the president pro tempore: the senate will come to order, and the chaplain dr. barry black will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. creator and sustainer of our destinies, you have loved us through the seasons of our lives. you accept us as we are, infusing us with your peace and strengthening us

with your grace. bless our lawmakers. . give them the wisdom to follow your leading, to live with courage and to release the powers of goodness throughout our land. empower them to run and not be weary, to walk and not faint, as you keep them always in your care. we pray in your merciful name. the president pro tempore: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance to the flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america, and to the republic for which it stands,

one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. mr. reid: mr. president? the president pro tempore: the majority leader. mr. reid: following my remarks and those of the republican leader, the senate will resume consideration of the motion to proceed to the ukraine act. at 5:30, there will be a cloture motion vote on that motion to proceed to that important piece of legislation. mr. president, we have so much to do this work period and we have so much to do this week. mr. president, i know that i have said on other occasions and we have been able to work things out so it hasn't been necessary, but everyone should understand we have a lot to do and we may have to be in this weekend if we are forced to go through all the procedural hoops to be able to

complete the ukraine important legislation, the unemployment important legislation, the s.g.r. important legislation and setting it up so that we can sometime next week get on minimum wage, we're going to have to be in this weekend. there is just no way around it. and everyone should understand that. i know i will immediately start hearing from people, well, i have got this event, that event. it's monday at 2:00 in the afternoon. it's only 11:00 in the west. there is plenty of time to reschedule stuff, or at least put it on hold because we just have no choice. the only alternative is to take a week away from the break that we're expecting to have. so everyone should understand that. it's possible the senate will need to work through the weekend to get all these things done. the first item the senate will consider, as i have already indicated, mr. president, is a bipartisan package of aid to

ukraine. it includes sanctions against russia for their untoward actions against their neighbor ukraine. as we prepare to debate this measure, i would remind all senators that it's customary to show respect for the president. i am confident everyone will when he is overseas. he is at a nuclear conference over there in europe as we speak, and it's an important meeting. president putin is not there but he sent his foreign minister, as i understand it. as we begin debate on this aid and sanctions package, i also hope that the republicans stopped action on this legislation prior to the break have considered how their obstruction affects our great country's national security as well as the people of ukraine who are struggling so very, very much. since this was blocked by some republicans, these important

sanctions have not taken place. russian lawmakers voted to annex crimea and russian forces have taken over in many instances by force military bases in crimea. it's impossible to know whether events would have unfolded differently if the united states had responded to this russian aggression with a strong unified voice, which we did not do. when a few extreme republicans blocked action on this robust bill, which was reported out of the foreign relations committee with a strong bipartisan vote, and then it comes to the senate floor, it sends a very weak message to the russians that we'll work on this later. we don't have to do it now. in spite of what some republicans did which their obstruction, president obama moved forward with additional sanctions, and i'm glad that he

did. the president is working closely with our european allies to impose the most effective sanctions possible. that's in effect what he is working on today. in light of such clear-cut aggression against ukraine which continued as late as yesterday, it's difficult to believe republicans blocked the package at all, but they did. it's almost unimaginable why, why they did this. they blocked aid to ukraine in order to protect the anonymity of their big-time donors. they said we will give the president the tools he needs to help the beleaguered people of ukraine but only if, only if 501--4-c work by the internal revenue service and the treasury department is stopped. that's pretty absurd but that's the truth. it's all over the news today. so republicans delayed this aid

package for ten days in order to protect the koch brothers and billionaires just like them. mr. president, it's very hard to believe, but it's true. republicans objected to moving forward with this aid package in order to protect the ability of the koch brothers and other g.o.p. donors who hide behind shadowy front groups, groups that spent millions on misleading political attack ads. this is the reason for holding up something that is so important to 46 million ukrainians and important to our country. it's important for our security. they objected to moving forward with this aid package unless, i repeat, we agree to allow the kochs and billionaires just like them to continue unanimous -- anonymously spending billions and billions of dollars, trying to buy america's democracy. hard to believe but it's true.

mr. president, i applaud so very, very much the ranking member of the foreign relations committee, the junior senator from tennessee, as well as the senior senator from arizona, john mccain, for their impassioned defense of this bill no one spoke more fluently and with more articulation than these two good men. they joined in defending bipartisan sanctions and the role of the international monetary fund in stabilizing crain's economy, keeping ukraine free. the measure before the body includes vital loan guarantee sanctions, i.m.f. funding, mr. president. that is what they are holding up more than anything else. mr. president, in the work that we did on the omnibus, this was one of the last things that we

tried to get done, i.m.f. funding, but even back then they would not agree to i.m.f. funding unless treasury stopped all work on looking at these secret shadowy groups that if the american people knew what they were doing, they don't because they are hidden. these millions and millions worth of ads that they are spending around the country, they are hidden behind phony organizations. we couldn't get that i.m.f. funding in the omnibus because republicans opposed i.m.f. funding unless they got from the treasury department. this legislation provides money for ukraine, direct money, not very much, but it also would provide us to provide to the international monetary fund the money we in effect owe to them

because if this money were -- if this money was received by the i.m.f., they would be able to multiply that money many times over. over what we put into this. as i recall, mr. president, it's $600 million, and this would allow the international monetary fund to go to other countries who participate in i.m.f. funding and would generate more money than just the $600 million. ukraine needs this money. we had senator durbin on a sunday show, senator ayotte on a sunday show speaking together that this country needs our help, and without this money, the help that we give will be a pat on the back, not really much help. so i'm very grateful to have the support of democrats and republicans that is bipartisan to move this aid package forward this evening.

i hope that the obstruction will stop. i'm hopeful and somewhat confident that this legislation will receive the strong bipartisan support that it deserves. mr. president, on another topic, i, like all senators, get lots and lots of letters and emails and phone calls each month. some write, some call, pleading for additional unemployment benefits, because they have been out of work and they can't find a job. the sad part about that, mr. president, most of them are not kids. i mean that not in a negative sense. they are not young men and women. many of them are trying to find a job. they are in their 50's and 60's, they can't find work because they have been laid off because of the recession, the depression, whatever we want to call it, and they can't find a job. they need this help.

a number of them are being driven into poverty. that's one thing we have to do this work period is do something about unemployment compensation. we're going to try to do that. we have a bipartisan bill. i so much appreciate the republicans who have stuck and have agreed to help us with that. but there are also people that call -- that are calling because they are happy. they have hope. they do that because for the first time in their adult lives, they have health insurance or they have health insurance that is cheaper than they had last year. they have family members who are disabled, and they can get health insurance. they couldn't do it before because they were considered a preexisting disability. people who are disabled are really happy because they can get insurance for the first time in their lives, soar if they have had it in the past, it's

been so outrageously costly that it really was burdensome to them. four years ago yesterday, president obama signed the affordable care act into law, making quality health care available to millions and millions of americans for the first time in years. i talked to the president's chief of staff the day that we went for our work period at home and the two days prior to that, 80,000 people each day had signed up. tens of thousands of people every day are signing up. we're fast approaching six million. some say we'll get over that, and the mix of people who are signing up is good, it's a good mix. we have got a lot of young people. there was a piece on the radio this morning on public radio where a young man 21 years old had never had insurance before, but he said, you know, i know that i could -- i need insurance

so i'm going to buy some insurance. it's really very inexpensive. another woman in connecticut, they have such an unusual thing, they have two stores set up for people to come in and get their health insurance, and they have thousands of people that have done that. some people who weren't very computer literate have been able to go in there and talk to somebody and sign up. they had an example of one woman who had struggled on the computer, she didn't know how to use it very well. she came in and she saves $300 a month for her health care. so that's what connecticut has done. there are many, many messages of hope out there. families calling children who have stayed on their health insurance plans and from seniors who have saved hundreds of dollars on their prescriptions because we are filling the doughnut hole. i have heard from entrepreneurs who finally, finally, mr. president, can do what they want to do.

that is, go out and start a business of their own. they are entrepreneurs but they have been locked into these jobs, and now they can leave because they're not locked in because they have to have those jobs to keep their health insurance. they can have health insurance on their own. they can sphiek out on their own without the fear of losing their health insurance. women benefiting from free preventive care and people with freesmedz which i've talked -- preexisting conditions which i've talked about who have signed up for health insurance for the first time ever. and one nevada man, a, a lifelong republican, mr. president, called recently to say that he his son saw the doctor for the first time in years. they had been without health insurance because of preexisting conditions that they both had. but now that his insurance company can no long discriminate against him or his son, they're getting the life saving care they need and deserve. and in the long run save huge

amounts of money for us as a society. across the country families like the one i've just mentioned have been freed from the fear of going bankrupt or reaching arbitrary lifetime cap if they get sick. affordable care act puts patients in charge of their own health care decisions. there are many other on the other side of the aisle who don't want this law to work. mr. president, we're approaching about 13 million people right as we speak who have insurance now, are using the benefits of this -- would be a better way to say it. six million people have signed up, they have three million people on their parents' health insurance because of this law, we have at least five million or maybe more, mr. president, who are there because of medicaid. this is wonderful. these people have health care. it's good for our country. i can't imagine what the republicans expect done. just to say okay, get rid of all the insurance you have,

they keep talking about repealing this bill. what are they talking about? they've had about 60 votes to repeal it. it doesn't work. and all the polling which they don't talk about are now saying i'm glad we have this. mr. president, even if you look at it that way there are some who don't like the bill, you know why? because they don't think it's strong enough. so all the polls are somewhat misleading the republicans have been throwing around here but they're still spending millions of dollars in disingenuous ads, distorting the truth about affordable care act and how it is benefiting millions of americans. we fought hard four years ago to get this done, to pass this landmark expansion of quality affordable health care and we'll fight just as hard to make sure the law works for every american family. mr. president, i'm told there are three bills that are due for a second reading at the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will read the titles of the

bills for the second time. the clerk: s. 2148, a bill to provide for the extension of certain unemployment benefits and for other purposes. h.r. 3474, an act to amend the internal revenue code of 1986 to allow employers to exempt employees with health coverage under tricare and so forth. h.r. 3979, an act to amend the internal revenue code of 1986 to ensure that emergency services volunteers are not taken into account as employees under the shared responsibility requirements contained in the patient protection and affordable care act. mr. reid: i would object to any further proceedings with respect to these three bills. the presiding officer: objection is heard. the bills will be placed on the calendar. under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved. under the previous order, the senate will resume consideration of the motion to proceed to s. 2124 which the clerk will report.

the clerk: motion to proceed to calendar number 329, s. 2124, a bill to support sovereignty and democracy in ukraine and for other purposes. the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. leahy: mr. president, i'd ask that i might proceed as in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. leahy: mr. president, in vermont, we've been fortunate that for two decades judge william sessions has served with distinction as the federal judge for the district of vermont. in january of this year, judge sessions announced he would take senior status later this year. so in response to this news, the vermont bar association, senator searnd and i each appoint threed members to a

judiciary nominating commission and the commission as you can imagine received many applications for this district court vacancy. it interviewed, vetted seven finalists and then recommended to us the two candidates who gathered unanimous support. i spent hours with them last week in vermont interviewing them and today i'm recommending that the president nominate jeffrey crawford, a recently appointed justice from vermont's highest court. i talked to him at great length last week and i did again at length this morning. i am very comfortable in forwarding as i now have to president obama his name. justice crawford is an experienced -- he's a well-respected jurist. he's known for his modesty and

humanity, notwithstanding he has an elite educational background, done extremely well in colleges and law school and has noted intellectual heft. he was a successful plaintiff's attorney before appointed to the vermont supreme court in 2002. then judge crawford served on the superior court in our state, the main trail court for more than a decade. he earned a reputation for his skill in working with juries and handling a wide variety of litigation. attorneys on either side who appeared before him found him to be engaged caishful jurist who treats everyone in the courtroom with respect. i've talked with a number of those lawyers who have appeared on either side and they speak of his respect and his abilities.

