loving people who are being threatened by the big bear wanting to return to the days of the soviet union. and for my friend, the senator of wyoming, to come here and say there's nothing we can do about this today -- that is absolutely wrong. there is plenty we can do about it today. .. committees who are concerned about jurisdiction. now, how does -- how do the people in ukraine feel about that one? how do they feel about that? that the bipartisan heavy vote that we got out of the markup in the foreign relations committee, they may have stepped on someone's toes dealing with the jurisdiction of the committee. madam president, this is -- this is much more important than that. the international monetary fund is very much related to ukraine,

and my friend from wyoming knows that. he's on the committee. he knows about the importance of the i.m.f. 45 million people are desperate for help. for help. >> 45 million people are desperate for help. they are afraid, they are afraid. russia has deployed paratroopers to the border with ukraine. they didn't drive-in. they were dropped from the air. these russian cold war tactics, and this president putin, i want to make a suggestion. that's this. he's going to have this referendum sunday in crimea. why does mean one in chechnya? what would happen there? would they support russia? no. they are an oppressed people because vladimir putin. he wants to have a vote on what

the people of the russian federation want to do. let him vote in chechnya, see how that vote would turn out. this is so transparent what he is doing, illegally. these cold war tactics, trying to intimidate 45 million people in ukraine. that's just what he is, intimidation. the entire world and dems what he has done with rare exception. and they're going to condemn even more if he goes further. because action will have to be taken to isolate russia and its economy. this robust bill passed by the foreign relations committee to the floor is important. madam president, i don't go around with a lot of ackley, especially to my republican colleagues. i should do more but i don't.

i have to get better at that. but i don't personally, and i tell the people of tennessee and people in this country and the people around the world, speeches given by ranking member of that committee, the junior senator from tennessee yesterday and that committee was historic. it was a wonderful speech, set aside bipartisanship and directed its attention to what is going on in the part of the world that most concern us. this measure that comes from the house of representatives, i can't, i can't do better than what the senior senator of arizona says. how could we send eight of our senators to ukraine and say, yeah, we decided to do something, but we're not going to be anything to suggest in any way that what russia has done is wrong. there is not a sanction that

would cause anything to do with what the house has done. i can't imagine, i can't imagine how anyone in good conscience after what has gone on since the last few days, how anyone could agree to do something. our great country is going to go to ukraine and tell them that we have passed something that helps you come although we don't condemn russia in any fashion in the resolution. were we asked to agree to that? i don't think so, madam president. the role and expelled -- it's important. but it's important not only for the ukrainians, it's important for this country but it's part of our national security interest. so we know that the people are upset about committee jurisdiction, and we know it's out in the public that, and i've

kept this to myself for quite some time because it was done when we were doing other things like the omnibus, efforts made at that time to just give up on the investigations of the koch brothers and all the others. and remember, treasury is not investigating only republican supesuper pacs. they're investigating super pacs, as they showed. republican super pac. tea party supe super pacs, libertarians are backs, all of them. if that isn't something i should be investigated, i don't know what is. i've talked about senator mccain's efforts, and recognize and identifying that and we listen because of experience in the military. we should also listen to what he says about campaign spending. i'm sake takes a long. i know people want to leave but i want to say this. i've been part of raising money here in washington for a long

time, more than three decades. and i've done it, when i first came here, the only money you could get was where people where they work, their address, everything about that. and then you will remember there was a way, both parties found there was a way to sneak stuff through. we did it through corporations. we funneled the money through state parties. and i remember that. i felt so unclean, for lack of a better description. people give you big checks to give to the state party, and then mccain-feingold past. the next election as as if i took a bath, a bath after having run a marathon. john mccain understands why we need to investigate all this soft money, the super pac money. and when he said we should listen. maybe you don't want to listen to me but we should listen to

john mccain because he has a record substantiating his efforts on that behalf. so this thing is being objected to do. what we're trying to do your to protect the 45 million people in ukraine because of this investigation, the koch brothers and others. i'm not going to get into details about social welfare organizations and all that. we all know the political front groups that spend millions of dollars in misleading ads, and it's unfortunate. so it's too bad that we have this. it's hard to believe that some are so wedded to the koch brothers and others that they would torpedo a bill that is vital to the national security of this country and the freedom of tens of millions of ukrainians and the birthplace of my wife's dad. this is wrong, and i am very disappointed, very disappointed in my friend from -- from

wyoming, that he would come forward and do this. i tell you come it takes a lot of courage because there isn't a lot of academic integrity in that -- strike the word integrity. there isn't a lot of foundation for what he's done. it is unreasonable, it's unfair, and it's about, without substantiation, and i object. >> madam president? madam president? >> the senator from arizona. >> i thank you, madam president. i know the senator from alabama wants to speak and i can assure you i will not remain on the floor to hear it. because i know what the senator from alabama is going to say, that it has something to do with paying for out of defense spending. i'll match my record with the senator of alabama on defense spending any time, day or night. and the fact is that this money is taken out of programs that

were already canceled and we're going to be returned to the treasury, and if they had been used for defense, then it would have busted the budget agreement that the senator from alabama has so stoutly defended time after time. so i -- in a bit of preemption of the senator from alabama, your argument is wrong that this is taking money out of defense. you are dead wrong. so all i can say is, i say to my colleagues again, the senator from wyoming came down and wants us to take up and pass a bill passed by the house of representatives which has not a single binding sanction in it, not one. not one binding sanction in it. not one strong message to the people of ukraine that we are supporting them. russia's defense ministry announced, russia's defense ministry announced new military

operations in several regions in the ukrainian border on thursday. even as chancellor angela merkel warned, the operations came as ukraine's acting president, the acting president of ukraine was quoted by ukraine news media as saying russian forces that had mass near the border were ready to invade. so we now have russian forces about to invade a sovereign nation and what we talk about? and i am ethics. supposed% from alabama was right and this is some money that's being taken out of national defense. how much money are we going to to spend on national defense if vladimir putin goes unchecked throughout europe? the next target by the way will be the baltic countries because they have russian speaking populations as well. and we may have to have obligations there. moldova, where russia occupies,

georgia where russia occupies. but what are we arguing about? whether the imf fix is appropriate or not. what are we arguing about? whether it is in dispute as to whether this is actually some reductions in defense spending. where in the world is our priorities? where in the world is our sympathy and our concerns and our need to support the people of ukraine in this hour of need? so, and i don't want to go on too long, but the issue of natural gas, we all know that that's the way out of a long-term. does anybody think that including a provision on natural gas is going to have any effect whatsoever on events that are now happening and will be happening in the next few days? of course a.

