote. but this does not excuse those who continue to propose savings that come at the expense of our men and women in uniform or those who have served us in the past. our military members, their families and our veterans

shouldn't have to bear the burden for washington's irresponsible spending. taking away benefits from our service members has become a recurring problem. this is very troubling. i stood her less than two months ago talking about our need to restore military retiree cuts that were unjustly taken away to help rein in spending. i proposed the budget agreement to cut the retirement benefits, reducing the cost of living adjustments because it unfairly aimed to balance the budget on the backs of our retired military. now the president seems determined to continue down that path. we were able to restore most of those misguided military retirement cuts, but these benefits should have never been a target. now the president wants to target service members again. it's an unconscionable -- it is unconscionable, considering he is intent on interjecting the federal government into private sector labor issues.

he wants to force private entities to raise wages and increase benefits. in a poor economy, his policies have created. but when it comes to our men and women in uniform, he is all for stripping away their hard-earned benefits so that he can continue to redistribute wealth, raise taxes and increase federal spending another trillion dollars. we need to keep the promise that we made to our service members and maintain these benefits. washington needs to learn to find savings somewhere else. it can and must be done. and with that, madam president, i yield back. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from north carolina. mrs. hagan: madam president, i come to the floor today to discuss an issue of enormous importance to my state, to our country and to future generations, and i want to thank my colleagues for bringing attention to the critical issue of climate change earlier in this week. this is a pressing problem that needs to be addressed and too often gets pushed to the back

burner. as a senator from north carolina, i represent a state that is home to some of our country's most treasured landmarks and most precious natural resources, from the great smoky mountains in the west to the national forest in the piedmont to cape hatteras national seashore in the east. and like so many north carolinians, my family and i love spending time together outdoors, whether it's hiking, fishing, biking or just enjoying the views and being outside. visitors from across the country travel to north carolina to experience the blue ridge parkway in the fall or to take a vacation in the outer bank in the summer, and tourism is an important part of our state's economy, generating $25 billion in economic activity and supporting over 390,000 jobs in my state. however, rising temperatures and extreme weather is putting those landmarks and resources at risk.

in 2012, north carolina experienced a total of 40 broken heat records, four broken snow records, 13 broken precipitation records and 19 large wildfires. since 2000, north carolina has issued 14 disaster declarations from severe storms and flooding. this extreme weather doesn't just jeopardize the beauty of our coastline or put our forest at risk of wildfires. it also affects our economy and it impacts people's everyday daily lives. in 2011, hurricane irene ravaged our coast and affected approximately 1.3 million north carolinians. roads and highways were destroyed. homes and businesses were left inaccessible. the damage left some families with no other option but to live in tents. the storm decimated tourism for

the eastern part of our state at the height of the tourist season, and the region got back on its feet only to begin -- we were hit again a year later by hurricane sandy, which just totally sliced through highway 12, which is the lifeline of the outer banks. and it cut it right down the middle. this changing weather impacts another key part of north carolina's economy, agriculture, which is our state's biggest industry generating $77 billion in economic activity, and agriculture employs nearly one fifth of our work force. last year record rainfall flooded several counties in north carolina. our farmers lost tens of millions of dollars of food crops, tomatoes were wrought with disease and some fields half of all the sweet corn had been destroyed. experts predicted losses could double for producers, some of

whom are thinking twice before they plant a crop next year. we are seeing the very real impact climate change is having on my state and its economy today, and in the absence of action, this extreme weather is here to stay. recent reports have shown that by 2099, climate change could increase temperatures by as much as ten and a half degrees fahrenheit and cause a thousand more death he heat leld-related deaths just in my hometown of greensboro. by mid century it's supposed to go from eight heat excessive days and reach a total of 70 days by the end of the century. this current path is unsustainable and we must take steps now to slow and stop the effects of climate change. this is a challenge that will need to be addressed from many