as a lawyer, i wanted to hear this because i did not know justice crawford before interviewing him for this vacancy. but what i heard from the vermont legal community repeatedly told me of his intelligence, his warmth, his unwavering commitment to the highest calling of public service. and when i met with him, i found him to be well deserving of these accolades. i was impressed by his thoughtfulness and his pragmatic approach to the law, as well as chief counsel of judiciary committee, christine lucius and head of the vermont office, john tracy. i am notifying the president today that i'm confident that justice crawford will mange an excellent federal district judge and hope the president will nominate him soon for the vacancy on vermont's federal district court. in another matter,

mr. president, speaking of vermont, it's my honor today to pay tribute to a fellow native of montpelier, vermont, general richard cody. general cody is going to be honored next month and deservedly so by his alma mater, montpelier high school. following his graduation from montpelier high school, general cody attended and graduated from west point. that was the launch of an outstanding u.s. army career that took him all over our country and world and culminated in his service from 2004 to 2008 as vice chief of staff of the army. i'm really proud to share a hometown with such a distinguished member of our military. i remember how proud marcella and i were of general cody the day of his retirement ceremony with full honors here in

washington. the codys and the leahys go back decades in montd peelier. we've always been friends. general cody and his sibling and parents have been among the business and civic leaders in that city as long as i can remember and have always shown the best of true vermont values and the general brought those values of hard work and patriotism and especially integrity to his military career. he ended that career as the best example a soldier could have. even the secretary of defense was there for the retirement ceremony to honor him. but i think of this man who often marched from his quarters in virginia to the pentagon, he'd be carrying a military pack just to remind himself what soldiers on the front line were doing.

i've known many in the military. my own son, among others. from privates to generals. i was telling my son no one is ranked higher in my esteem than general dick cody of those people. it's an example that i know our family would follow, but he set an example for the whole country. and no salute to a member of the military would be complete without recognizing the family gied beside the man. dick's wife vicky and his son, clinton, tyler sacrificed much. in fact, clinton and tyler are both members of the army. they serveds as helicopter pilots during combat tours in iraq and afghanistan. i'm told the one flew the same helicopter his father had flown. so in closing i'd like to thank

the montpelier high school boosters club and the citizens of my hometown, montpelier, for honoring general cody. there's no more deserving alumnus. i'm proud to call him a friend. mr. president, i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from indiana. mr. coats: mr. president, when the senate last met -- the presiding officer: senator, there's a quorum call in process. mr. coats: i apologize, mr. president. i ask that the call of the quorum -- the presiding officer: without objection, the quorum call is suspended. mr. coats: mr. president, thank you. mr. president, when the senate last met, i introduced together with senator durbin a resolution regarding our response to russia's invasion of ukraine. that resolution, which received

unanimous support here in the senate, called for a number of specific steps to punish and isolate russia for its actions. among these steps, we called upon president obama to impose sanctions on officials of the russian federation who are most responsible for the invasion of the cry me a krimean region. and i'm pleased by recent announcements by the white house demonstrate that the president has begun the process of sanctioning some of these individuals though i had hoped the numbers sanked would be far greater. and i also -- sanctioned would be far greater. and i also want to note that the president today is in the netherlands discussing with our european allies and partners the need for further steps. i trust and hope that he will be successful in reaching a firm consensus with our allies and friends to define a strong, united response to russian aggression. and, further, i also welcome

such provisions in the legislation that is now pending in the senate, the support for the sovereignty, integrity, democracy and economic stability ukraine act of 2014, which i trust and hope the senate will be acting on beginning this evening and perhaps extending into this week. i would note that time is somewhat of the essence here. if we're going to send a message to russia, certainly we don't want to be bogged down in internal delay over other nonrelated or only slightly related issues. in any event, in fact, that's why senator durbin and i proved our provisions forward before the senate aadjourned before the break, simply to make sure that there was a united, bipartisan united states senate, unanimously approved agreement on 15 measures that would get the message to vladimir putin and the russians that we take

this very, very seriously. that legislation that we'll be dealing with also sanctions the russians responsible for this recent aggression by producing and prohibiting, excuse me, them from coming to the united states and freezing their assets here in america. our european allies have done likewise, and together we have begun to respond to russia's outrageous behavior. however, it is my strong belief that much more needs to be done. we and our european allies must recognize the enormity of putin's crime as he rejects all modern standards of responsible international behavior and tramples on the sanctity of the territorial borders so vital to the stability of the post-war order. the international response must be much more vigorous if we are to prove that putin's behavior

is unacceptable and cannot be repeated. a strong response now is the best way to reassure our allies and friends, who are precariously placed on russia's borders, that this outrage must be stopped, reversed, and ended. conversely, to do little more than prevent a handful of russian officials from traveling abroad will show putin and his cronies that in the end, we actually do not mean what we say. so, so again, i want to say the international response needs to be, has to be much more vigorous if we are to approve that we stand together and united, one voice claiming that the behavior of president putin is unacceptable and cannot be repeated. now, when senator durbin and i

introduced our prior resolution on this subject, we signaled our willing nooswillingness to worke administration on sanctions, possibly targeting key sectors of the russian economy. i believe many of us on both sides of the aisle want to do more. i've suggested a range of things going at russia's export of oil and gas, their energy play that contributes a very significant amount to their economy and on which they are very dependent, as well as financial sanctions and others, so i hope the president is discussing those very measures in europe with our partners as we speak. we are all aware that sanctioning key russian economic activities carries the possibility that our economic interests and those of our european allies could be

affected at the same time. now, while this is reason for us to be thoughtful in terms of how we move forward, it is not a reason for inaction. it should not be the basis for our standing by and watching what is happening and simply saying, well, this could potentially affect us if i cannilif i-- affectus economicad therefore excuse the actions and probably enable further actions by our russian adversary in this case. in the end, unpunished, unconstrained, rampant russian territorial expansion will threaten us all to a much greater extent. doing something now can prevent something much worse later. standing up now could prevent something much more serious in terms of what we might have to do later. sound policy decision decisionst

reflect full assessments of all eventual consequences, and that includes a clear picture of what the world will look like if illegal, forceful annexation of a neighbor's territory is ignored or met only with a rap on the knuckles. i continue to believe that we can and must do more to isolate russia. this includes, for example, explicitly expelling russia from the g-8 -- not temporarily, but explicitly expelling them and ending the nato-russian council, and in addition i'm proposing today a specific economic sanction that will harm russian interests in a serious way and hopefully with minimal or no damage to our own. i'm introducing an amendment to the ukraine act and ukraine aid bill, and i trust it will find broad bipartisan support. the purpose of this amendment is

to sanction russian's row so r y for defense related goods. this is a state corporation exclusively entitled to export the entire range of russian armaments explicitly allowed for export. it was set up for that purpose. it was set up by president putin. it is a state-owned enterprise and its business is sending arms, russian arms, around the world, some to very bad actors. many of our colleagues here in the senate know of this arms export agency because of russia's continuing supply of arms to assad's regime in syria. many here have repeatedly called on the administration to stop all cooperation with rosoboron export for this reason.

we now have a new, broader reason for ending all cooperation with this export agency of russia. to take steps to meaningfully obstruct that ages work and the income it provides the russian state will become among the most effective ways we have of demonstrating our condemnation of russian action by force of arms. let me briefly explain my amendment. it does three things. first, it prohibits the united states government from doing any business with this russian agency by prohibiting future contracts and canceling past contracts. it is true that the recent national defense authorization act, which i supported, also includes similar language, but that section -- that act includes a waiver authority and another work-around provision that the defense department has been using in order to buy russian helicopters for afghanistan.

this practice has met with objection, www.objectionabl wasn it began, became more objectionable. and now based on what they've done in crimea, it should be entirely unacceptable. also, i just learned this morning that president karzai announced his support for the russian annexation of crimea ands approval of russian actions, which makes our purchase of russian weapons for the karzai regime own more outrageous. after all we have done to support president karzai and the afghans, with u.s. tax dollars and the lives and injuries to u.s. and coalition soldiers, after all we've done over a decade of time, president karzai reaches out and publicly supports the russian action, contrary to ours. this is a nation -- russia is a

nation which pillaged afghanistan for a decade. it is beyond belief that president karzai can support, along with syria, countries like syria and venezuela -- haven't heard from cuba yet, but we probably will -- support the russian action when we're there trying to save his hyde, not only with our tax dollars but with our soldiers' lives. so my amendment takes away this wavered and would put a complete end to karzai's business dealings with the russians. karzai will have to buy his russian helicopters with his own money, not ours. and, second, i propose this this athis amendment will prohibit contracts with any foreign company that cooperates with rosoboron export, in the design, manufacture, or military development of military equipment. other types of business dealings

with the corporation for nonmilitary activities would not be effective. we're going after the military exports. many of which go to some of our sworn enemies. and, third, i propose to authorize the president to deduct from our foreign assistance programs any amounts that a foreign state recipient spends on russian weapons through rosoboron export. this deductions would be made from economic support fund and security assistance accounts but would not affect other aid programs. the president would be authorized to reprogram such funds for use elsewhere subject to congressional notification. if a u.s. aid recipient is tempted to use some of our money to buy russian weapons, they 23450ed tneed to know that we wd deduct that amount from our assistance programs. they can buy russian weapons on their own dime, not on our dime.

taken together, i believe these proposals would be a very useful addition to the ukraine aid act and give it the additional teeth that it needs. this amendment would harm the russian arms industry, the russian economy, russian prestige, and putin's standing in the world. that ought to be our goal, whenl it is my amendment, any other amendment, whenl it is the act that we will be debating. they need to harm the russian arms industry, the russian economy, especially the energy portion of the economy, russian prestige and putin's standing in the world. this amendment will serve as a concrete and immediate response to the illegal invasion perpetrated by the russian federation. and so i urge the majority leader to permit a full debate, an up-and-down vote on my

amendment. with that. i yield the floor. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. murphy: thank you, madam president. i rise to support the ukraine assistance package that will be on the floor for a vote later this evening. i want to thank the leadership of senator menendez, all the great works that senator corker has put into this bill. i was proud to help put this together, along with senators johnson and mccain and many others who were part of our debate in the foreig foreign res committee. i come to the floor, as i'm sure others have and will over the course of this afternoon, to talk about the vital importance of a big bipartisan vote in favor of this legislation this evening. having just come from ukraine -- i was there this last week with a number of my colleagues; it was my second trip to kiev in

the last three months -- i can tell you, they are awaiting a very strong signal of support for the united states congress that will send a message that we are going to stand together with our ukraine yn brothers and sisters -- ukrainian brothers and sisters as they engage in this battle for their independence, freedom, and for their sovereignty. and i won't belabor the underlying details of the bill, but the thre three components oe legislation are all equally important to the ukraine. i would heard support for all three of these pieces while we were there. first and foremost clearly we have to deliver on our promise of economic aid. there is $1 billion in loan guarantees in this bill. they're contingent upon the signing of a new agreement with the i.m.f., but it will also leverage about $15 billion in funds from europe. this is important because even

before this crisis pretated by the -- precipitated by the russian invasion of crimea, the ukrainian economy was weaken. the ukrainians have a new government, one that then believe in that will finally bring an end to the corruption which has been rife throughout ukraine -- the ukrainian government over the past decade. but this new government will be undermined by an economic crisis that will occur, guaranteed, unless the united states steps up and provides this assistance. but we can't do this alone. that's why the second component of this bill would allow the united states to agree to a set of ris i.m.f. reforms that will directly increase the amount of funding that the i.m.f. has to provide the countries in crisis

like ukraine. every other i.m.f. member has signed on this these reforms except for the united states and it has been largely due to the intransyens of this body that the -. some have called it a political add-on. this couldn't be further from the truth when we were meeting with ukrainian officials last weekend they specifically asked that we pass the rism reforms because they know that the only way that they get an assistance package that is in the neighborhood of $20 billion or $30 billion is through the i.m.f. and the i.m.f. will be much more likely to be able to provide that if the u.s. steps up and agrees to these reforms. and then lastly, we need to send a strong, clear message to russia that there are consequences for their actions in crimea. and by giving the president the authorization to move forward on a broad range of sanctions, we

will show that putin was wrong when he calculated that a march into crimea would come at little to no cost to russia. but i want to talk for just a minute about what this really tells us about the status of russia in the region and in the world. i'm sure my other colleagues will come down here and talk about the importance of sanctions and how they may change the calculuses be made in russia and moscow today. but i've watched the pedia portray the events of the last couple weeks as some sign of russian strength. to me, this isn't a sign of russian strength. this is a sign of russian weakness. putin has designs for reestablishing some sense of the old soviet empire by reasserting control over what putin calls the near-abroad, which are the former soviet republics and soviet satellite states.

his dream of reestablishing the soviet empire fell apart the day that president yanukovych fled kiev. ukraine is the crown jewel of the near-abroad, and as putin tried to re-create that empire under th the guise of something called the custom yiewrntion he knew that he couldn't do it without the second-biggest country in europe bordering on russia, ukraine. and his invasion of crimea really was a panicked reaction to this new reality, a ukraine now oarntsd toward the european union. so today i think it's important to understand the position that putin is in. listen, he has made a mess for the international community to try to clean up through his invasion of crimea. but crimea represents two million people in a country of