i'm a strong supporter of getting natural gas to these countries, but it's not going up in the next days, weeks, months, or maybe even years. so to use that as an excuse, of course is again -- i've watched in the last few months to bolster errands. one was when we shut down the government to we are also that we shut down the government, turned away 6000 people from our national parks, took $27 million out of the economy of my state, on a fool's errand that was not going to succeed. now we see another fool's errand because the majority leader will file cloture, there will be well over 60 votes and 10 or 11 or how many days from now, we will pass it and these sanctions will be enacted to in the meantime, in the meantime, the first message to the people of ukraine who have russians in the view of the ukrainian president ready to invade, we are telling him no, because we don't agree with and

imf fix, or we think the money may be or may not be coming out of defense. >> will the gentleman yield for a brief question and? >> i would be glad to. >> 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 toward europe, and after senator mccain's remarks, the crowd grows up with a chant of thank you, u.s.a. thank you, u.s.a. and wherever we went during the trip as we are also from the new prime minister yesterday, they were desperate for the help of the trendy. 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 are nearly enough, that's why we need to

have the imf reform so that they can deliver the bulk of the assistance. but they feel like they are standing virtually alone as russia marches 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 grimy in large part because they didn't believe, they didn't leave the united states and europe would enact the kind of crippling sanctions that would've otherwise cause them to make a different decision. and what this moment could be about right now on the floor of the senate is as we head back over to the ukraine to again express our support that there is bipartisan consensus in the senate and the house, that will not only stem with him on the question of economic support but we will enact a set of sanctions that will make russia consider a different decision. my question to senator mccain is, as important as the economic support is, that's not what they're asking for. they're not asking fo for the passage of 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 will go over there and have over there and have a good use of meetings this weekend but we could have a much stronger message to be brought to them if we answered their call ultimately to provide an economic support and, and stand with our partners in europe sending a strong message to the russians. >> 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 crypto

craddock oligarch corruption uncomfortable. and by the way, one of the reasons why vladimir putin is doing what he's doing is he's afraid of free and independent and non-corrupt ukraine on his border might send a message to the russian people who are sick and tired of it anyway. sanctions on persons in the russian federation complicit in all responsible for significant corruption is a major provision of this bill. sanctions on persons responsible for violence are 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 is much different from wyoming wants is to take up and passed a bill that does one thing and one thing only him and that's a billion dollars loan guarantee. the u.s. has already given them $15 billion. all i can say is we will pass

this legislation and we will go and we will sure our ukrainian friends that this bill will be passed and that we will act. and held people at home, i hope people that no 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 riding a disgraceful chapter in american history. and i thank my colleague madam president. >> senator from tennessee. >> if i could just add to the comments from senator mccain. we met last night with the prime minister, all of us did. they don't even need is economic aid today. they have design and imf agreement first. it's weeks before they even need what the senator from wyoming wants 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 him from continuing to put pressure on ukraine. so i couldn't 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 are willing to isolate russia and actually give strength to what european community is getting ready to do, hopefully this next week or so i agree.

i wish we are taking up the bill that we all worked on together that pass by a 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 that 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. >> madam president? >> majority leader. >> there's been an objection, i think unfairly but there has been an objection today. that everyone should understand, the first legislative matter we will take up when we get back your is going to be this. there's nothing that i know of at this time that's more important than this. so senators shoul should be awaf this because nothing were going

to run from. are going to act on as soon as we get back. it's really too bad with not have to move forward on this. we should have. we could have but we are not going to but we will do as soon as we get back. >> senator from alabama. >> what's happening in 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 indeed, american people understand that but i think the whole world is baffled at the lack of clarity in american foreign policy. and i would 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 toward -- forward with

what the united states can contribute to this situation, which is passed the $1 billion loan fund. the european union is doing that, 15 through the imf. 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 police placed the ukrn second place to their reforms that they've been pushing for with the imf. and there are serious problems with that. it is russia more clout, among other things, not a lot but it 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 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 imf and we were all just supposed to accept it. and i told the senator from tennessee, a very fine senator, that i'm ranking on the budget. he knows that. we've worked together to try to it here to the spending limit congress has imposed on ourselves. we just voted on this.

10 weeks ago the president signed this reform that raised a spending but limited it and i want to spend more than that. in a way that is 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 are scoring at about $315 million, $350 million because it's unlikely we will be fully paid back. so why don't we do that? is the pride? is a peak? is a 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 imf 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 showed, we should, why can't we debate this another day? right. why can't we debate the imf another day? the reason would be, if this bill were to pass, the debate is over. the law that the president wants to pass would pass without congressional involvement 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 have a good-faith objection to it. when we are perfectly prepared to support the fundamental thing that needs to be done, and that is the $1 billion loan package, the united states has agreed to fund. the congress, the house as agreed to support. i support, virtually every member of congress supports, but not this big reform package of imf. imf 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. it 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 imf or not is not going to send a message to russia. so the idea that somehow we are going to affect them why exactly what is past year 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 consultative

