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 an 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 noosewillingness to work with the 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 cannilyif i-- affectus economically back at home and 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 decisions decisions must 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 russian's russian's facility 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.objectionable was objectionable when 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 toneed to know that we would 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 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 foreign foreign relations 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 three three components of the 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 ukraineian 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 rism 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 the 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 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 -- foreign 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 outian 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 9 of the russian 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 and sta tog 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. the reason i came to the floor senator i was on the phone with the ambassador from ukraine, and we were talking about the situation there, and i said senator mccain is on the floor. i'd like to go say a word. and he said the people in ukraine are watching what we are doing. they are watching what congress and the united states is going to do. there's some differences between us. there's some differences between the parties. 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 you have raised but it addresses some key issues we both agree on. we both for voted for this and we both want to see this move the sooner the better. i want to salute my colleague from arizona for returning to the maidan that area in kiev

where 103 ukrainians lost their lives, demonstrating against the former government and asking for change, and i will tell him that are experienced together visiting that country with a delegation of eight senators, i hope to send a strong message, there is bipartisan support for ukraine and we will not tolerate prudence aggression at the expense of innocent people. >> i ask unanimous consent to engage in colloquy with the senator from illinois. >> without objection. >> 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 and indeed chamber but more importantly whether we act and act quickly, that signals to them as they face these additional russian aggression, maybe not military aggression but already trade -- borders have been closed, price of the

energy has been raised. in other words, putin is putting more and more pressure on them. they looked to us. 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 are coming to their assistance or not? i would ask my friend from -- >> i couldn't agree more. 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 them just any 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 it was aggression went forward and he wanted us to bring a message to the world that the united states stood by by him.

tackle apostle explain to these people who are worried about existence, survival of the nation that we got tied up in some political squabble here between the house and the senate, the two political parties but it's a more for us to move and move quickly. i would say to the senator from arizona he understands this as well or better than most many of us come from countries which were once under the yoke of the soviets, and we remember full well what a tough -- what it took to finally get independence and democracy. vladimir putin today is fighting to save a failing soviet franchise. and what he can't win the hearts and minds of neighboring nations, he instead uses master gunman troops, barbwire and energy extortion. that's how he works. he's not winning this battle. but he's telling to the world the only what i can keep my quote friends in line is with pressure, and the united states and of other civilized nations will join us in saying that is

unacceptable. i thank the senator and i agree with them. now is the time to act in the senate. >> i know 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 he's waiting to speak. just one more comment that i would have for my friend from illinois. i understand you 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 aggression which is incredible acquisition of territory 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 they 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. >> madam chair? i ask unanimous consent that chris lambert, a deeply from the state department from the senate foreign relations committee, be granted for privileges for the duration for any legislation related to ukraine, support act of 2014, the original request comes from a colleague standing here, chairman bob menendez from the senate foreign relations committee. >> without objection. >> madam president. >> senator from new jersey. >> madam president let me first

thank my two colleagues from both distinguished members of the foreign relations committee senator mccain and senator durbin, for the work, their leadership on this issue that's created the type of bipartisan spirit that he think is incredibly important. in general, but certainly in foreign relations, and they both added greatly to the legislation that came out of we are considering before the floor in a strong bipartisan vote of the committee. madam president, last week somali callings in this chamber were sanctioned vladimir putin for standing up for the ukrainian people. stand up for freedom, standing up for the democratic aspirations, standing up for the sovereignty of the ukraine. and as i said in brussels at the german marshall fund this weekend if i've 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 really what is standing up for the ukraine is all about at this critical moment and what it means beyond. madam president, when we look around the world we realize that every so often we face a critical juncture at a time of great upheaval and change, with the backsliding of russian leadership to a free 1991 posture, we are at such a juncture. vladimir putin seems to view the pre-1991 soviet unions expansionist authoritarianism as a present-day goal. in the last two decades we 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 diplomacy to serve its parochial interests