different directions but i'm proud of some of the steps that we have taken in north carolina when i was in the state senate. we invested in energy innovation, a bill i worked on in 2007 made north carolina the only southeastern state with a mandatory renewable energy standard, requiring electrical rue tilts to meet up to 12.5% of their energy needs through renewable sources by 2021. we also enacted the clean smokestacks act in 2002 which made significant emission reductions from coal-fired power plants in north carolina and tennessee. and i am proud of those accomplishments. but we must do more. and i believe that north carolina and the u.s. are well positioned to lead and to take advantage of opportunities in the 21st century energy economy. i look at north carolina's

research triangle partnering which is an international model for bringing together industry, research institutions and government, to help develop clean energy technologies that reduce carbon emissions and make our country less dependent on fossil fuels. companies and institutions across north carolina are developing ways to use energy more efficiently, harkinasing harkinasing -- harkin asking -- harkinasing smart grit grid technologies. while it presents new economic opportunities we must also be sure to minimize any economic burdens on the least fortunate and take efforts to ensure that we do not harm our global economic competitiveness. the challenge before us is great but if we come together, democrats and republicans, we can move forward the with commonsense measures that increase our energy independence

and put the u.s. back on a sustainable path all while getting the people of this great country back to work. thank you, madam president, and i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from alabama. mr. sessions: madam president, as we wrestle with the ukranian situation i hope we can -- i wish we could have gotten together this afternoon and hen ben able to pass the core responsibility of this congress which would be to allow the loan program to go forward, the $1 billion loan program that i think everybody in the house and the senate agrees on, republicans and democrats. it was, in fact, complicated and made impossible tonight because the majority insisted that i.m.f. reform that is opposed and is unrelated to the ukranian be a part of this legislation. the house has not passed it.

i don't think the house will pass it. so why were they insisting on that and refusing to take the money that we were able to give tonight? it's just baffling to me. i appreciate senator menendez. he's shown some real leadership and insight into international relations, he chairs the foreign relations committee, and i don't have any -- don't mean to attack his integrity or anything of that nature, but he is incorrect in saying that this bill is paid for or doesn't violate the budget. it absolutely violates the budget, the congressional budget office has analyzed the numbers and they've concluded just what my budget committee staff has concluded, that it violates the budget. the numbers are plain. look, a lot of things around here are not perfect but the idea that we would insist on

passing international monetary fund reform that does not have to be a part of this bill and is not related to this situation, it's going to cost $315 billion -- million dollars, to fund that program, that reform which is very controversial, and half of the money explicitly comes from the defense department, air force miferls and army procurement and aviation. at a time when the russian army is occupying the crimea in the ukraine, we want now cut the defense department and the army of the united states even more? the budget control act is really tightened up the military's defense budget.

they are doing all they can do to meet that budget. and i've tried to support the budget. i believe all of us need to tighten our belts but i would just say this -- we don't need to take more money out of the defense department budget at a time when we're already asking them to take unprecedented reductions. so i feel strongly about that. and it just is disturbing to me that we've not reached that agreement. in fact, what has happened, the defense department was forced to make some tough decisions, so they rescinded some of the money that they had and they intended to use it on other more priorities, things that they need to spend the money on. and they made tough choices. and what does congress come here now to do? reach in there and take the money they were trying to save so they could move it to something of higher priority and spend it on this program.

$4 trillion in the united states government spending. we can't find some other place to find this money? aren't there legitimate offsets that don't violate the budget? for the most part, all these offsets for both programs are not legitimate. they're basically gimmicks. and we need to get away from that. we need honesty in budgeting. we really do need when we have a priority that we want to act on like this ukraine situation, there's plenty of opportunities for us to identify lesser priorities spending and take that money and spend it. that's what the defense department was doing when they executed rescissions. they were making choices, priorities. and we should not do this. it's not a little bitty matter. and, frankly, the house needs to be more careful about how