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 house bill, come back and have a full evaluation of reform of imf and past sanctions as we go forward, that would be the right thing for us to do. i would yield the floor. >> madam president? >> the senator from texas. >> 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 the desire to stand with the west come to stand with your come to stand with america and to be free from the domination of putin's russia. we all strongly support the efforts of the ukrainian people to choose a different path from subjugatisubjugati on to russia, to choose a path towards economic and political liberty and towards -- and madam president, 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 ukrainian prime minister arseniy yatsenyuk said very clearly that putin is trying to reestablish the

borders of the old soviet union, is expanding, expanding senate 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 and less and until he meets significant resistance. we are also united in believing there's 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 g8. number two, the administration should immediately begin enforcing the magnitsky act, which it is filled it up to this

point, designed to punish human rights atrocities by russian government officials. and, indeed, we should expand it to include your training human rights abusers, and number three, we should immediately reinstall the anti-ballistic missile batteries in eastern europe that were scheduled to go in that president obama mistakenly canceled in an effort to appease mr. putin. .. 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. as a tool of economic blame. it is critical to source of russia's power not just ukraine but much of europe. it is only foolhardy government policy that stand in the way of our exporting natural gas, needing the need and helping ukraine free of 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 where russia relies on revenue from energy exports. if the united states steps up to provide themhe instead that is serious economic blow to russia. not just because of that, but because it makes perfect sense of perspective from the united states ofsp america, from our economic interests, at a time with we have the lowest labor rate participate since 1978 when

millions of people are out of work and should be hurting we should be developing and expanding our resources an energy provides the opportunity to transform the geopolitical playingld field, to use our abundant resources in a free market manner to respond and help liberate the people of ukraine. and there is also a financial component of the assistance from ukraine, thatof it make as world of sense should come from the international monetary fund to which the united states is a contributor. that is what the imf was created to do and the imf today stand fully capable of meeting that need. now, madam president, my friend from arizona has an admirallable passion on this issue for the people of ukraine and for standing up to mr. putin and i commend from friend moo arizona for his passion in this regard, however, the reason this bill has not passed today is because the majority of this claim berks

the majority leader made a decision, that the chairman of the senate foreign relations committee,te made a decision to inject into the aid and sanctions planned for ukraine an extraneous issue, an issue of the imf that has nothing to do with the underlying issue. that was a mistake. that was a mistake and i would suggest these so-called, imf 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 imf is perfectly capable of managing the task on hand. estimates have shown ukrainian aid would cost no more than 5% of its current resources soft the imf portions are unnecessary, extrinsic. i agree with the speaker of the house johnf boehner, who says these imf so-called reforms are unnecessary and extrinsic to this bill. but number two, these imf

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 liability without a debate on the merits. it shouldn't be just tied to ukrainian aid and forced through the senate. that is the wrong approach. but number three,, most inex-flickably, these so-called reforms if passed could diminish u.s. influence on the imf. would reduce our ability to control the decisions of the imf. indeed would move the fund from a fund which we have veto authority which one we have no longer veto authority. we would have a smaller portion of influence over the imf and a fast nunnishing, madam president, number four, this

bill would expand russia's influence and control over the imf let me repeat. a bill that is okays stepsably stuffed to punish russia, for their act of war and act of aggression would expand russia's influence over the i in 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 my friend to stand up mere to explain why a sensible response to what russia is done and expand russia's influence in the imf and diminish america's influence. that makes no sense whatsoever. 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 content to pass the bill that already

passed the house. had the majority leader not stood up and objected on 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 we are not sitting here today having not already passed aid for the ukraine. i would note by the way the majority leader had extended commentary about two businessmen, the koch brothers, who ti am beginning to think a character almost out of dr. suess in the majority leader's mind. they are the grinch who stole christmas in his telling. i would know note he focuses on irs rules, not abuse of power by the irs the treasury inspector general chronicled, but instead on the need for a vote to regulate the irs's abuse of power. let me say very simply, the housee bill on ukraine doesn't mention the irs at all. doesn't mention c-4s at all. that. issue is not covered of te

when the majority leader stood on the floor of the senate and said this is k all because of nefarious koch brothers, set aside the impropriety of the majority of the united states senate, two private individuals, engaged in political speech, standing up for what they believe and the majority lead using his position of political nower to lambast them. interesting enough, the majority leader does not have a problem with the california billionaire who publicly pledged to put $100 million behind democrats to press them to pass climate change legislation that would cost millions of jobs across this c country from blue-collar workers, fromtr hard-working americans. that billionaire in the majority leader's view is perfectly fine. to spend $100 million in the election but the koch brothers because the two of them have stood up and expressed their views, are subject to viliification and personal attack from the majority leader.

madam president, the senate rules allow a member of this body of his her integrity to be impuned to raise an objection. let me ask you something, madam president? what senate rule allows a private citizen to raise an objection when his integrity is impuned by the majority leader? those two l 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 is talking about is not in the house bill. which means when the senator fromna wyoming stood up and askd 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 irs.

that is not in the house bill. the reason the majority leader objected that he wants to hold aid to the ukraine hostage, to force through these misguided imf 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 cynical decision to hold aid for ukrainioe hostage to force a partisan bill, that does not enjoy sufficient support in this body to pass otherwise. politics should end at the water's edge. i think its is unfortunate to se the majority leader trying to use the crisis in ukraine for political advantage. that's the mistake. there should be no ambiguity. we will impose sanctions. we will stand with ukraine. and the people of america, under stand mr. putin's aggression, is reliving the days when the soviet union was an evil empire. it is reliving those days. mr. putin calls the collapse of the soviet union the greatest

geopolitical catastrophe of modern times. while all of us surely hope he does not succeed in his intentions of restoring the soviet union, restoring that evil empire. the restoring the cloud of oppression across europe and across the world. we stand united with the people ofkr ukraine and with the people surrounding russia in support of freedom and against his unconscionable act of war. madam president, i yield the floor. >> senator from alabama. >> i would like to thank the senator from texas for his comments and for his eloquence. he has 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 timoshenko, the

fabulous leader of the orange revolution. she had those beautiful braids in her hair like peasants in the ukraine wear and she was concerned she would be put in jail. i just couldn't believe it. the ambassador told us she hadn't committed any crime. but she was placed in jail. served 2 1/2 years. they have released her now. she was in a wheelchair. you could tell she had suffered from that. i truly believe that people of ukraine did a fabulous, wonderful thing when they stood up for their country, for democracy. we need to stand with them. i stand with them. use like i have stood with and defended the people of georgia when the russians invaded osettia. i would stay unequivocally, bipartisanly, this congress, house and senate, stand firmly with the people of the ukraine. we want to help them. the one thing substantively we