at any cost, despite violations of its own legal commitments and those it has made to the international community. russia's flat-out extortion of ukraine supported by former corrupt leaders of ukraine forced the political explosion which russia been exploited. in syria president putin is actively propping up president assad and perpetuating the world worst humanitarian disaster. in iran, the ink of the joint plan of action signed in geneva last november was barely dry when reports surfaced that tehran and moscow were negotiating an old good swap worth $1.5 billion a month at the they plan to build a new nuclear plant all steps to limit eight i've been in pursuit of nuclear weapons while diminishing the sanctions that forced the 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 step back from punishing russia for its annexation of the ukraine. in geneva the p5+1 talks with iran continues we can only hope the crisis in ukraine will not have a ripple effect in russia's position or participation. but in my view mr. putin has misguidedly. he has reignited a dangerous pre-1991 soviet style game of russian roulette with the international community, and we cannot blink. we must understand that -- you must understand that we will never accept his violation of international law in the ukraine. that's why we pass this legislation in committee an aid package for ukraine that provides loans for economic stabilization, supports planning for upcoming democratic elections, aids in the recovery of stolen assets, and expense 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 consistent with the billion dollars announced by the administration in recent days. it nears the house legislation. second, it ensures that the obama administration can assess the ukrainian government to identify and secure and recover assets linked to the act of corruption by viktor yanukovych members of his family, or other former or current ukrainian government officials. third commit authorizes $59 for democracy, governance and civil society assistance and 100 million for enhanced security cooperation for ukraine and other states in central and eastern europe. forth, it mandates sanctions, coupled in the president's recent executive order against ukrainians and russians alike responsible for violence in serious human rights abuses

against anti-government protesters and those responsible for a daemon the peace security, stability, sovereignty or territory integrity of ukraine 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 imf or ukraine today, and for similar unforeseen crises that are going to come in the future. it is the imf that is leading the effort to stabilize ukraine fragile economy, and an essential path if there's to be any chance of reaching a peaceful political solution to the standoff of russia. congressional ratification of the 2010 imf reform would

increase imf emergency funding to the ukraine by up to 60% and it would provide an additional $6 billion for longer-term support setting an important marker for other donors such as the eu and the world bank. failure to approve the reforms on the other hand, would undermine both the imf and international standing of the united states. some countries are happy to see u.s. global influence diminish. failing to approve the reforms weakens the united states and emboldens our competitors. the imf is strengthened at no cost to u.s. finances or influence. the united states retains its executive board seat and the sole veto power at no net cost since the $63 billion increase in u.s. quarter is fully offset by an equivalent decrease to a separate emergency facility.

other countries, however, put in new money, increasing i've lending power. the fact is it is a pure win for the united states. we will pay for the 315 million budget impact of the bill with real cuts in from funds that were underperforming or or no longer needed. given that the imf helps to stabilize countries, often precluding future need for military action, relatively minor cost will pay back many times over. this is not a partisan issue. presidents reagan, clinton and both presidents bush backed legislation to increase imf resources, and president reagan called the imf the linchpin of the international initial 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 in a dangerous moment in history. with global consequences. and the world is watching. if the west does not act what

will china say when is looking at its territorial desires in the south china sea? what will iran's say when were negotiating in vietnam about nuclear weapon? what will others in the world say north korea who's more stupid weapons on a greater scale is still in place? all of them will be looking at what we and the west do or do not do in making a decision about russia's brazen move into the ukraine. they will be watching to see how far they can go, how much they can do. there 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 marshall 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 essentially 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 stronger support the cloture motion and so that we can work to a statement that will do exactly that. >> will the senator yield for a question? >> i'd be happy. >> i think it's very clear that letterman couldn't has massed forces in eastern the border of russia and eastern ukraine.

and right now he is calculating as to whether to move there 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 speak, a lot of 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 colleagues, colleague if he doesn't agree with that assessment. >> 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 moldova.

he is calculating and his cackling what are the costs, what will the united states and the european union do? and from my perspective president putin only understands strength, and that strength is either a military context and of course, no one is speaking about at this moment, or economic one. that's why this package is so incredibly important because it takes every single dimension the senior center and the committee held us on. eight to the ukraine up front. atit sanctions and the sender was are engaged in several elements of 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 the elections that are supposed to take place in may that is critical to be fair open and

transparent. and at the same time provides for the greater resources through the imf. so all of these elements are critical, and also include a very clear statement of greater defense cooperation which is also critically important. so these are all the 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 received into eastern ukraine or to those parts of moldova. and that is a message or an action that we can ill afford and action that others will work at across the world as i mentioned that they will calculate the west is not willing to take the actions necessary to stop my designs. and if that is the case, then i think we're in a world of hurt across the globe. >> i thank the chairman for his eloquent statement. i yield the floor. >> madam president, i yield the floor.