45 million, 90% of ukraine has a government in kiev that just signed an association agreement with the european union. russia's economy is going to hemorrhage if he continues the occupation of crimea through a broad-based set of international sanctions. he's become a pariah in the world community. i'd agree with my colleague from indiana who said we shouldn't just be talking about removing russia from the g-8. we should take russia out of the g-8 and make it completely clear to them that they don't have a place at the international table along with countries like the united states and france and germany and england if they behave in this way. and so the bill that we're debating today will give the president and the new government in kiev tools with which to try to address and perhaps end this crisis. but it's important to remember that this is not about reestablishing the cold war. the world is oriented along

paradigms that have nothing to do with who's with the united states and who is with russia. and this panicked invasion of crimea, while occupying rightly, the headlines on a nightly basis, is a display of russia's weak position in the region in the wofrld after the failure of their public government in kiev to survive. lastly, madam president, i just want to talk about the broader history, both looking in the past but also looking to the future that we may miss when we concentrate on an hour-by-hour basis on the crisis at hand. having had the opportunity to visit kiev a few times in the past several months, i've had the opportunity to learn a little bit about the history of the place and of the people, and there's a wonderful cathedral in kiev called the church of st.

sophia. it's absolutely beautiful, stunning. it was built by u.c.'s greatest leader, yaraslov the wise and he presided over an empire team called kievan roost. it was essentially the trading on the ukrainian continent. it took goods from the east and transported them to the west, today goods from the -- took goods from the scandinavia countries and took them down through the mediterranean. everything ran through the territory of kiev on roost. it speaks to ukraine's past but also to its future. they have been set up with a false choice within the crisis of the last several months. join the european union or stay aligned with russia. but what we know is that kiev historically has stood at the crossroads not just of east and west but of east and west and

north and south. that is ukraine's past but it is also going to be ukraine's future. while we try to deal today with a russia run by a leader whose foreign policy seems dictated by a desire to poke a stick in the eye of the united states, i ultimately think that viewing the forest through the trees also means acknowledging that russia's future ultimately in a postputin era is about integration with europe and integration with the west as well. frankly, that was the direction that russia was heading until putin took power. now that conversation about how we realize that ultimate paradigm is a conversation for another day. but when senator mccain and i went to kiev in december and stood up on the stage speaking to a million ukrainians who had come down to that square to protest the current government, they were there to talk about

one concept. it was dignity. for some it was about europe. for some it was about corruption. for some it was about the brutal violence on the square displayed by yanukovych. but for most people, they wanted to restore dignity to their lives. and what dignity really is about in the end is the ability to choose for yourself what your future is. that's why we're here to support ukraine. no country, the united states, the russian federation, germany, no country should dictate to the ukrainians what their future should be. that's why in the wake of this invasion, in the wake of years of economic manipulation from russia, we are going to extend a firm hand to the ukrainians with an assistance package and a message of economic consequences to russia. but the world in which we envision ultimately is one not only where ukraine gets to go back to its historical roots and

draw from east and west, but one in which russia realizes that their economic salvation lies not in setting up some new cold war but in full integrating themselves and their economy and their political institutions not only with countries like ukraine, not only with the nations of the e.u., but beyond to american shores as well. that's the future. but that reality will never exist for the young nation of ukraine unless it survives this moment. and we can send a strong message this evening that this body stands with that future for this young nation of ukraine by supporting the package before us. i yield the floor. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the

senator from nebraska. mrs. fischer: thank you, madam president. while i realize that members of this body are very, very concerned about this situation in the ukraine today and we are focused upon the crisis that is happening there, if i may, madam president, i would like to take a few minutes to discuss two bills that i have recently introduced that deal with reforms to the internal revenue service. as the federal agency tasked with administering the u.s. tax code, the i.r.s. has extraordinary influence on the lives of americans from all walks of life and all points of view. citizens have the absolute right to expect the i.r.s. to be free from political influence, with taxpayers treated fairly and enforcement carried out in an unbiased manner. unfortunately, we've learned that our expectations sometimes are very different from reality.

in early 2013, the i.r.s. acknowledged a history of targeting politically active groups as some of these groups sought tax-exempt status. this practice first involved flagging groups concerned about government spending and debt. ironically, the targeting came at a time when poll after poll indicated that the federal government's out-of-control spending and our $17 trillion debt were top concerns for all americans. and i can tell you from my experience that they are the top concerns for nebraskans as well. despite these legitimate concerns and the patriotic desire of americans to effect change in government, the i.r.s. worked to impede these organizations from full participation in our democratic process. to do so, the i.r.s. dragged its

feet and they slow walked applications for tax-exempt status. asking questions that weren't necessary, including questions regarding political beliefs. that's why i've recently introduced s. 2043, the stop i.r.s. overreach act. this bill states that the i.r.s. shall not ask any taxpayer any question regarding their religious, political or their social beliefs. this is pretty straightforward. it's a treatty straightforward -- it is a pretty straightforward concept and it is an american concept. it shouldn't matter who you are or what you believe. we should all be treated equally before the law. given the recent behavior of the i.r.s., it appears that this legislation is necessary.

i believe that this measure should enjoy support from both parties. it's worth noting that the legislation passed the house of representatives on a voice vote. american taxpayers are also frustrated with the lack of responsiveness from the i.r.s.. every single year taxpayers and their accountants write the i.r.s. asking for additional information regarding their taxes. often the response from the i.r.s. is silence. nothing but silence. so taxpayers wonder did they even get my question. did they get my letter? are they going to answer my question? silence. no answer. the i.r.s. currently is not required to respond to taxpayer communication. we all know, though, that the inverse is true, that taxpayers

are compelled to respond when the i.r.s. requests any information. so that's a double standard. it's not fair. so i have a bill, s. 2044, that would require the i.r.s. to respond to communication from any taxpayer within 30 days of receiving such communication. that way taxpayers will at least know that the i.r.s. is not asleep at the switch and that they have received their letter. my bill would also make two other significant changes to the i.r.s.. first, it would require the agency to notify a taxpayer if the agency discloses that person's information to another government entity. current law doesn't require such disclosure. next, the legislation would require that when the i.r.s.

begins an audit on any individual taxpayer, the audit and any tax assessed with the audit must be completed within one year. the window for these painstaking audits can't be open forever. the uncertainty adversely impacts families as these audits currently can be held up for years, with the taxpayers just never quite sure if the tax is going to be assessed and when it's going to be assessed. the house approved identical legislation by a voice vote. madam president, these two bills are straightforward. they make simple but important changes to the way that the i.r.s. operates. and making these changes will help americans all across our country. i urge my fellow senators on both sides of the aisle to

support this legislation. thank you, madam president. i yield the floor. mrs. fischer: madam president, i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

ms. stabenow: madam president, i ask suspension of the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. the majority leader michigan. ms. stabenow: thank you very much, madam president. one of the true spots -- bright spots in our economy right now has been and continues to be manufacturing. manufacturing jobs have been on the rise over -- we have over 12 million americans now who are employed, who have good-paying jobs in the manufacturing sector, many of them in my own great state of michigan.

this renaissance in the kind of good-paying jobs that built the middle class of this country is being powered in a significant way by american natural gas. american natural gas. more than $100 billion in investments, in more than 120 different manufacturing projects is being fueled by abundant, affordable, american natural gas. these are great new opportunities for people to go to work, have a other good-paying job, and to be able to have opportunities for their families. our country is truly blessed with this natural resource. it's drilling that -- critical that we continue putting our american natural gas to work, creating american jobs.

which is why i am confused and concerned about why some people are rushing to send this american resource overseas without a careful review of the impact that this will have on the cost to our manufacturers, the cost in jobs, and the cost to our families. i'm not opposed to exporting some of our natural gas as part of a balanced, well-thought-out plan, but a rush to approve every export facility request immediately is not wise. it is not wise for our economy our our people when we know increased natural gas is needed right here at home. right here at home where people need jobs in america. we have about 10 million people

out of work. we have an awful lot of people that need a job. good-paying jobs in manufacturing can and will be part of their future if we do this right in how we manage natural gas as part of our resources. madam president, it is critical for america that we get this right. we need to be exporting our products, not our jobs. and that's really the debate i believe we should be having. low-cost natural gas is critical to our nation's ability to create manufacturing jobs. it's critical. if we start exporting too much of our natural gas without monitoring or evaluating the impact over time, we may be giving up a real advantage we have right now for creating jobs and bringing jobs home from other countries. what do we hear now from a lot

of businesses that are making decisions to bring jobs home, they talk about low energy costs. we don't want to give that up as an advantage for america as we compete in a global economy. also, if increased exports raise rice prices to the same level as global oil prices which obviously there are some folks that would like to see that happen for their own interests but if that were to happen american families will be mitt hith with even higher energy costs at home. and that doesn't make any sense, either. exporting more american natural gas simply doesn't add up. a study last month by charles river associates found that using our own low cost natural gas to increase american manufacturing is twice as valuable to our economy and

creates eight times as many jobs as sending this important american resource overseas. let me say that again. using our own low-cost natural gas to increase american manufacturing output is twice as valuable to our economy, our american economy, and creates eight times as many jobs as exporting this important american resource overseas. i am particularly dismayed that some people are using the very serious crisis in ukraine as an excuse to rush through new projects to export our natural gas. just last week i met with members of the ukranian community in detroit. they are deeply, deeply concerned about what's happening. this is personal for them. this is family.

this is friends. this crisis should not be used by those in the oil and gas industry to rush through actions that may be good for them, may be good for some, in the long run -- certainly not in the short run. anything that would be approved now will take way too long before it would have any impact in the crisis in ukraine. but it may be good for some in the long run, raising prices, but not good for american manufacturers, not good if the whole idea is to to create american jobs here at home. not good for middle-class families. i want to be very, very clear. i am extremely concerned about what's happening in the ukraine. we must stand with the people of ukraine, and our allies in europe, against the outrageous actions of russia and president

putin. this crisis is very serious and requires a serious response by the senate and i know that colleagues on both sides of the aisle care deeply about this. and i hope and i assume we will pass a package to help ukraine as soon as possible. but, again, this crisis should not be used as an excuse to shortcut the permitting processes or the thoughtful evaluation that i know the department of energy is committed to doing to make sure that we can get this right. this crisis should not be used to rush through new natural gas export facilities that may undercut our efforts to create good-paying jobs here at home. the department of energy has already agreed to permit six liquefied natural gas, l.n.g.,

export facilities that will export over nine billion cubic feet of l.n.g. every day. they've already approved. and that's not counting the other 30 applications that have been approved for export to countries we have free trade agreements with. i'm not suggesting that shouldn't have been done. i've not opposed that. but we better be careful on how we move forward and how we evaluate the impact on our our economy. as we all know, l.n.g. export facilities take years to build. we could approve permits for a hundred new l.n.g. facilities tomorrow and it would, unfortunately, do nothing to address the crisis in the ukraine. and potential supplies that are being disrupted in other --

with other important allies in american europe. here's what i'm most concerned about. as we all know, we all know that gas prices are decided by the market, the global marketplace. prices are high in asia right now. we don't have the existing infrastructure to get natural gas to the ukraine. the gas from any export facilities that are rushed through are very likely to go to asia, very likely to go to china. should american natural gas be used to lower prices in china? to create jobs in china or in other parts of asia? or should we be using low-cost natural gas to create jobs right here at home? i would hope that we would all

agree on the answer to that. so rushing through more natural gas exports facilities, unfortunately, would not help ukraine. however, it could have negative effects on our own economy in the long run. increasing exports would reduce our supply here at home and raise consumer prices. and we all know how devastating that would be for our families. higher prices for natural gas mean it will cost more to cook your dinner, heat your home, power your small business. the recent propane shortages and dramatic price spikes we saw in states across the country should raise a red flag for everybody. we simply can't afford to export too much natural gas too fast without truly understanding the impact on our own jobs and our own families. plus sending so much of our

natural gas abroad will neutralize the competitive advantage we right now for chief, abundant fuel. we have an advantage right now. we need to keep that advantage. my concern would be that we would be giving the big oil companies a boost because there would be higher prices for natural gas that would keep then oil a viable alternative because there wouldn't be the advantage of natural gas in the -- if we're just going to the global marketplace and all the prices go up. and in the end, the people of the ukraine and our allies who need our help would not be receiving it. our own businesses, our own families would not be receiving it, instead, it would be going to the oil companies.