can do today that would make a difference for the people of ukraine is to pass this bill that provides a billiondollars in loansil 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, that it is unrelated directly to the needs of ukraine, they won't accept that legislation that the house has already passed. i think that's a big mistake. i thank thhae chair and would yield the floor. >> madam president. >> senator from new jersey. >> madam president, i returned to themr 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 t the connection that has ben made between imf reform and the c-4 investigation, the unlimited, undefined, not known, secret money that goes into these entities in elections, was not first raised by the majority leader. it was firstit raised by senator corker in an article. it was subsequently raised on the floor by senator mccain. so casting aspersions upon the majority leader suggesting that he is ultimately impuning the reputation of anyone is pretty outrageous when the members of his own side of the aisle recognized that it was simply wrong to connect imf 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 imf 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 imf reform, our republican colleagues, were voting tobl give russia more power, more power. so they could open press people moore. more. it stretches the incredulous nature of that argument. on the contrary, why are we in

part of the mess that we're in? because when the ukraine was having serious economic challenges, it was putin and russia that was coming with their money, not the imf in a way which ultimately might have been important because the imf need the resources, the leveraging that we create by virtue of this legislation. so it's, you can't divorce it. if you really want to help the ukraine, you need to have the resources to the imf that ultimately guaranties the full ability to bring the ukraine back into economic order and from that buildeds on 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 is 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 did nothing about sanctions. nothing, zero, nada. so the bottom line is, we would send a message that, yes, we want to partially help the ukraine but not in the most significant way we can which is with imf reform and the leveraging of the resources we would bring to that and leveraging of our voice that we would bring to that and in determining the future there and for the nextrm crisis in the wod which is unfortunately around theor corner. so for those who claim they're all for a helping 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 lng 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 is not about the helping the ukraine right now. the ukraine doesn't have the infrastructure for lng. they obviously don't have the resources to build the infrastructure for lng. turkey, that controls the bosporus straight has said they are notey going to let lng go through it 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, maybe in the future that's part of a further longer term solution but it ison not about right now. what was about right now was the loan bear tease. it was the -- guaranties.

about the sanctions and volusia shuns and those in the -- russians and that we i will be subject to real consequences by virtue of corrupting the ukraine an ad undermining its territoril integrity. and then lastly having the long term ability through the imf to achieve the goals of stablizing 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

first order of business when we return. i think there is bipartisan support for the package the way it is. it is unfortunate 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 in history. he has been called upon to do that on behalf of this country at this time. 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 imf reform with the whole question of campaign finance issues here, so that we can achieve that goal. with that, madam president, i yield the floor. >> that debate in the senate

yesterday. congress did put off the vote yesterday that would have expanded sanctions against unidentified russian officials as well as approve a billion dollars in loan guaranties to ukraine and international monetary fund revisions to help kiev. the senate will not vote on the measure noll march 24th at earliest while congress comes back from week long recess. russians are pushing their own ukraine bill that includes no russian sanctions. senator mccain is with other senators and tweeting about their experience. senator mccain tweets, good to sit down from the ukraine officials from interim government. moving visit to maiden square. also this from sheldon whitehouse. memorable experience with senator john mccain and senator dick durbin and the rest of my colleagues at maidan square in e.

-- kiev. secretary of state john kerry is meeting with russian prime minister lavrov. here are his comments. >> ladies and gentlemen, we have had intensive day of negotiations with john kerry about the situation in the ukraine. of course both parties are, ourselves and our american partners are seriously concerned. we have expressed our position as to what is happening and what are the reasons for what is happening and what are the measures that the international community should take to begin an inclusive international dialogue that would overcome the deep split within the society and to implement the constitutional reform that should in our conviction take part interests of all the

regions of ukraine. from our side we have expressed deep concern with the fact that not all necessary measures are being taken to provide security and order. no efficient measures are taken to prevent unlawful actions of radicals that escalate provocations including armed provocations with violence and try to affect an ininfluence what is happening within the country. we have also attracted our partners attention to the very obvious fact that the agreement of the 21st of february, diplomatic giving up weapons -- squares and buildings and our american partners have agreed that that order should be

brought in this area. they also agreed that the constitutional reform that need to overcome -- for the society is re important. as for practical measures that should be taken or could be taken by foreign partners of ukraine, we do not have common vision of the situation. the differences are there but the dialogue was definitely constructive and it could help us to understand how much and how good we understand each other. and in general, an overall picture of the u.s.-russian relations and from that point of view, the negotiations were very useful. we of course discussed crimea. we have repeated our position that was expressed by the president of russian federation. we will respect the, view of the people of crimea, that would be

expressed, at the referendum at the 11th of march. -- 16th. so the international press and russian press. [inaudible] interfax agency. [inaudible] russia agrees with full cooperation with international contact group with european union, russia and the united states. i have already spoke on, spoken of the issue. the conflict group that is being offered by our western partners is based on the premises that the purpose of this multilateral purpose should be facilitating direct contact and dialogue between russia and ukraine.

we think that this is wrong approach. the crisis was not caused by russia. we have warned our european partners that ukraine should not put before a false choice that it was done when the signing of the association agreement between the ukraine and e.u. was about to happen and president yanukovych decided to delay the signing of the agreement. we warned against encouraging illegal and unlawful demonstrations especially those that, with the participation of armed groups. so international community, if it responsible needs to appeal to immediate beginning of the process of constitutional

reform. ukrainian parliament can't initiate this process by inviting all the regions of the country and providing them with the equal participation in the negotiations. we have our own suggestions and offers that we were giving to our western partners about a week ago and we would be happy to make them available to the media. but i will repeat. the most important thing is that we do not need international structure to look into ukrainian-russian relationships. the relationships have never been ceased. yes after, what happened in kiev when the legally elected president was overthrown. we have some complications but russian president putin,

encourages the russian government to work side by side with ukrainian minister and the context all long side the line of foreign ministers, the framework of foreign ministers whenever he sees. any questions there are could be resolved and raised in direct contact. the ukrainian side suggested to convene the cis council, you crain is presiding in the cis and as they offered to have this council in kiev. we suggested that they should begin it with the deputy foreign ministers and to have it in means but unfortunately our colleagues declined this offer so, so in our understanding the

all the international community is to encourage all ukrainians to gyp dialogue about constitutional reform with the understanding that enaction, long enaction and encouragement of current leadership of ukraine in the direction that they're moving now has in fact caused the supreme soviet of crimea to start referendum. and we have committed to respect the results of the referendum. >> [inaudible] is