they do their business. the bill they sent over here has got problems with it. but to take another whack at a controversial program, $315 million and take half the money from the military is really unacceptable. and i've warned people about this in advance. but they persisted. they thought they could get to the last minute and they would stand up here on the floor and they would emotionally argue that our objection had something to do with not caring about or being supportive of the people of ukraine, that we'd just fold up and give it to them. well, that day is becoming a day of the past. somebody needs to stand in here and say we're going to do these things right or you're going to have real problems on the floor of the senate. if i have to do it, i'll do it. i'm proud of senator wyoming --

the senator from wyoming who sought to pass the house bill. we just have to accept that. that's something we could do and get it done tonight and i would be willing to support that. i certainly want to help the ukraine and we can do it and do it in the right way. i thank the chair for the opportunity to speak tonight. i know we all love the country and we're going to have to wrestle now with serious questions russia, what their agenda is, what kind of actions they may be taking and there needs to be no doubt that this senator has no intention of standing idly by while russia attempts to take over independent, sovereign nations on their border. it's absolutely unacceptable, we cannot accept it, it should not have happened. if this president i believe had

been more firm and clear in his policies, it's likely would not have happened. but it has. and so the whole world now has got to confront this crisis and deal with it. it's not going to be easy. and i think all of us need to work hard to put our politics aside on this question and try to do what's in the national interest. i yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call: >> secretary of state john kerry is on his way to meetings with his counterpart of russia, sergei lavrov. so we'll show you some debate from earlier today starting with john mccain on ukraine.

quorum call:

mr. reid: madam president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the call of the quorum be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i do ask the chair the pending business. the presiding officer: motion to proceed to s. 2124. mr. reid: i have a cloture motion that i'd ask be reported. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. mr. reid: i have to sign it and send it there first. sorry about that.

the presiding officer: the clerk will report the cloture motion. the clerk: cloture motion: we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate, do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to proceed to calendar number 329, s. 2124, a bill to support sovereignty and democracy in ukraine and for other purposes, signed by 1 senators as follows: mr. reid: i ask consent that the reading of the names be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask consent that mandatory quorum under rule 22 be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i move to proceed to calendar number 581, as -- madam president, we are not in executive session, is that true?

the presiding officer: that is correct. mr. reid: i move that we now proceed to executive session to calendar number 51. the presiding officer: without objection. the presiding officer: question is on the motion. all in favor say aye. opposed, no. the ayes appear to have t the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: nomination, christopher reed cooper of the district of columbia to be united states district judge. mr. reid: i send a cloture motion to the desks. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the cloture motion. the clerk: cloture motion: we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate, do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the nomination of christopher reeve cooper of the district of columbia to be united states district gunnel for the district of columbia signed by 1 senators as follows:

reid of nevada -- mr. reid: i ask that the reading of the names be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent that the mandatory quorum under rule 22 be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i move to proceed to legislative session. the presiding officer: question is on the motion to proceed. all in favor say aye. all opposed, say no. the ayes appear to have t the motion is agreed to. mr. reid: i move to proceed to executive session to consider calendar number 582. the presiding officer: question is on the motion to proceed. all in favor say aye. all opposed, say no. the ayes appear to have it. the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: m. douglas harpool of mo to be united states district judge for the western district. mr. reid: i send a cloture motion to the desk on this nomination. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: cloture motion: we, the undersigned senators, in

accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate, do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the nomination of m. douglas harpool of missouri, to be united states trict for the western district of missouri, signed by 17 senators as follows: mr. reid: i ask that the reading of the names not be necessary. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask consent that the mandatory quorum under rule 22 be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i now move to proceed to legislative session. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all in favor say aye. all opposed nay. the ayes appear to have it. the motion is agreed to. mr. reid: i move to proceed to executive session to consider calendar number 583. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all in favor say aye. mr. reid: aye. the presiding officer: all opposed say no. the ayes appear to have it. the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: gerald austin mchugh jr. of pennsylvania to be united states district judge for