shame on us if we squander the opportunities that low-cost, abundant natural gas resources offer our country. i believe we need to be smart in how we manage our resources. again, i'm not opposed to exports. it's a question of a balance. it's a question of thinking it through in a thoughtful way, of having a plan, an american plan, where we are balancing out part exports, part keeping natural gas here at home, making sure our manufacturers have the edge in a global economy because they have lower-cost energy, making sure we're bringing jobs back from overseas because of lower-cost energy, and making sure our families have lower costs of fuel and other energy

assistance. we need to be smart at this point in time about our resources. we have the opportunity, i believe, to find a right balance that allows us to both benefit from some exports and benefit from the resources creating jobs here at home. our manufacturers, our families, middle class of this country, the folks trying to hold on, folks trying to get into the middle class who know that manufacturing jobs are part of the way of doing that. they are counting on us, our economy is counting on the fact that we will be smart about the way we make decisions about our natural resources. and right now with natural gas, we have the opportunity not only for the states that have it to do well by exploration and extraction, but by leveraging that as we look at the

opportunities for manufacturing. leveraging our own resources which we are told will give us eight times more in benefit in terms of jobs than just having our natural resources in america exported around the globe and the prices floating up to the higher prices of oil. madam president, thank you very much. we're going to have a lot of discussion and debate on this going forward. i look forward to that. i think this is really an opportunity for us to have an american plan on manufacturing with american low-cost energy and be able to really jump-start our economy moving forward. thank you very much.

the presiding officer: the senator from arizona. mr. mccain: parliamentary inquiry. what's the business before the senate? the presiding officer: the senate is considering the motion to proceed to s. 2124. the ukraine aid bill. mr. mccain: i thank the president, madam president. i would urge my colleagues to not only vote on this particular measure but also vote to pass as soon as possible the bill that is before the united states senate that was reported out before we went into recess by the senate foreign reelsz -- fon relations committee on a vote of 14-4 -- the senate foreign relations committee on a vote of 14-4.

obviously it is intended to be an opening response, beginning response to the russian aggression in ukraine, specifically now occupying and absorbing crimea into russia, an act of aggression the likes of which has not been seen in a long, long time. in addition to that, now additional pressures are being put on as we speak the ukrainian government of raising the price of gas, by canceling ukraine's special price discounts. oil deliveries are slow. bored crossings for the delivery -- border crossings for the delivery of trade have been closed, and the dirty tricks go on from the old k.g.b. colonel,

vladimir putin. this act is relatively mild. it will provide loan guarantees which are badly needed now. the ukrainian economy is now even under greater pressure and greater difficulty given the actions that have been taken by vladimir putin. and it would stabilize the ukrainian economy, just beginning. but a strong signal of united states support for this fledgling ukrainian democracy. the i.m.f. reforms are somewhat controversial by some of my colleagues, but the i.m.f. reforms are not the reason why this legislation is before us. the reason why the legislation is before us is because vladimir putin has now absorbed crimea into russia.

and i predicted that when the ukrainian government became a government of the people and thrown outia yanokovic, that he would do exact that will because of vladimir putin's view of the need to have savastople, the base on the black sea, in order to have access to the mediterranean, without which his visions and view of of the rusn empire would be threatened. so i say to my colleagues that right now the president of the united states is in europe. i hope that he is leading in europe rather than just consulting in europe. and, by the way, a comment by the president -- i still don't quite get that there would not be a military excursion in ukraine. i -- i have never heard that word used in regards to military

action. but the most important thing is, in my view, is to pass this legislation as soon as possible, fight about other less important issues later on, but send a strong signal to the people of ukraine, who are watching us as we speak and as we vote today as to whether we are going to come to their assistance and at least take some small pressures to punish vladimir putin. if we get hung up for another week or another how many hours because of our failure to act, in my view, sends exactly the wrong signals. and i also speak again in the strongest terms that we need to send military assistance to this country, we need to help them defend themselves. russian troops are massed on the border of eastern ukraine as we speak. i don't know whether vladimir

putin will go into eastern ukraine. i did predict that he would go into crimea. now i believe he is watching carefully for the reaction of the west, led by the united states of america, as how we are going to assist ukraine, how we're going to prevent or at least make the cost of further encroachment into ukrainian territory a very expensive one. we have military assistance programs with a myriad of nations and we should be giving them the weapons that they need to defend themselves. i'm talking about defensive weaponry. and it's shameful for us not to do so. so i would -- i see my colleague from illinois here, who i was privileged and proud to travel to ukraine with, a man who understands these issues as well or better than anyone in this

body and one who represents thousands and thousands and thousands of ukrainian-americans who i know he has met with that are deeply concerned about russia. mr. durbin: would the senator yield? i would just like to say through the chair that it was really an honor to join my colleague, senator mccain, on a whirlwind trip to ukraine. 48 hours, maybe six extra to spare, two full days of working there, meeting with every leader at every level of government there. and sensing their concern over the pending so-called referendum in crimea and what russia would do next. and he and i stand together in a bipartisan fashion urging the passage of this resolution as quickly as possible. i just left the phone. the reason i came to the floor, senator, i was on the floor -- on the phone, rather, with the ambassador from ukraine and we were talking about the situation there. and i said senator mccain's on the floor and i would like to go

down and say a word. and he said that the people in ukraine are watching what we're doing. they're watching what congress and the united states is going to do. there are some differences between us. there's on some differences between the parties. but there comes a moment -- and there always has, at least in the past -- where we decide we're going to stand together as a nation, particularly when it comes to issues of foreign policy. this resolution doesn't address every issue that you've raised here but it certainly addresses some key issues that you and i both agree on. we both voted for this in the senate foreign relations committee. we both to want see this move, the sooner the better. and i just want to salute my colleague from arizona for returning to the mydan, that area in kiev where 103 ukrainians lost their lives, demonstrating against the former government and asking for chan change. and i will tell him that our experience together visiting that country with a delegation of eight senators i hope sent a strong message there is bipartisan support for ukraine and we will not tolerate putin's

aggression at the expense of innocent people. and i yield the floor to the senator from arizona. mr. mccain: madam president, i ask unanimous consent to engage in a colloquy the senator from illinois. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mccain: i would ask my friend, isn't it true that the people of ukraine are watching in a way that is hard for us to understand here before an empty chamber, but more importantly whether we act and act quickly? that signal to them, as they face these additional russian aggression, maybe not military aggression but already trade -- borders have been closed, the price of their energy has been raised. in other words, putin's putting more and more pressure on them. they -- they look to us. don't -- isn't it a fact that they won't quite understand if we go another several days because of some additional issue

that really does not affect whether we're coming to their assistance or not? i would ask my friend from illinois. mr. durbin: through the chair, i would respond, i couldn't agree more. and i think it was significant when the new prime minister in ukraine was scheduling his first trip outside the country, where did he come? here. washington, d.c. whom did he meet with? the president and the leaders. we sat together with him, just in a room downstairs, senate foreign relations committee room. he came here because he wanted to bring the message to us of what he feared would happen if putin's aggression went forward and he wanted us to bring a message to the world that the united states stad by him. how can we -- stood by him. how can we possibly explain to these people who are worried with the existence and survival of their nation that we got tied up in some political squabble here between the house and the senate or the two political parties? it's important for us to move and move quickly. and i would say to the senator from arizona, he understands this as well or better than mo

most, many of us come from countries which were once under the yoke of the soviets and we remember full well what it took to finally get independence and democracy. vladimir putin today is fighting to save a failing soviet franchise. and where he can't win the hearts and minds of neighboring nations, he instead uses mass gunmen -- masked gunmen, troops, barbed wire and energy extortion. that's how he works. he's not winning this battle. what he's telling to the world is the only way i can keep my -- quote -- "friends" in line is with pressure. and i hope other nations of the world will join us. i thank the senator and i agree with him, now is the time to act in the senate. mr. mccain: i note the presence of the chairman of the foreign relations committee on the floor who i want to thank for his rapid leadership in getting this legislation approved by overwhelming majority of the committee on a

bipartisan basis. and i know that he's waiting to speak. but i -- just one more comment that i would have for my friend from illinois. i understand you've just met with ukrainian-americans in your home state of illinois, in chicago. and isn't it true that they don't quite understand why we have not acted more rapidly in face of naked agreght aggressioh is incredible acquisition of territory which vladimir -- which the russian government guaranteed as part of ukraine when ukraine gave up its nuclear inventory, which happened to be the third-largest in the world? and i see the chairman waiting so i won't ask anymore questions except to urge my colleagues, let's have an overwhelming vote to move to this legislation and get it done as quickly as possible.

mr. durbin: madam chair? the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: i ask unanimous consent that chris landberg, a detailee from the state department with the senate foreign relations committee, be granted floor privileges for the duration of any legislation related to the ukraine including s. 2124, support for the sovereignty, integrity, and economic stability of ukraine act of 20146789 th14. the original request comes from my colleague, chairman bob mendoza-martinez des of the foreign reels committee. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. menendez: madam president, first let me thank my two colleagues, senator mccain and senator durbin, for their work, their leadership on this issue. it has created the type of bipartisan spirit that i think is incredibly important in general but certainly in foreign

relations, and they both have added greatly to the legislation that came out that we are considering before the floor in a strong bipartisan vote of the committee. madam president, last week some of my colleagues in this chamber were sanctioned by vladimir putin for standing up for the ukrainian people, standing up for freedom, standing up for their democratic aspirations, standing up for the sovereignty of the ukraine. and as i said in brussels at the german marshal fund this weekend, if i have been sanctioned for those reasons, then i say, by all means, mr. putin, sanction me. and i would urge all of my colleagues to be supportive of the legislation. they may be sanctioned at the end of the day, but that's eell- but that's really what standing up for the ukraine means. as we look around, we understand that every so often we face a critical juncture at a time of

great upheaval and change. with the backlieding of russian leadership to a pre-1991 posture, we are at such a juncture. vladimir putin seems to view the pre-1991 soviet union's expansionist authoritarianism as a present-day goal. in the last two decades which saw the formation of new and independent states as a departure from peter the great's expansionist aspirations. from ukraine to georgia to the middle east, we are seeing a new russian leadership bent on using its military authority, its economic resources and its ability to serve its own purposes. russia's flat-out extortion of ukraine supported by former corrupt leaders of ukraine forced the political explosion which russia then exploited.

in syria president putin is actively propping up president asheeassad. in iran, the ink of the joint plan of action was barely dry. they plan to build a new nuclear plant all steps that only aid iran in pursuit of nuclear weapons while diminishing the sanctions that force that country to the negotiating table in the first place. it's no surprise that putin and his cronies have already threatened to derail syria and iran talks if their countries don't stop -- don't step back from punishing russia for its annexation of the ukraine. in geneva, as the p5-plus-1 talks continue, we can eel theep

it won't affect. mr. putin has miscalculated. he had a rei.g. nateed a dangerous pre-1919 soviet-style game of russian roulette with the international community and we cannot blink. we must understand that we will -- he must understand, i should say, that we will never accept his violation of international law in the ukraine. that's why we passed this legislation in committee. an aid package for ukraine that provides loans for economic stablization, supports planning for upcoming democratic elections, aids in the recovery of stolen assets and expands security cooperation between the two countries, and it holds moscow accountable for its aggressive stance against ukraine. first, this legislation provides for ukrainian loan guarantees squint with the $1 billion announced by the administration in recent days. it mirrors the house legislation. second, it ensures that the

obama administration can assist the ukrainian government to identify, secure, and identify assets linked to corruption. third, it authorizes $50 million for democracy, governance and civil society assistance and $100 million for enhanced security for ukraine and other states in central and eastern europe. fourth, it mandates sanctions, complement being the president's recent executive order against ukrainians and russians alike responsible for violence in serious human rights abuses against antigovernment protesters and those responsible for undermining the peace, security, stability, sovereignty, or territorial integrity of the unilateral crane as well as imposing sanctions on russian individuals complicit in or responsible for significant corruption in the ukraine. and, fifth, it allows the administration to broadly

sanction corrupt russian officials and go after putin's allies and cronies who are engaged in massive corruption to the detriment of the russian people. and finally, it provides needed reforms to the united states participation in the international monetary fund, which would allow the united states to leverage significant support from the i.m.f. for ukraine today, and for similar unforeseen crises that are going to come in the future. it is the i.m.f. that is leading the effort to stablize ukraine's fragile economy, an essential task if there is to be any chance of reaching a peaceful political solution to the standoff with russia. congressional ratification of the 2010 rism reforms would increase i.m.f. emergency funding to the ukraine by up to 60%. and it would provide an additional $6 billion for longer-term support, setting an important marketer for other donors such as the e.u. and world bank. failure to approve the reforms,

on the other hand, would undermine both the i.m.f. and the international standing of the united states. some countries are happy to see u.s. global influence diminished. failing to approve the reforms weakens the united states and emboldens our competitors. the i.m.f. is strengthened at no cost to u.s. finances or influence. the united states retains its executive board seat and sole veto power at no net cost, since the $63 billion increase in u.s. quota is fully offset by an equivalent decrease to a separate emergency facility. other countries, however, put in new money, increasing i.m.f. lending power. the fact is, it is a pure win for the united states. we will pay for the $315 million budget impact to the bill with real cuts and from funds that were underperforming or no longer needed. given that the i.m.f. helps to

stablize countries often precluding future need for military action the relatively minor costs will pay back many times over. this is not a partisan issue. presidents reagan, clinton, and both presidents bush backed legislation to increase i.m.f. resources and president reagan called the i.m.f. -- quote -- "the linchpin of the international financial system." these efforts, combined, send a message to the world that the annexation of crimea will not stand. let me close by saying we are at a dangerous moment in history, with global consequences. and the world is watching. if the west does not act, what will china say when it is looking at its territorial desires in the south china sea? what will iran say when we are negotiating in vienna about nuclear weapons? what will others in the world say, north korea whose march to nuclear weapons on greater scale is snil play?