>> translator: what happened in has become subject of commentary from russian foreign ministry. you have this text, you could have a chance to familiarize with it. it is really horrible situation. the military, armed people, militants, arrived started violent intrusion in during the demonstration. russian government has no plans of military intrusion into eastern ukraine. they are based on the assumption that the rights of russians, hungarian, bulgarians or ukrainians need to be protected. what is happening in crimea that there's now, serious violations of or breaches is the result of

the self-defense groups. they determined not to left to repeat what happened at maidan where the camp town, in the center of the european city is still there and i want to insure you that we do not have any plans of non-transparency what we are doing. just a few days ago the ukrainian party in the framework of the treaty about the open sky decided to have an extraordinary measure and to fly about, across the territory where the russian military exercises were happening. they were granted this permission. >> [inaudible]

>> translator: we are discussing this subject, this story and what is different is each case is a separate case, a singular case. and i'm convinced that kosovo was a very special case and crimea is also very special case. . .

that shows is a counterproductive and sturm and if the decision is made so it is their decision as to it certainly won't facilitate the cooperation. >> we will take any measures. now we have to wait. >> [inaudible]

[inaudible] >> as to the referendum in crimea we have expressed to the people of crimea. and as to the attitude towards the result of the referendum we will find the results. the parliament has already accepted resolution about the parliament and we just have to wait for the result. as to the statement of the

partners, we be leave that it has never been canceled. this is one of the important parts of status and the instances. there is another state on the island where in the last century there was a referendum by the independence from france and one of the islands but france insisted on the recounting so that's not the overall number of people could vote but each and every island separately and the

island remained in france and later on it was included in the french republic as it was just another department. what was that? was it can annexation or determination? the african union did not accept the decision by the european union and as to the western partners let me say again it would be their decision. the president is in constant conflict with the chancellor and the prime minister and other european leaders and the chairman, the turkish prime

minister and i am in constant talks and meetings and we are not hiding our position. it all needs to be discussed honestly. >> [inaudible] >> translator: i cannot answer this question. we never decline or reject a diplomatic framework and our diplomatic partners do not want that. we could never force them to do that. but i do hope in the personal

meetings and conversations i hope that they are aware this is a case that cannot be looked to in an isolated way. is there an international law of course everybody understands that crimea for russia is something important what it means for russia it means air in measurably more for the united kingdom and for friends. thank you. >> secretary of state john kerry met with the foreign minister in london and also spoke with reporters after the meeting. we are working to bring you his comments later. however he did say that washington and the international

community will not recognize the outcome of the upcoming referendum in crimea. he said in six hours of talks today he put forward several ideas on how to respect the sovereignty and russian concerns, too has about laughter off made it clear that vladimir putin wouldn't make any decisions until after sunday's vote. the members of the congressional delegation that traveled to ukraine for the vote had tweeted. senator mccain said the first stop today was a shrine to the fallen heroes. also, senator durbin said after a series of meetings top government officials sitting down for coffee with civil society leaders and arizona senator jeff flake said just finished a meeting with ukrainian prime minister and look forward to traveling in the region in th coming days. the delegation include senator may came, also senator john barrasso of wyoming, dick durbin, christopher mercy and sheldon whitehouse of rhode

island. >> the interim minister of ukraine was in the united states this weekend that time is running out to find solutions to the situation in the country. he also said the government is satisfied with the u.s. and european response to the intervention. he spoke at the atlantic council here in washington after a meeting with president obama and his comments were the minutes. the president and ceo of the atlantic council and we recommend you to this very important event i would say historic visit with and meeting with ukrainian prime minister. the premise or is coming to a

strictly from the white house and president obama will come to the atlantic council the premaster and thank you for including us in your busy and important itinerary. we have assembled a very large and powerful community of influence here. anyone of you that would like to spread the word, please use on twitter hash tag acukraine. i want to extend a word of welcome to the talented organization, the foreign minister, the ukrainian ambassador to the united states with whom we work in honestly closely as well as several other officials, many of the staff that we have worked for in one form or at another in different positions they've been as a testament to the importance of the visit of your message -- your country that so many ambassadors council the directors and the press are here

today. ukraine is under siege and the political crisis that played out across the country is now complicated by another crisis. the seizure of crimea to destabilize ukraine. the prime minister has risen only two weeks in the job. he's already met almoshe has alf his counterparts in europe and north america and has become the nation's point person in rallying the community behind the democratic ukraine. president obama has sent a signal for the support of ukraine by inviting the prime minister to the white house on the eve of the illegal referendum in crimea this sunday. shortly after the prime minister arrived in washington, the g-7 issues issued a statement calling for a hold of the referendum saying that they wouldn't recognize its result as legal and saying the annexation

of crimea could have grave implications for the legal order to protect the unity and sovereignty of all states should the russian federation take such a step so the g-7 we should take further action individually and collectively. and watching the g-7 over the years i have seen such a strong statement we have 15 ambassadors here including the ambassador of germany and the uk, very strong with solidarity. the call to action i would say the moment is now to the crisis and focus that we must plan on the long game and the atlantic council has been doing both acting urgently and planning for the long game.

we've watched our own action plan -- through the elections and into the first months of the presidents term. this will continue to work on ukraine and the council. we go to george and also members of the atlantic council board and initiative championed by george to help us ramp up our work on this issue. now i turn to introducing you briefly the premaster who was appointed minister of februar february 27 was an essential galvanize her of the protest and a key architect of the opposition strategy in the parliament to ensure peaceful constitutional transfer of ukraine. he comes to this job prepared. he serves as the minister of the

economy and he made her lea mayo the bank served as vice president minister of economy and headed to the talks to join the world trade organization. all before taking on leadership roles as the foreign minister and the chairman of ukraine parliament. he is uniquely prepared to provide a steady hand during difficult times that ukraine needs to balance its many challenges. mr. prime minister, welcome. the floor is yours. [applause] it is a great pleasure and honor to address such a distinguished audience. usually people come here to make lectures. that may change these rules and probably i will give a very short introduction.

it's more important for me to listen to your advice and to listen to your questions and i am ready to answer any questions that you will raise. this is a very dramatic time for my country. and what's going on is entirely unpredictable for me and unacceptable for the world. with no reason and no ground, our partner in the past but i still believe this country would be a part in the future started in an incursion into the ukrainian territory, started to invade an independent and sovereign country. my country is facing both military and economic challeng challenges. we still be we've got there is an option to tackle the military crisis with the political and

diplomatic cost. as time is growing and the clock is ticking, the chances are not as big as they were for example last week. these options and tools are still on the table. with consideration. to pull back the forces and to start real talks and negotiations. we as a ukrainian government are ready to hold an open dialogue, how to tackle these dramatic crisis of the 21st century and this is not t the crisis between ukraine and russia. it's worse. this is a global crisis and as russia moves further this would

undermine the entire global security. and i'm wondering about russia to draw the new lines, to revise the outcome of the second world war, to restore the soviet union or to preserve peace and stability in the region and to the international obligations. on behalf of the ukrainian government, i would like to underline that we adhere to all international, multilateral and bilateral obligations including the russian did when the treaty but with russia to stick to the conditions and execute on the

international obligations. we are facing an ongoing economic crisis which is a consequence of a corruption of the president and of the former government. we leave that to the talks we resume would successfully accomplish. we fully realize that the program is not a sweet candy but on the other hand, my country desperately needs reforms to stabilize the financial sector and to move further in economic success and prosperity. we launched negotiations with our european partner and we

command a strong and solid support of the american people that you demonstrated to the american people of all member states, heads of government and president that they made in their statement last week saying that ukraine needs to be a sovereign independent country and i'm sure that next week ukrainians define a political part of the association agreement and to make a solid step to make the ukraine a part of the european union. what is at stake today? the future of my country and freedom of my people. 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 and in order to save my people and to have my country as an independent on. we heavily rely on the support and we do get the support and we do understand that it's up to the ukrainian people to shape the future. the government is ready to deliver change. we are ready to implement reforms. but you can't do it having russian tanks and russian soldiers on your soil. i feel very optimistic as you always need to be the band ipv that we will find a solution that we will tackle this crisis

and we will do everything to make ukraine a prosperity state. ready for any kind of q-and-a. [applause] thank you so much for those remarks. i'm the executive vice president here at the atlantic council and i want to reiterate the welcome to you mr. prime minister and to all of our guests. thank you for those remarks. it's all about freedom. ukraine will never surrender and the optimism in the time of challenge i want to get the conversation started with a few questions and then turned to the audience. sitting with president obama in the oval office and they statement of support and/or

visit here the vote in crimea is that support these have been in private conversations of course but what can you tell us and what were you seeking on the visit to washington, how have the talks on and do you feel comfortable with the united states and european union are not ready to act in support of ukraine? >> i will try to tell everything i can. it was very open discussion. and we avoided these diplomatic languages. we appreciate the support that the people in the u.s. president in u.s. government and bipartisan support that you demonstrate and it's great to have the eu speaking in one single voice.

i see that the western world is determined to preserve the ukraine integrity and independence. what we already got, we already got a package of financial aid both we need to accomplish the imf deal the key factor is that the united states already announced $1 billion of guarantees for this stabilization of the economy. so we got a very strong statement of the european union and the united states saying that they will do whatever they can to support of the ukrainian people and protect ukraine. i am satisfied with the way the u.s. and the eu helps us to handle this crisis.

>> mr. prime minister, if i may use it in your remarks that you would never surrender. ukraine would never surrender. as we heard in many regards the strategy that you had has become a strategy for ukraine today in this crisis. how do you see this playing out, what is your strategy? in your remarks you said you follow the diplomatic peaceful process but that it's not inevitable that that can continue. help us understand what you are thinking in terms of this crisis. >> much will depend on the personal vision and stands of president putin. i would like to reiterate that we still want to have a free and equal partnership and you can do

it in a military incursion. we do not consider a military option as the best option on this crisis. in the new globalized world, we need to find out a better strategies. and i still insist on political and diplomatic talks. what is the best strategy? the best strategy is to sit and negotiate. what is the best approach for russia backs >> what do you think president putin's strategy is? how far is he willing to take

this and is his calculation affected bthis calculationaffecn washington today? indicates better to ask president putin because he is the only person who knows. but there are different case scenarios. there may be this incursion on the artificial ground saying that russia decided to protect the minorities. and i was astonished with this and that isn't because my wife speaks russian. she doesn't need any kind of protection. [laughter] and my kids, too. as a ukrainian government, we preserve the rights of all minorities including russian speaking and you probably would know that in the first days of the government along with the languagthelanguage of what is ry the acting president decided not to sign a law and it means the

russian speaking minority is under the comprehensive protection. so no grounds at all. another reason was so-called anti-semitism. president putin does not. this is the first government where the deputy prime minister represented the community. then the president putin said some stuff about protests were no evidence at all and where the government will fight for anyone who proclaims something. 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 ukraine including the ukrainian capital. it all depends on his personal goals. you probably remember his speech two 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 the century would be restoring the soviet union. >> i think that is an important statement. let me ask one more question and turned to the audience. i just came back from kiev where the whole society was walking through the streets today.

and you feel you feel a sense oa steady resolve that folks recognize in the crisis and need to come together. but we first had the opportunity to meet in 2004, 2005. how is this time different? you recall there was great option that some -- optimism and as a political jockey challenged the actual governance. how is this a different opportunity for ukraine and how do you get the task right? for >> very different i would say because look at 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 freedoms and liberties? so in 2004 it was a peaceful one. the revolution of 2,000 in ten years the revolution with the bloodstained on the former president and former government and the sentiments are very different. but on the other hand, people are very united and they have shown their courage and determination to fight for the country. and this is a great fight for this country. we have not just the territory after this revolution. we have the country and not just

the people, but the nation and this is the outcome. >> thank you mr. minister. there are folks interested in your country that has been working on it for a long time. let me turn to the audience. take the microphone and we will start right here. right here to this gentleman. please. >> introduce yourself three and introduced herself and affiliation and ask a quick question. ministers on a tough -- tight schedule. >> michael gordon, "new york times." you said you're interested in a political solution with russia. could you elaborate a little bit of what your vision of the political solution might look like and also under what conditions in what circumstances might there be a referendum in crimea were ukraine -- only as a part of that political solution? >> first we need to start the dialogue indicated she nations.