all of them will be looking at what we in the west do or do not do in making a decision about russia's brazen move in the ukraine. they will be watching to see how far they can go, how much they can do. they will be asking, what can i get away with? the fact is, as a matter of principle, ukrainian sovereignty cannot be violated for simply looking westward and embracing ideals rooted in freedom. these ideals must always remain first and foremost in our strategic response to international events. when i was in brussels last week at nato and the german martial fund, i said the broader question that faces us is this: can a united trans-atlantic vision and our collective commitment to bold actions in this century match the vision and the commitment of those who created the international institutions which brought peace and prosperity to millions in the last century? i believe that if we live, lead,

and govern guided by shared values and united by our common concerns, we can lead the world through this transformational moment in history and prevent further russian aggression from taking us back prior to what was that 1991 world. that's the choice before us, madam president. i urge my colleagues to strongly support the cloture motion so that we can work to a statement that will do exactly that. mr. mccain: will the senator tbreelyield for a question? mr. menendez: i will be heaped 20 yield. mr. mccain: i think it is very clear that vladimir putin has amassed forces on the eastern border of russia and eastern ukraine. and right now he is calculating as to whether to move their or even into moldova where the region is now occupied and has been by russian troops. also there's pressure on the baltic countries that is being

exerted as we speak, a lot of it in defense of russian-speaking people. if we don't send this message now with this package in a bipartisan and strong manner, vladimir putin will be encouraged to enact further acts of aggression against crimea and in the region. and i would ask my colleague if he doesn't agree with that assessment. mr. menendez: i think the senator is spot-on. right now putin is looking at whether or not he proceeds in eastern ukraine. he is looking at translistia and moll dough vavment he is calculating and he is calculating what are the costs? what will the united states and the european union do? from my perspective, president putin only understands strength, and that strength is either in a military context, which of

course no one is speaking about at this moment, or an economic one, and that's why this package is so incredibly important, because it takes every single dimension o that the distinguisd senator helped us in the committee on. it aids us in the upfront loan guarantee, it sanctions -- and the senator was very involved in that -- elements of the russian hierarchy for engaging in corrupting the country, the ukraine, and at the same time for invading its territorial integrity. it prepares assistance for that election that is supposed to take place in may. that is critical to be fair, open, and transparent. and, at the same time, it provides for the greater resources to the i.m.f. so all of these elements are critical, and also includes a very clear statement about greater defense cooperation, which is also critically important. so these are all elements of sending a strong message, as putin is calculating what will

be the cost? and if the cost isn't high enough, he may very well proceed into eastern ukraine or into those parts of moldova. that is a message -- or an action that we can ill of had afford and an action that the others will look at across the world that they will calculate, the west is not willing to take the actions necessary to stop my designs. if that is the case, then i think we are in a world of hurt are across the globe. mr. mccain: thank the chairman for his eloquent statement. i yield the floor. mr. menendez: madam president, i yield the floor. and i observe the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from new jersey. mr. menendez: i ask that the quorum call be vitiated.

the presiding officer: without objection. the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture. the clerk: khraoerpl. we the undersigned senators in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate move to bring to a close the 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 17 senators. the presiding officer: by unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum call has been waived. the question is, is it the sense of the senate that debate on the motion to proceed to s. 2124, an original bill to support sovereignty and democracy in ukraine and for other purposes, shall be brought to a close? the yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators wishing to vote or wishing to change their vote? if not, on this vote the yeas are 78, the nays are 17. three-fifths of the senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in the affirmative, the motion is agreed to. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from washington. the senate will be in order. the senate will be in order. please clear the well, please take conversations outside.

the senator from washington. mrs. murray: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent to speak as if in morning business for four minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. murray: mr. president, again, the senate is not in order. the presiding officer: the senate will be in order. please clear the well, take conversations outside. the senator from washington. mrs. murray: mr. president, i'm sure all of our colleagues have seen the news over the past few days from my home state of washington where we are suffering a devastating natural disaster. for those of you who haven't seen it on saturday the town of oso, washington, it's a very small --. the presiding officer: the senate will be in order. please take your conversations out of the well.

the senator from washington. mrs. murray: thank you, mr. president. and i appreciate the senate's seriousness now because this is a very difficult topic for all of us who have seen this. it's a small town of oso, washington, a small, tightly knit community. on saturday they were hit by a massive landslide. it's cut off the town of darrington which is just a few miles up state road 530 and houses over a square mile have just been swept away. we know already that we have lost eight people. this morning we learned that there is more than 100 people who are still missing, and right now in my home state of washington, mr. president, there are dozens and dozens of families who do not know if their loved ones are still alive mr. president, these are moms

and dads, they're sons and daughters, they're neighbors and friends who in the blink of an eye saw water and earth wipe away their homes and their entire community and now many of them are there and who don't know if their loved ones have survived. mr. president, i was in arlington yesterday where the search and rescue operations are being coordinated, it's just down the road from where the slide hit and i wanted to talk today for just a few minutes about this on the senate floor and if we could have order, mr. president, i'd appreciate it. the presiding officer: the senator from washington. mrs. murray: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, oso and darrintton are very small towns. the on poition of oso is 180 people. the types of places where wr knows everyone, they stop to say hello and everyone lends a

helping hand. it's impossible to describe the scope of this devastation. there isn't a single person who hasn't been impacted in some way by this tragedy. but there always isn't a single person anywhere who isn't doing everything they can to help. i saw neighbors who were there providing food, providing shelter, offers of all kinds of hope --, help, hugs and prayers, first responders, mr. president, are risking their lives every minute, braving very dangerous conditions to look for survivors. and people across my state are offering help and donations, anything they can to assist these communities who are experiencing the unthinkable. weep have grocery stores who are offering food to the families who need it and to the rescue workers, the red cross is there on the ground, tribal leaders from the local community are coming to offer what they can. but, mr. president, i just want our colleagues to know this weekend i saw some of the worst

devastation i've ever witnessed in my home state. but at the same time i also saw firefighters who hadn't slept, they refused to stop, as they searched for survivors. i saw families who were refusing to give up hope and i saw communities that need our entire state and our entire country to stand with them now. so, mr. president, even though oso and darrington are 2,300 miles away from the nation's capital, our hearts and prayers are with those communities tonight and in the coming weeks and months and even years, if that's what it takes, all of us need to stand with the people of oso and darrington and arlington and provide the federal resources they are going to desperately need in this recovery and rebuilding operation. and i want them to know that they will have the thoughts and prayers of everyone in this country from the -- out to the real washington as they see this through. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor.

mr. toomey: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from pennsylvania. mr. toomey: thank you, mr. president. i rise this evening to speak in support of two nominees for federal judgeships from pennsylvania. and i think my colleague, senator casey, is going to have a message that he will share withus momentarily. first i want to be very clear, i'm very enthusiastically in support of both judge ed smith and mr. gerald mchugh, the two nominees both of whom i believe are likely to get a vote this week. if confirmed they'll serve as u.s. district judges in the eastern district of pennsylvania, and i want to thank chairman leahy and ranking member grassley for their work in ushering these candidates through the committee process. i want to thank leader reid and leader mcconnell for their role in ensuring that these nominees would have a chance to have a vote on the senate floor. but most of all i want to thank

my colleague, senator casey. senator casey and i have been working hard to fill a number of vacancies on the federal bench in pennsylvania since i got to the senate. he predates my arrival here, he's been at this longer than me, but since i've arrived we've had a terrific working relationship. we have had eight terrific men and women confirmed to the federal bench across pennsylvania. hopefully these two gentlemen will join them and we'll be up to ten. we have developed a rigorous process by which the many candidates who apply for these vacancies are thoroughly vetted and i'm really pleased that we've been able to make this ongoing process. pennsylvanians expect us to do this. they expect us to work together, across party lines, a democratic senator, a republican senator, work together to simply find the best candidates. and, mr. president, i got to tell you i think we're doing exactly that with respect to our

judicial nominees and there could be no better examples than judge smith and mr. mchugh. ed smith was approved by the judiciary committee by a voice vote on january 16. he is very well respected. i have known judge smith for nearly 20 years. there's no question he has the requisite skills, the knowledge, the background, the action ewe men. he will be a great federal judge. we know this because of what he's already accomplished in his career. he serves as the captain in the u.s. navy, in the j.a.g. corps. he's been a commanding officer at the navy reserve naval justice school, served as a trial judge in the navy reserve, he was deployed to iraq in 2007 and 2008 to serve as a rule of law advisor to the iraqis. and he's received a bronze star for his service. currently ed smith is a judge on the north hampton court of common pleas. he's been a partisan in duraman

and smith. importantly also judge smith has agreed if he is confirmed he will sit in the easton courthouse in the first district, a courthouses that has not had a district court judge since 2004 and the people of north hampton county deserve to have that courthouse filled and judge smith is an outstanding candidate to do it. i'm delighted to support gerald mchugh. gerald mchugh is a highly accomplished attorney, a very keen intellect, great commitment to public service. he is currently a partner in the rains-mccardy firm. his work has been in civil litigation in medical malpractice and litigation regarding unsafe products, aviation disasters, and civil rights. he's been a shareholders in the firm of lipton, bloomburg, madesow and young. he began clerking for district

judge wongo and a graduate from the university of pennsylvania law school. he's not only a skilled lawyer but been very active in his community, he's been giving back to the greater philadelphia area for a long time. he's on the boards of many charitable and civic organizations. he's the president of pennsylvania legal aid network, has been since 2004. he cofounded the hospitality house of philadelphia to help ex-offenders and does pro bono work to prevent crime in west philadelphia. both candidates, mr. president, have the crucial qualities necessary to make outstanding judges. and they have manifested that throughout their very distinguished careers. they've got the intelligence, they've got the integrity, they've got the commitment to public service, they've got the respect for the limited role that the judiciary has under our constitutional system. so i am pleased to rise to speak on behalf of these two highly accomplished nominees and i urge my colleagues to support their

confirmation later this week. thank you, mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from pennsylvania. mr. casey: mr. president, thank you very much. i want to commend and salute the work done by senator toomey and his staff working with ours as well as the leaders that he mentioned, beginning with majority leader reid and chairman leahy. i am like senator toomey, grateful to have the opportunity to talk about both of these candidates. nominees, i should say, for the united states district court for the eastern district of pennsylvania. edward george smith who serves now as a judge as well as gerald austin mchugh jr. now, i've known gerald austin mchugh jr. a lot longer and i'll speak of him and in that order. i'll speak first about jerry mchugh. i

know him as jerry. i won't use a formal name again because i know him as jerry. and i guess if there's one thing i could say about jerry mchugh is he's a lawyer's lawyer. he's the kind of lawyer that other lawyers go to for advice, for guidance and really for -- sometimes for education. because he's been a great leader in the bar but also someone who's been a strong advocate for those who need a voice. often serving as a lawyer for those who wouldn't have an advocate absent his involvement in a case. jerry mchugh is a philadelphia neafb. he was educated -- philadelphia native. he was educated in philadelphia where he received a degree in theology, graduating summa cum laude with the highest honors. he also was a graduate at the university of pennsylvania law school and he graduated from penn law school with honors as

well. he began his practice at the firm of -- i'm going back now to litvin, bloomberg, mad adeso and young back in the early 1980's, prior to his career as a lawyer, he served for two -- served two judges as a law clerk. first, the judge spaith, the superior clerk judge. in our state, superior court is the second highest court in the state. the -- right next to the supreme court of pennsylvania. he then served the united states district court of -- for the eastern district of pennsylvania, judge alfred l. luongo, and then went into the firm i mentioned, the litvi n/bloomberg firm. and then in another firm