we are ready to start a dialogue to help increase the rights starting with taxes and adding another aspects like language issues. we are ready to start a dialogue and ukrainian parliament having everyone sitting at the table discussing every single issue making each step in the constitutional manner. you mentioned the so-called referendum. it's with an expected result. there is no legal ground for the referendum. what we need to do is pass a law anthewall in the house that alls the local referendum and only

afterwards the referendum could be constitutional but my message is clear this is a legitimate constitutional referendum. there is no legitimate government in crimea. they have the support of 18,000 russian soldiers and who sees unconstitutionally the powder in crimea. >> let me pick up two questions right here. >> i'm from china center television. it's that it's unconstitutional but as we know the referendum is getting near so how public do you think by th that the negotin to solve the problem and after you met barack obama and john kerry today what is the most

difficult thing here in solving the uk crisis? >> i'm at the atlantic council. thank you for the remarks. i want to fast forward if putin doesn't withdraw from crimea it moves west this could make crimea into his afghanistan. can you comment on the prospect of an insurgency? there are already reports of jihadis moving to crimea. >> that's what we want to avoid. just stating the consideration that crimea this could raise a question, too. the reason why the government is very cautious. they tried to provoke us and

when they allow the president to use force on the territory, they expected us to do the same to imposing martial law and to start the military operation. we do understand the military strength. i can give you the numbers of the aircraft facilities one through 98 excluding the nuclear aspect. we need to do everything we can. everyone that wants to preserve peace and stability to avoid the bloodshed. there will be no end. >> a finite let me turn to the next question and pick up david

in the france to ask the second one to write a >> mr. prime ministers, how confident can the people of ukraine and the government be that the western support that is beating promised including economic sanctions will actually be realized? history of assurances is not very encouraging. and i will only cite one. >> perhaps we go pick up david as well. >> i want to welcome to you here in washington -- primack sorry, david with freedom house. dealing with the territory is an urgent crisis. trying to fix the economy is an urgent crisis. but in a little more than two months, the presidential elections are scheduled. there are reports and rumors of

postponing those elections. how confident are you they will be ready to hold those on the 25th and how ready will it be to have the credible action? it's not just about ukraine is ideal for the mentioned. it's about the global security. let me remind you it in begin with signatures and independence and territorial integrity for the ukrainian states and look at what has happened. we abandoned our nuclear weapon. we executed the memorandum. and today, we ask for the protection. if we don't get this perfection, tell me the way and ask other

countries to start the nuclear progress. it's impossible to convene in the case someone to hold the nuclear proliferation program. this is the global problem and it's up to all of us to fix it. >> on the provincial elections that are scheduled until the 25th of march. we are ready to hold free and fair elections and we do understand. we start to postpone and to

delay to have another maximum sentence in the country. but the central commission we amended the state budget so we are ready to hold free and fair presidential elections and we ask to observe this and i still believe they are to be held as scheduled and on the 25th of m may, the new president come on the 25th of may we will have a picture of who is to be the new president. >> with the microphone right here in the second round.

i would like to first congratulate you on rising to the challenge of the situation which poses a risk to ukraine and you and the people as a whole have obviously written to the challenge great fortitude and conviction because you and the nation recommended the risk. my question is does the rest of the world in your estimation recognize the risk that this is not just a risk to ukraine but a risk to the stable world order and a risk that for those possibility of the new aggression expressed in eastern europe and around the globe and

in dealing with this problem do you feel that the national community sufficiently recognize is what is at stake. >> pass the microphone down. i would like to express my sympathy on behalf of my government to the just cause for the sake of the united democratic ukraine. >> my question is obviously what we are witnessing violating to begin in the cold war. the similar events happened in georgia so my question would be what are the lessons learned for your government in order to mitigate the circumstances, and on the other hand, what other lessons do we learn from the

events back in georgia to be more effective in this case in this crisis? >> what don't we take those and move to the back? >> congratulations. some folks sent me condolences. we are ready to sacrifice. my government is ready to sacrifice its political capital in order to tackle this crisis. and me personally, too. >> you even refer to the task of political suicide. >> let me put it this way, on the conflict in georgia these are the implications holding

nato. if you don't have the map, you have something else like military aggression. and this is the dramatic lesson for all of us. and we need to articulate the response of this 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 as comfortable for the global security are not as efficient as they have to be. in this way i use a very diplomatic language.

with that let me move to the back. >> in the back. this will be the last round, please. >> "washington post," the eu and the united states are talking about adopting additional sanctions monday or early next week if the referendum goes forward. as this the government of ukraie contemplating any sanctions towards crimea and in particular are you continuing the provision of water, energy and other imports? >> why don't you pass the microphone down to this woman and then we will pick that up. >> mr. prime minister we would like to know what kind of actions did you expect in the next week from your neighboring countries? >> let me take a final question here please.

>> thank you very much for the impressive statement. mr. prime minister, we wish you the best. and on that line what is the wish list with regards to national security that you would quote to the european union today? the >> the ability to provide i want to be very clear that crimea is an important part of ukraine, and we will do everything for food, what are coming electricity. they are our citizens. we expect that on the 21st this

is the best reply and the best answer it could make. the eu already made a statement that they unilaterally apply in the economic package, and this would substantially support of the ukrainian economy. what is the best way to reform the country's to speak to the political association agreement and everything that is present in this deal. and the last question that we asked for i already unfolded everything. we need to undertake and act boldly, widely and strongly and to use all tools that are acceptable to tackle this cris