starting in 2004. i won't read the list of memberships but i'll just highlight a few that i think bear upon his -- his work as a lawyer and his work -- the work that he will do as a judge. he's been a member of the pennsylvania trial lawyers, he's been a board member of the legal aid network in philadelphia. served as -- served the bar association in a number of capacities, also served the ball association for the volunteers for the indigent program, helping those who may not have a voice. jerry has focused his practice on complex civil litigation, on a whole variety of matters, and i'll put a longer statement in the record about his experience. but also i think it's noteworthy that the pennsylvania supreme court three times appointed jerry mchugh to chair the pennsylvania interest on

lawyers' trust accounts program, the so-called iolta program, which is very, very important so that when that fund is needed to -- to help resolve a case that involves a lawyer, that that fund is there. so it has to be administered and overseen by folks that have the highest integrity. so i could talk for a lot longer about jerry mchugh. i know him as someone who has a wide range of experience as a lawyer, as an advocate, as an active citizen, someone who would bring to the court i think a passion for justice and a sense of outrage in the face of injustice. and i can't say enough about his experience and his preparation for this very important assignment that he would have upon confirmation to be a judge in the eastern district of pennsylvania. so i'm grateful for his willingness to serve. and in addition to jerry

mchugh, judge edward george smith. judge smith, as senator toomey noted, was -- has a great career and a varied experience -- or i should say a varied set of experiences, serving now as a george in the court of common pleas in northampton county. since january of 2002. he was elected to that position and then retained, which is the ultimate validation of someone's service on the bempl beverage ie court of common pleas in pennsylvania, serving that county. prior to that, as senator toomey noted, judge smith served the united states in the navy, a judge advocate general corps. he was a captain and still is. captain 1984 until the present time. also served in a law firm for about -- about 11 years, the deraymond and smith firm.

and in that time period he served as a solicitor for a number of entities in the region and also has demonstrated his commitment to his community. i'll just highlight a few. former president of the boys and girls clubs of easton, pennsylvania. former president of the kawanis club, palmer township. a former emergency medical teb technician in forks township. and i his military career is substantial. in addition to serving in the navy and achieving the rank of captain, he served our country in iraq. his commendations, among others -- i'll just list a few -- bronze star medal, meritorious service medal, navy and marine corps commendation medal, and it goes on from there. 27-year veteran of the united states navy who, as i said, was deployed to iraq.

so whether by way of experience, life experience as well as legal experience, or whether it's his experience as a judge, judge smith is prepared to be a judge again on a different court, in this case, the united states district court for the eastern district of pennsylvania. when we make decisions about whom to nominate for either the district court or the appellate court, we always want to consider a range of characteristics or experiences or qualifications. first and foremost we look to people who have unquestioned integrity. we look to them as well as people who have a varied experience, whether in the law or as a judge or in other life experiences as well. we also look to people who can do the job not just by way of their integrity and ability but also who have the judicial temperament, the approach to

litigants to treat them with fairness and to arrive at a measure of justice. so on all of those -- and we could list others as well -- but on all of those qualifications and characteristics, both of these nominees possess them in abundance. so i'm grateful for senator toomey's work with us to get this done. to have two judges to be confirmed and we're looking forward to doing that later this week. mr. president, i would yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

ms. murkowski: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from alaska. ms. murkowski: mr. president, i request that proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed

with. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. murkowski: thank you, mr. president. in alaska, there is a great deal of attention focused this week on the great alaskan earthquake of 1964. the 27th of march will mark the 50th anniversary of this amazing physical event, the second-largest earthquake that was recorded, an episode that alaskans have been talking about for the last 50 years and will be talking about for the next 50ment but i rise this afternoon to not speak about that anniversary but to speak of a 25-year anniversary that wil wht caused by mother nature had a devastating impact on the nature and surrounding waters of alaska. today, mr. president, i would

like to speak very briefly about where we are 25 years after the exxon valdez ran aground on belibhiereef. it was a 987-foot tanker carrying 53 million gallons of crude. it struck blye wreath at 12:04 a.m. on more 24, 1989. and within literally hours, it had released approximately 11 million gallons of crude oil into the water. as most know, alaskan coastline isn't just a nice thin, straight beach. it is hundreds and hundreds of coves and islands and shoreline,

and that oil spread over approximately 1,000 miles of shoreline across our coast. it is absolutely a fact that this environmental disaster is something that has left an impression on alaskans, not unlike what we experienced 25 years prior to that with mother nature's devastation; that being the earthquake. i think it is important when we have milestones, when we have these anniversaries or these times where we pause to think about what has happened before that we not only think about the tragedy at the time but we think about how move moved forwarded from that time, hopefully learning from those incidents that have triggered very substantial memory and recall of

those events. so many alaskans have stories of how they worked to help clean up the oil spill in the aftermath of the exxon valdez, whenl it was -- whether it was fishermen who had been displaced. they were no longer going out and fishing. but, instead, they charged their vessels to be part of the massive cleanup effort that went underwaism the stories that are out there throughout our state and really from folks around the country are as poignant and touching 25 years later as they were at the time. because, as the environment was impacted, the lives of alaskans was clearly impacted. i spend -- i like to think i

spend a good amount of time in the small fishing community of cordova, a community that was dramatically impacted by the exxon valdez spill, and visiting with fishermen and fishing families decades after the fact and hearing their stories not only of the loss that they incurred, because they were not able to go out and fish, they weren't able to meet their boat mortgage, but the stress that came to the community of a disaster like this, whether it was personal bankruptcies, whether it was divorce, whether it was social issues, because people just couldn't deal with the fact that their land scairntion their livelihoods had been changed. it was a very, trying and traumatic time. and sometimes those scars, i think, just do take decades to heal. but my hope is that as alaskans,

we come together, we learn from tragedies, we learn from events, and we move forward. we're pretty resilient people, and the people that have been so dramatically impacted are proof and evidence to that. but what else have we seen as we have tried to learn from that tragedy? i think it's fair to say that at the time back in 1989 when the exxon ran aground, there was perhaps a, some would call it a complacency. perhaps we were just not monitoring as we should have, but we had had an industry that had been operating really quite safely, absolutely safely for a decade without incident. but when you don't -- when you

lose that vigilance, things can happen. and things happened with the exxon valdez. but since that time, when we learned that you have to have a level of preparedness as you operate in areas like prince william sound, you have to have a level of preparedness that meets the challenge that you face. at the time that the tanker ran aground, the spill response equipment that was there, that had been planned for, was not readily available. we didn't have sufficient boon available in the event of a disaster. we didn't have the fleet that could go out and assist. now, again, 25 years later, what alaska has in place are 108 skimmers, 45 miles of boon and

on-water storage capacity of almost 38 million gallons. we have put in place a requirement that north slope oil must be transported in double-hauled tankers. you cannot bring a tanker in to carry north slope crude unless it's double-hulled. and we require a level of escort , two-tug escort out of prince william sound. it doesn't make any difference what the weather is. it can be a flat, calm summer day or foul winter. but every, every tanker going out is escorted by two tugs. we have radar monitors that are in place, that truly allow for a greater level of oversight and scrutiny. so what we have done in response to the spill is, i think, something that is worthy of

note, clearly something that other nations look to as the example of preparedness. we have our prince william sound regional citizens advisory council that is in place and truly being active and engaged not only with the community, but with the fishing fleets. we have learned that company, the management company for alaska north slope oil conducts two major oil drills -- they conduct drill spills, two drill spills every year to make sure there is a level of preparedness. we've got about 400 local fishing boat owners that are trained to deploy and maintain the boon. they come together with drills

again to make sure that we never have -- that we never have anything like we saw with the exxon valdez again. i think it is tpraeur to say -- it is fair to say 25 years after the spill we are continuing to monitor. we have a herring industry that has not yet recovered. we still have a bird population, the gilmo, which has not recovered. 25 years is a long time, but when you have a disaster as we had, it does leave impact. my goal, my mission, my efforts as a legislator is to make certain that we do not have a level of complacency where we

close our eyes and we fail in our efforts for preparedness. i think what we have demonstrated in alaska since the spill is, as i say, admirable in recognizing that we had failed in a level of prevention. but i think we also recognized that we could learn from that tragedy and move forward. but i wanted to take just a couple minutes this afternoon and acknowledge that there are still many alaskans who woke up this morning not thinking about the weather or getting the kids in to school, but a very strong reminder of where they were 25 years ago and how the events of

that day changed people's lives. so hopefully, again, the goal here is to never have a tragedy of that scale, that scope again. with that, mr. president, i thank the chair and yield the floor and would suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the call of the quorum be terminated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to a

period of morning business with senators permitted to speak therein for ten minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: s. 2149 is due for its first reading. the presiding officer: the clerk will read the title of the bill for the first time. the clerk: s. 2149, a bill to provide for the extension of certain unemployment benefits and for other purposes. mr. reid: i object to my own request to have a second reading. the presiding officer: objection having been heard, the bill will be read for a second time on the next legislative day. mr. reid: mr. president, just alerting everyone, we have a lot of things to do this week. we've got to have some finality of the ukraine matter, we have s.g.r. which we're waiting for the house to take some action on that. we have unemployment compensation and then we have a number of things we have to do the two next weeks of this work period. we're going to have to finish

these things i outlined now which means if we can't get some way forward without a lot of procedural roadblocks we'll have to be in this weekend. it's not pleasant for some people, but i've alerted everyone as often as i can and we've been able to avoid these weekends, but this work period is very significant. we have a lot of things we have to get done. we'll either start spending a weekend here and there or what we would have to do is just take a week that we're supposed to start our easter break and work that week. it would be a short week but we'd at least be here. so just to alert everybody so people can't come back and say why didn't you tell us, because i've been saying this for at least all day. i ask unanimous consent when the senate completes its business it adjourn until 10:00 a.m. tomorrow morning. that following the prayer and pledge, the morning business be deermd spired, the time for the two leaders reserved for use

later in the day, following any leader remarks, the senate be in a period of morning business for an hour, with senators permitted to speak therein for ten minutes each during that time with the time equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees with the majority controlling the first half, republicans the final half and following morning business the senate resume the motion to proceed to the ukraine act postcloture. again, mr. president, 30 hours, postcloture, we've done it scores of times. a total waste of time but that's what the republicans want and that's what they get under the rules of the senate. further that all time during adjournment and morning business count postcloture on the motion to proceed to s. 2124. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: if there is no further business to come before the senate, i ask that it adjourn senate, i ask that it adjourn

legislation making its way to the house and senate with the aid for ukraine and tim let's start with the senate. it held its first procedural vote today. what was the result of the vote and the details of the senate measure? >> this was a procedural vote that needed 60 votes to advance and the vote was 73-15 although i think there was some discussion about whether it was 17 at one point so it was a bigger margin than you might've

expected given it was good and divert -- controversial at the number of republicans pretty think everybody knew it would succeed but a much bigger margin than i thought it was going to. the bill does three main things that are really at the forefront of what congress is trying to do right now. one is a sanctions peace aiming at russian officials are passed ukraine officials who we have decided have been responsible for some wrongdoing and sovereignty and things like that. another pieces loan guarantees. the president to give the a 1 billion-dollar in loan guarantees to ukraine and congress needed to weigh in on that and a third piece is the real sticking point right now. that is the one that allows the restructuring that the international monetary fund wants and it allows that to go forward.

>> what the expected to happen at this point in the senate on this bill? >> i was just talking to some senators downstairs about that and it's not clear what's going to happen. there is going to be a push for some amendments. there are some senators who would like to see the united states send military aid right away the ukraine. there are some others who would like to cs speed up the natural gas flow so ukraine is and as dependent on russia for its energy supply. then there might be some things related to cybersecurity are trying to strip the imf language out. you can expect the last one but there might not be in agreement at all and which case there would be another couple procedural votes. >> lets talk about who voted against this measure and why they voted against it. >> sure. the main people who voted for it were people who would be to the right -- people who are on the right said the republican party the most conservative members for the most part.

you saw members like say senator rand paul, senator mike lee who voted no. some republicans voted yes in part because they just want to get the bill going forward and some still don't like the language. you saw senator rubio come out last week in favor of the bill even though he doesn't like the imf version. there is a multi-fold reason that they oppose the imf language. it relates to first off them just not being totally comfortable with the imf doing as good a job as being an international lender is about. there are also concerns about things like what the approval might do to the u.s. budget. there is sort of a. off earlier this year when the president was pushing this language where some republicans wanted to see some irs rules that govern some of these tea party groups and that rule was suspended in exchange for going forward with the imf language. >> them on the house side

earlier this month to bills were passed providing loans to ukraine and also called on u.s. to impose sanctions on iran but tomorrow the house foreign affairs committee is taking up those issues again in a markup of the new combined legislation. why are they doing this and who are some of the key supporters and opponents to the bill that we should watch for in the house i'd? >> the loan guarantee peace went through the house side really easily. that's not a part that anybody disputes. there is no political reactive quality that because there is no cost to the u.s. for the loan guarantee to the actual budget this year. the piece on sanctions is also not very controversial. if we are talking about increasing sanctions on russiand thing to get through. so this bill that they are doing has a bit more of a sanctions peace than the loan guarantee bill did. the imf language is out of the bill and that basically was the house saying to the senate you are trying to move the imf

reform language. we don't want it we don't like it and we are going to moving this. there's a bit of a spin off over this one piece and it mostly breaks down along party lines but not entirely. you see some democrats on the house side saying let's just pass him the easy stuff and worry about the imf later. let's help the ukraine now and on the senate side you see some republicans saying almost the same thing for the opposite reasons. they are saying look let's go with this imf language even though we don't like it just to get to the crane and help them out. >> when can we see the house take up its version of the bill? >> the house foreign affairs committee will vote tomorrow and there could be something on the house floor as soon as the end of the week. it's possible that they could work it out timing wise where they could be a vote on that second ukraine bill. >> just quickly where is the white house on all of these efforts in congress? >> the white house is in favor of all of the piece is pretty

much. they say they have some of the sanctions authority already. if they want the loan guarantee language and they want the imf language they made it a part of the budget proposal over the last two years and president obama has personally talked about wanting congress to keep that imf language in the senate bill to move forward and bring it to his desk. >> tim starks is a writer for "cq roll call." you can follow him on twitter at tim starks and find is reporting at roll call.com. thank you. >> mr. president when the senate last met i introduced together with senator durbin the resolution regarding our response to russia's invasion of ukraine. that resolution which received unanimous support here in the senate called for a number of specific steps to punish mdot isolate russia for its actions. among the steps we called upon president obama to impose

sanctions on officials of the russian federation who are most responsible for the invasion of the crimean region and i'm pleased recent announcements by the white house demonstrate that the president has begun the process of sanctioning some of these individuals although i would hope that the numbers sanctions would be far greater. i also want to note that the president today is in the netherlands discussing with our european allies and partners the need for further steps. i trust and hope that he will be successful in reaching a firm consensus with our allies and friends to define the strong united response to russian aggression. and further i also welcome such provisions in the legislation that is now pending in the senate, the support for the sovereignty integrity democracy and economic stability of ukraine act of 2014 ,-com,-com ma which i trust and hope the senate will be acting on

beginning this evening and perhaps extending into this week i would note that time is somewhat of the essence here. if we are going to send a message to russia certainly we don't want to be bogged down in internal delay over nonrelated or only slightly related issues. in any event in fact that is why senator durbin i moved their provisions forward before the senate adjourned for the break simply to make sure that there was a united bipartisan united states senate unanimously approved agreement on 15 measures that would get the message to vladimir putin and the russians that we take this very seriously. that legislation that we will be dealing with also sanctions the russians responsible for this recent aggression by producing amber have being, excuse me,

them from coming to the united states in freezing their assets here in america. are european allies have done likewise and together we have begun to respond to russia's outrageous behavior. however, it is my strong belief that much more needs to be done. we and our european allies must recognize the enormity of putin's crime as he rejects all modern standards of responsible international behavior and tramples on the sanctity of the territorial borders violating the stability of the post-war order. the international response must be much more vigorous if we are to prove that putin's behavior is unacceptable and cannot he repeated. a strong response now is the best way to reassure our allies and friends who are precariously placed on russia's borders that this outrage must be stopped,

reversed and ended. conversely to do little more than prevent a handful of russian officials from traveling abroad will show putin and his cronies that in the end we actually do not need what -- mean what we say. again i want to say the international response needs to be, has to be much more vigorous if we are to prove that we stand together united, one voice claiming that the behavior of president putin is unacceptable and cannot be repeated. now when senator durbin and i introduced her prior resolutioresolutio n on the subject we signaled their willingness to work with the administration to craft more punishing sanctions including economic sanctions possibly targeting key set yours of the russian economy and i believe that many of us here in the

senate on both sides of the aisle want to do more. i have suggested a range of things going at russia's export of oil and gas, and energy play that contributes a very significant amount to the economy on which they are very dependent. as well as financial sanctions and others so i hope the president is discussing those very measures in europe with our parties as we speak. we are all aware that sanctioning key russian economic activities carries the possibility that our economic interests and those of our european allies could be affected at the same time. while this is reason for us to be thoughtful in terms of how we move forward, it is not a reason for inaction. it should not be the basis for our standing by and watching what is happening and simply

saying well, this could potentially affect us economically back at home and therefore excused the actions and probably enable further actions by russian adversary in this case. in the end, unpunished, unconstrained rampant russian territorial expansion will threaten us all to a much greater extent. doing something now to prevent something much worse later, standing up now to prevent something much more serious in terms of what we might have to do later. sound policy decisions must reflect full assessments of all eventual consequences and that includes a clear picture on what the world will look like is illegal forcible annexation of the neighbor's territory is ignored or met only with a rap

on the knuckles. i continue to believe we can and must do more to isolate russia. this includes for example explicitly expelling russia from the g8, not temporarily but explicitly expelling and ending the nato rushing counsel and in addition i'm proposing today a specific economic sanctions that will harm russian interest in a serious way and hopefully with minimal or no damage to our own. i'm introducing an amendment to the ukraine act and the ukraine eight bill and i trust it will find broad bipartisan support. in the purpose of this amendment is to sanction russia's roseau boron export the sole state agency for export of russian weapons systems and defense related goods. this is a state corporation exclusively entitled to export

the entire range of russia armaments officially a loud for export. it was set up for that purpose and it was set up by president putin. it's a state-owned enterprise and its businesses sending russian arms around the world, some to very bad actors. many of our colleagues here in the senate know of his arms export agency because of russia's continuing supply of arms to the sods regime in syria. any here have repeatedly called on the administration to stop all cooperation with the export for that reason. we now have a new broader reason for ending our cooperation with this export agency of russia. to take steps to meaningful obstruct the agency's work and the income that provides the russian state will become among the most of ways we have of

demonstrating our condemnation of russian action by force of arms. let me briefly explain my amendment. it does three things. first it prohibits united states government from doing any business with this russian agency that prohibiting future contracts and canceling past contracts. it is true that the recent national defense authorization act which i have supported also include similar language but that section, that act includes a waiver authority and another workaround provision that the defense department has been using in order to buy russian helicopters for afghanistan. this practice has met with objections and it was objectional when it began and became more objectional as the russians continue to supply a saudi now based on what they have done in crimea it should be entirely unacceptable.

also i just learned this morning that president karzai announces support for the russian annexation of crimea and approval of russian actions which makes our purchase of russian weapons from the karzai regime even more outrageous. after all we have done to support president karzai and afghans with u.s. tax dollars and the lives and injuries to u.s. and coalition soldiers, after all we have done over a decade of time president karzai reaches out and publicly supports the russian action contrary to ours. this is a nation. russia is a nation which pillaged afghanistan for a decade. it's beyond belief. president karzai can support along with syria, countries like syria and venezuela. we haven't heard from qa yet.

we probably will. support the russian action when we are there trying to save his hide without not only our tax dollars but with our soldiers lives. so my venom and takes this waiver and puts a complete end to karzai's business dealings with the russians. karzai will have to buy his russian helicopters with his own money, not ours. second i proposed this amendment will prohibit contracts with any domestic or foreign company that cooperates with rosoboronexport in the design, manufacture or military development of military equipment. other types of business dealings with the cooperation with nonmilitary would not be affected. we are going after nonmilitary exports many of which go to some of our sworn enemies. and third i have proposed to authorize the president to

deduct from our foreign assistance programs and the amounts that a foreign state recipient stands on russian weapons through rosoboronexport. these did actions would be made from economic supports and security assistance accounts that would not affect other aid programs. the president would be authorized to reprogram such funds for use elsewhere subject to congressional notification. if they usaid recipient is tempted to use some of our money to buy russian weapons they need to know that we will deduct that amount from our systems program. they can buy russian weapons on their own dime, not on our dime. taken together i believe these proposals will be a very useful addition to the ukraine add -- eight act act and get that the additional teeth that it needs. this amendment would harm the russian army arms industry, the

russian economy, russian prestige and putin standing in the world. that ought to be our goal whether it's my amendment, any other amendment or the act we will be debating, they need to harm the russian arms industry, the russian economy especially in energy portion of the economd putin standing in the world. this amendment will service a concrete immediate response to the illegal invasion perpetrated by the russian federation and so i urge the majority leader to permit a full debate and up-or-down vote on my amendment and the urge my colleagues to support it in without madam president i yield the floor. >> we at the federal. commission have a dual mission which is to protect american consumers and to promote competition and we do that in a couple of different ways, main ways. the first is that we are civil

law enforcement agency so we bring lawsuits against companies that engage in unfair or deceptive work practices or -- competition. we also engage in policy and research work to study industries and to promote best practices and also advocate for laws that we think are needed. and as to your specific question what i can tell you is we are really interested in protecting consumers when it comes to the entirety of thing ecosystem. by that i mean we are interested in what app developers are engaged in what developers are doing, operating systems, app stores, device manufacturers so we again ensure that american consumers are protected in the competitive landscape.

>> we have to remember two things i think. first we are there because we were attacked in new york city and 3000 americans were murdered. that is why we went to afghanistan, to get those people who are killing us and second president obama has said there's a limit to this. within two years we are not doing it anymore so i agree with you julie at some point you have to let them do it, but in our first goal if we get away from the afghans etc. and look at what our first goal was if i had told you or any listeners in 2001 that we would not be attacked again in the united states of america for the next decade, none of us would have believed that because at that point al qaeda had more of the

advantage. now we really have al qaeda and the terrorists definitely on the defensive. so we can at this point get out most of our forces from afghanistan. i agree with you but we have been successful and what we really want to do in this country and that is to protect ourselves. >> pentagon spokesman john kirby reefed reporters today answering questions about russia's intervention in crimea, the missing malaysian airplane and winding down the war in afghanistan. it's almost half an hour. >> ouch, that hurt. i don't really have any specific announcements except to say the

secretary is hosting a senior leadership team at the pentagon this afternoon. as you know the senior leadership council meets every 90 days or so. today's session is focused primarily on military professionalism and having a discussion that fosters ideas for how we as an institution can continue professionalism across the force. as always the secretary values and puts opinions and perspectives of his leadership team and is taking advantage of this opportunity today to seek those perspectives and will continue to make this a priority in the weeks and months ahead. we will be seeing today a short public service announcement on this issue that both he and chairman dempsey made together. one of the number of ways that he intends to communicate directly and the video will be available on our web site. i can assure you that military professionalism remains a topic of discussion every week and at his routine meetings with the chairman and other leaders and i

believe we'll have an announcement very very soon on his selection of the senior adviser for military professionalism. i will not have an announcement on that today. the secretary said it himself when he was here with you not long ago, ethics and character of the foundation of an institutiinstituti on and the society. they must be council emphasized at every level of command top to bottom. he and his leadership team remain committed to that and without i will will take your questions. >> admiral kirby two weeks ago you mentioned that the size of the russian forces in crimea is around 20,000. correct me if i'm wrong. do you still believe that the number is still the same now? >> in crimea? i have nothing to indicate that it's different than that but again as i said last week that 22 the russian ministry of defense to speak to their troop composition in crimea and on the

borders of ukraine. >> so the number is still around 20,000? >> to the best of my knowledge it is but again i don't want to be speaking for the russian ministry of defense. they decided to deploy their chips in crimea and they should speak or what they got there and what they are doing. >> admiral on nationalism and the navy was going to do an investigation into the events that were taking place in charleston at the nuclear power training center there. do you have an update on where that is and when we can expect any two outs or conclusions and whether the number of people involved is the same as it was when he first heard about his? >> i don't have a specific update for you. i would refer you to the navy on that. i do understand that the essential work is complete but the investigation is now in the staffing process through the chain of command. what they found, the specifics of it i just don't know and i'd point you to the navy on that.