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 the ukrainian independence. i would be happy in the case of ukraine can handle the crisis. we are not as powerful and we don't have enough capacity to withstand but 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. [applause] >> thank you ladies and gentlemen. please remain seated while the feminist or exits and we will be exiting you shortly. >> here is the latest secretary of state john kerry says washington into the international community will not recognize the outcome of the referendum in crimea. he said that in six hours of talks they put forward several ideas how to respect the sovereignty and address russian concerns, to ac too but the rusn feminist or lavrov -- russian president lavrov made it clear

that they would make potential sunday and spoke to the supporters have said there is no vision between the u.s. on ukraine and they said russia has no plans to invade southeastern ukraine. what are the challenges defining the war in cyberspace, what the hostilities are and what military action is? >> from the policy perspective we are still trying to work through those issues. the tenants i think that are applicable here in the fact that whatever we do within the cyber arena in the international law

will pertain. but if we find ourselves getting to the point that w we be the bt labor is taking us down in our armed conflict scenario that of the rules and the law of the conflict will pertain as much in this domain as it does in any other. i don't think cyber is inherently different in that regard. i think those procedures and policies as a nation have stood in good stead and represent a good point of departure. >> the senate armed services takes up intelligence and military nominations. saturday morning at ten eastern. and on booktv

the head of the food and drug administration testified before the labor and pensions committee this week to outline the fda new initiative and priorities. after margaret said the priorities include strengthening clinical trials and improving the customer service. this is about 90 minutes. the senate committee on health education and pensions will come to order. we be convened the hearing to examine the implementation of the key public-health initiatives being undertaken by the agency including several significant reforms passed over the last few years. the nation faces a variety of public health challenges in the early part of the 21st century.

there've been rapid changes in what products were made and how they were made and where our food comes from. there've been major innovations including treatments that save lives and more diversified food supplied t via the new dynamics also present risks and greater challenges for the regulatory oversight. the committee has been able to address many of the challenges in recent years and proving things can still get done in washington. and i want to thank the ranking member alexander for being a great partner and also for the senator and all of the members on the committee and their staff. we worked together in a collaborative and bipartisan manner to address the public-health issues head on. let me summarize a few that we have. last fall, after the year after the meningitis outbreak from the compounded drugs that killed 64 people and sickened 751 patients across 20 states we passed the

drug quality security act that strengthens oversight of compounded drugs. in 2012 we passed to the food and drug administration safety act which are long with authorizing several fda user fee programs that gave access to generic drugs and modernized the ability to regulate the global drug supply chain. it established the tools for the shortages of production drugs. and it implemented reforms to help bring critical drugs and medical devices to the market faster. in 2011 we enacte the 2011 we ed safety modernization act that brings america's food safety system into the 21st century to better protect americans from foodborne illnesses. in 2009 the family spoke in prevention of tobacco control act into the committee spearheaded and became law and gives authority to regulate the manufacturing distribution marketing of tobacco products to protect public health service committee has been very active in addressing the health and

safety needs of americans. and i also want to take this opportunity to thank you, administrator, and to command the fda for the recent proposal to update the nutrition facts panel but we have seen o packagd food. this prompted manufacturers to reduce trans fat in the products and in the new proposal it will further support americans in reference to help make healthy decisions for themselves and their families. so, this hearing will focus on the fta implementation of the reforms as well as other key public-health initiatives and they are now confronting us and being undertaken by the agency and other concerns to the members of this committee. so, we are pleased to have the commissioner of the fda here to talk to us about the efforts and answer the questions and i will turn over to senator alexander for his opening remarks. >> thinks mr. chairman forthankr having this very timely hearing. thank you for being here today. we look forward to visiting with

you. i'm going to devote most of my attention to the drug security act signed into law last fall and compounding pharmacies. that's very important to many states but especially to tennessee to the fungal meningitis outbreak of 2012 was a nightmare for us. 137 became sick and 16 others died from the outbreak that was caused by contaminated steroid injections distributed by poorly regulated combat facilities in massachusetts. while the final legislation in the law was not as strong as the bill that passed this committee, the law does make it clear that either the fda or the state is overseeing each compounding facility. to review the law says that large facility is compounding sterile drugs without prescriptions now have the ability to voluntarily register with the fda as outsourcing

facilities committed to higher standards for the drugs to report adverse events put on searconcertain tables and listsf the products they make with the fda. the legislation and the new law kept the state oversight of traditional format is, the corner drugstore and fda oversight over drug manufacturers. you've responded to the crisis although it worked as if it were a crisis. you are off to a fast start in him commenting this important legislation. and i appreciate that. on december 4, just one week after the legislation was signed into law, the fda published three guidance documents. it's been a little over 100 days and 30 facilities have registered as outsourcing facilities nationwide have done this voluntarily. these facilities all have done

this without receiving guidance on the requirements of a half to eight for the sterile drugs they make so that is a good sign and i believe once we have more clarity the number of outsourcing of the facilities will go up significantly. now that the law is established, who is on the flagpole. fda states can take actions necessary to make sure the compounded drugs are safer in the future. you've continued inspections and enforcement actions. you have sent numerous warning letters and referrals to state boards and publishing inspection observations for any pharmacies. so, in the question time, i hope to learn what policies you were developing and when will we see that guidance on the quality standards outsourcing facilities must comply with. number two, what are your enforcement priorities and how do you plan to follow-up on the warning letters? of the new england a compounding pharmacy have received a warning letter and i want to ensure there will be appropriate follow-up from the agency this time. third, now that we've established through is on the

flagpole, how are you coordinating with state on what they are doing? to thank you for your quick work and implementing the law and i look forward to hearing about future plans on some other areas the fda's pay seems to be moving rather slowly. and i hope that the way that you've worked on compounding pharmacies might set an example for how you might move ahead for example on the center for tobacco products. you have got $1.7 billion in the user fees today. for tobacco over 4,000 applications are filed. you have acted on 34. the congress also instructed them to set up a regulatory pathway for the similar as that was in march of 2010 that established the user fee in two years later almost four years later we don't have approved by the similar product in the united states and many questions linger. the last example comes from the implementation of the food safety modernization act. my understanding is they are

going to be proposed part of the regulation due to the widespread stakeholder concern about the cost and complexity of the regulations after the law emphasized the need for science and risk-based flexible approach. and i urge the fda to improve the responsiveness to the congressional inquiries. there is one letter i sent last july, to which i have not yet received a response. and in that line i will send in writing a question that senator fisher of nebraska has that she would like answered. i won't deal with that orally that i will provide that separately. ..