>> you have an update -- update on the black docs find her? >> what i can tell you is that this afternoon a couple of hours ago or so the toad paneer located as well as a bluefin 21 autonomous underwater vehicle were flown out of jfk airport in new york to perth again just a couple of hours ago. they will arrive sometime tomorrow. there will be a small number of people going along with them. in fact i think there are two on the flight with the year itself and another eight folks will be flying separately to perth to prepare the equipment. it should get there sometime tomorrow. i want to emphasize those something right at the top. this year while incredibly

useful is being sent to perth really because of the physics problem. we don't have the debris field that we can go look for specifically. we don't have something and they don't have anything to indicate where the aircraft is or even that it is down at the bottom of the ocean. admiral lockley or i think made a very prudent and wise decision to move the equipment that should be useful should a debris field the founder should be think we can get close to where the black locks may be. he made his decision to get that here now so again should we be in that position he will be a lot easier to get it on station. >> i talked about this last week and secretary hagel spoke to the malaysiamalaysia n counterpart and the minister did ask for some undersea surveillance equipment. we acknowledge that we would do what we could to try to get them

that equipment and that is what admiral lockley or is doing right now. it's important for you want to understand it's being sent there to be ready should there be a need and right now there is not a need. >> admiral thanks. a separate piece of equipment i believe the bluefin? >> a bluefin autonomous underwater vehicle. this is basically an underwater unmanned vehicle that has side scanning sonar and what we called a multibeam echosounder. it's basically, it would be useful should there be a debris field or there should be maybe some underwater objects that we believe need to be researched to go look at it or to use sonar to ascertain what it is. but it's only going to be

valuable if you know you have something down there that is worth going and taking a closer look at. >> the ping locator though. >> it's a specific piece of equipment. the ping or locator the same equipment that the navy used to help find the black box from the air france crash is designed specifically to highly sensitive listening device designed to hone in on the up location of the black box at self which will emit a sound. there are two pieces of year 10 people going and i want to stress this is just to have them they are close by in case they are needed. >> with the unmanned vehicle do you have to be on a navy ship -- shipped to operated? >> they are looking at using the australian commercial ship called the seahorse standard that would be used to embark

this equipment and tow it or toad the pinger locator and operate the auv from the seahorse stands. it does not have to be deployed aboard a u.s. navy warship or even an australian warship. >> the navy helps with us the certain that titanic with the believe is an album. how deep can the bluefin go? >> the bluefin can operate at a depth of 14700 feet and we will edit that for the transcript. it operates of the speed at 4.5 knots and has an endurance of 25 hours but at a slower speed. >> it is not a wide search. >> that's right. in order for this technology to

be useful you have to have an identified area on the sea bottom that you want to take a look at. you have to be able to give it some parameters and right now it's just not there. >> the army apparently has certified for training its nato response force, the 1st brigade of the first calvary division. is there any thought a is that accurate and have a certified a going through the national training center and the mac is any thought of sending bad as one of the signs of u.s. commitment to europe? >> on the certification piece i would refer you to the army. i don't have that order of granularity on the specific unit and their certification but you are right the 1st brigade combat team from the 1st calvary division is assigned the mission for the nato response force for 2014. it's a mission that they have

been training for for over a year and they are still scheduled to deploy in support of that on time, conduct some exercises in june. is when the exercises are scheduled and i think i just would leave it at that right now. i'm not aware of any changes to their plants are scheduled as a result of what's going on in ukraine. >> did you follow the malaysia prime minister's latest announcement on the fate of the missing plane? can you respond to that? the prime minister said the plane and it in the southern indian ocean so did the pentagon or the u.s. agency know of this analysis, a british analysis before? >> i don't know that leaders here in the pentagon were specifically aware of that. i would refer you to the malaysians for this. this is their investigation,

their aircraft and whatever analysis they are using to determine or to make these conclusions i think i would for our part leave it to them. for our party continues to be one of support for the search mission. as you know we still have two aircraft searching their went to the northern section of the search area and went to the southern and admiral locklear will make the decision on sending the year and that's really the love limit of our participation in now. >> do you think the u.s. navy is going to instead of search efforts in this region -- [inaudible] >> i don't know if any changes to our support for this mission which again right now is focused on fixed-wing aircraft with a p3 in the p8 and sending this equipment just to be there in case it's needed. there are no changes, no immediate changes on the horizon that i see from the u.s. navy's perspective. as i said last week on the search-and-rescue missions, search missions in general particularly those that see

change over time based on the conditions in based on the information that investigators continue to accrue so we will see. >> thank you admiral. i just want to follow up in that point. as the u.s. have any independent information to confirm that there are no survivors of flight 370? >> no. >> and to follow up on that, on this question, is there any information that you shared with malaysian government that they haven't announced yet? >> nothing that i'm aware of but certainly even if i was aware of something that they didn't announce a don't think i would want to be getting ahead of malaysian authorities. i'm not trying to be cute with the answer. i'm not aware of anything. what i have said this before. we are being as open and transparent and helpful as we can be. in keeping with the great complexity and at normandy of

the mission in the area as well as with the needs of the malaysia government are but they have asked us to provide. we are doing this lockstep with them. >> do you think we have been transparent? >> yes. and on the black box as we know the batteries are going to die may be in another 13 days. after that is the u.s. also going to take the lead or assist to find a location for the black box? >> not that i'm aware of, no. again this was a malaysian aircraft. this is a malaysian governments mission and investigation. i don't foresee any role by the u.s. military to take it over at any time particularly not after the black box expires. >> do you think -- this 13 days before the battery? >> i'm sorry? >> how urgent is it to find the black box. >> i think everyone has shared a

sense of urgency since the word went out that the aircraft was missing. there are two things i want to remind everybody. this isn't just about the united states or the united states navy. there are some 26 nations involved in the search effort. everybody's pitching in to the degree that they can't meet the needs of the malaysian government and the other thing i would say is let's not forget we have more than 200 families out there that are grieving right now. they just got some stark news today from the malaysian government. honest news, bitter news no doubt that they are grieving and i think the whole world grieves with them and we shouldn't be forgetting that. >> can you give us an update on the situation on the eastern ukrainian border and the russian military's presence? and has anything happened since the secretary last spoke with his russian counterpart to call into question the commitment that russia not move into the ukraine? >> the first is it's for the

russian ministry of defense to speak to their movements or the size and their composition, not for us. number two, they continue to have forces arrayed and amassed to the east end to the south of ukraine. our last communication with the russian minister of defense made it clear that -- or they made it clear -- that they are there for exercises only. that they will not cross the border into ukraine and they're not going to take aggressive action. as i said last week it's a secretary's expectation that they are going to live up to that word. >> the white house reiterated this morning its concerns about the possibility that russian troops might go into ukraine. so are there any signs that make

you think of the possibility they are going to? >> thanks for the question. maybe i didn't deal with it the way i should have. i have seen nothing. there is no indication that would alleviate our worries of what their intentions could be but it comes down to from a purely military perspective that comes down to capability and intent. through what we know they certainly have the capability if they wanted to cross into the ukraine. they certainly have the force -- sufficient force and size and composition to do that. it's the intent. the russian minister of defense made clear that their intent was to conduct spring exercises, spring exercises, that they wouldn't cross the border and they wouldn't take aggressive action.

and that's our expectatiexpectati on. >> any update on ukraine's request an inquiry? >> we are still reviewing the entire list for military assistance. what i can tell you is we are moving forward on getting some rations to the ukrainian armed forces. about 25,000 cases will be shortly sent to ukraine. they will be delivered to the international peacekeeping and security center in ukraine. once they start moving it will take three to five days to get them there. that is moving forward. we are looking at the rest of the request and as i said last week our focus or miniature agency perspective here in united the united states is on the nonlethal side of those requests.

>> when does that three to five-day countdown began? >> we are moving out today to finish all the paperwork on it and move them on their way so i would expect before the end of the week. >> admiral is there any reaction to ukraine's decision to pull its remaining troops from crimea? how does that change the situation and going back to the rations can you help me understand, is that particular systems, is that designed to affect ukraine as it confronts the situation with crimea or is that something related to the tumult that happen before? >> the rations? >> yeah. why that? >> to richard's question one of the items on their on the list of materials that they were asking the united states for was rations so we are meeting that request that they asked for. i would let them speak for why that specific need.

i'm sorry and your other question was? >> the departure of remaining troops. >> well, i wouldn't second-guess the decisions of the ukrainian commanders in crimea to surrender their installations or their vessels. i mean that's a decision they made on the spot and we certainly wouldn't be second-guessing it here from washington d.c.. but it's certainly, certainly reinforces what we have seen for more than a week now which is that the russian forces are in operational control of crimea and this is a way to more solidified their control and they continue to do that. >> yeah. >> what is your reaction to president karzai's comments about russia annexing crimea

after the u.s. and all these nato countries have denounced the action. nato countries remain fighting in afghanistan and then president karzai comes out and says it's writing a historical wrong. what's the reaction to that? >> i'm going to let president karzai speak to his comments. what i can tell you is it's clearly not helpful and while he is certainly entitled to his opinion is our opinion here in the united states and i believe i can speak for us as a nato partner that it's russia is absolutely in violation of international obligations violating the territorial integrity of ukraine and we continue to call for them to move their troops from crimea. >> admiral i found it interesting that there has been to satellite detections of debris in the south indian ocean

and the u.s. has one of the largest collections of spy satellites around. we haven't reported anything. does that indicate a gap in our coverage, that we don't have satellite coverage in that part of the world? >> no, i don't know but i would take that assumption. i am leery of discussing some of our capabilities in that regard here from the podium as you might understand. but we have been, to the degree we have been able to, sharing satellite imagery with the government of malaysia to help them in the search. >> do you know that the north korea launch of many of the short-range rockets to the south korea past couple of days and do you have any schedule to the u.s. and south korea that the military conduct military eagle

exercise on schedule next month? >> yes do i have schedule changes to announce? no. our exercise continues apace as it should. we always welcome these opportunities. i won't speak for the motivation of the north for launching these missiles. we are seeing these reports and once again we call on them to not take provocative actions. this does nothing to help security and stability in the region. but the exercise of that were conducting? they do. >> no change there? >> no changes that i'm aware of. justin. >> well, thank you. >> i just didn't want to go to missy this time. >> do you have any announcement you want to make on troops in central african republic? >> i think you have seen the press coverage. we have deployed for cv 22 osprey's, two c-130's and one

kc-135 two northern uganda to support the counter resistance army effort in and around uganda and to support the specifically the air transport requirements of the african union regional task force. they will be there for her period of time. these are aircraft and support troops that are based out of djibouti and they will be conducting periodic deployments to uganda to support this mission. >> what was the reason for this decision right now? why send more troops? >> i mean you know you are looking for a specific impetus and i can't give you that. this is a mission we have been conducting now for about a year. this is a support mission.

air left -- are list has been one of the consistent requirements and requests of the african union. we are in a position to revive that airlift for a while and were going to do it. this is very much in keeping with the mission goals. >> is there a consistent rotation? >> i think it's safe to say these aircraft in these crews will probably redeployed back over time. i don't want to get into specific periods of time right now for obvious reasons but they probably won't be on the ground for very long but they will be back. they will be back while they are forward-deployed. >> what about the special forces how long will they be. >> as i understand that they are part of this package that's going so they will come in and they will go back again as well.

>> and about 150 is the correct number there are? >> it's about 150 aircrew, maintenance personnel with the aircraft and about 100 special operations forces and in an advise-and-assist capacity. [inaudible] special operation forces are the ones who are already there are? >> yes and again advise-and-assist. >> so it's not 100 or more that are going in. >> 150. i'm sorry. 150 with the aircraft and 100 with the special operations forces. [inaudible] >> see b-22's. >> and other afghanisafghanis tan question. the afghan government issued a statement today saying that pakistani intelligence services were involved in the planning of the attack on the serena hotel. this united states government have any information about that? >> i don't have anything to share with you today on that, no. okay, thanks everybody.

>> we have to remember two things i think. first we are there because we were attacked in new york city in 3000 americans were murdered. that is why we went to afghanistan to get those people who were killing us and second president obama has said there is a limit to this. within two years we are not doing it anymore so i agree with you julie at some point you have to let them do it. but in our first goal if we get away from the afghans etc. and look at what our first goal was, if i had told you or anybody listening in 2001 that we would not be attacked again in the united states of america for the next decade, none of us would have believed that because at

that point al qaeda had more the advantage. now we really have the terrorists definitely am the defense of so we can at this point get out most of our forces from afghanistan. i agree with you but we have been successful in what we really wanted to do as a country and that is to protect ourselves. ..