>> the house legislation is different from the senate resolution which allows the international monetary fund to move millions in a don't between different accounts. will have live coverage this morning from house foreign affairs committee market starting at 10 a.m. eastern on c-span3. later indicated chairman of the federal communications commission, tom wheeler, will testify about the president's budget request for 2015 during a house appropriations subcommittee hearing. watch live coverage of that at 2 p.m. eastern on c-span3. according to a federal auditor this could be paying ghost workers in afghanistan with some of the $1.2 billion in funding provided for the nation's ticket forces. special inspector general john sopko talked about corruption in afghanistan at the atlantic council last week.

[inaudible conversations] >> good morning everyone. i'm shuja nawaz, the director of the south asia center atlanticeverne. council and on behalf of my t sou colleagues and our presidentia fred can, i'd like to welcome all of you to this very d our important session with special t inspector general for afghanistan reconstruction, also known as segar john sopko -- sigar as we all know, the political and military transition has begun inas we afghanistan. this is going to be a verybegun critical year. to be the issue of afghanistan the issue of cost, the issue of the u.s. taxpayers money has been alive in this town and in other

capitals around the world, that have contributed to the actionss in iraq and then in afghanistanun and there are many calculations out there on the number of dollars that are being spent simply by the u.s. there's one particular site thatat are b haseing these meters that run regularly, every second updatingese the cost, and that estimates thegularl cost at about $10 million an that hour for the war in afghanistan. of course, different figures out there. there's the famous brown university study that calculate the cost of three to 4 billion roughly. has been updated overall costillion estimate looking at opportunity costs as well as complementary costs in the u.s. of these wars

which is as high as 6 trillion.as so there's no end to the the numbers, but inspector general john sopko deals with realtrilon. numbers. he deals with the amount of but assistance that's going tol afghanistan and how it is used.ls with t and so overhe the 12 years, we've used. been talking about 100 to $1 've figure for the reconstruction effort. so we will hear t from him on how he sees this proceeding, how he har sees afghanistan preparing itself for life after the u.s. and allies military presence after the u.s. and allied military presence in the country, and what he sees as the prognosis for the future in the areas of security,

elections, governance, narcotics, construction, corruption the economy as well as the guardianship of the international assistance funds. it's a pretty tall order but i can't think of a better person to do it. he has a great deal of experience that he brings to the job. he came from an international law firm in d.c. he's worked for more than 20 years on capitol hill and also as a trial attorney with the u.s. department of justice. so a lawyer with a keen eye and an ear to listen to people when he's in the field. i'd like to welcome him and ask him to come and speak. and i also welcome our audience at home courtesy of cspan.

inspector general. >> thank you very much. thank you very much for that generous introduction. and good morning to all of you. it's the first day of spring and it doesn't look like it's snowing. and i think it's appropriate that it is the first day of spring because what i'll be talking about is really the possibility of a new spring in afghanistan, particularly with the new elections. it's a real privilege to be here at the atlantic council. for more than six decades the atlantic council has provided an important bipartisan forum to discuss the most challenging issues confronting the united states and its european allies. nothing in recent memory has been more challenging or more costly than the military and

civilian mission undertaken by the united states. nato allies and other coalition partners to secure and stabilize afghanistan. i just returned from two weeks in afghanistan. i have traveled there six times since president obama appointed me as the special inspector general for afgan stran reconstruction in 2012. as always i visited reconstruction sites and met with afgans and u.s. military civilian and state department employees implements programs in what has become the largest reconstruction effort of a single country in u.s. history. reconstruction has been and continues to be a critical component of the overall u.s. strategy in afghanistan. it is also extremely difficult and dangerous to our colleagues and usa i.d. the state department military the many contractors and ngo employees

who are tirelessly attempting to carry out the effort. over the last 10 years congress has provided more than $102 billion to build afgan security forces, establish governing institutions, foster economic department. and our mail tear and civilian leaders have been committed to the ideas that a stable afghanistan with a government able to defend itself as well as provide essential services and economic opportunities to its citizens would be an inhospitable terrain for terrorists. at the end of this year america's longest war will come to an end with the ongoing drawdown of u.s. troops. at most only a few thousand for training and quick response groups will remain. we still don't know the number. the reconstruction mission however is far from over.

the united states and its allies agree that afghanistan will require significant international assistance for years and years to come. and it is clear from recent conversations i've had with senior officials in our embassy as well as icef headquarters that the united states and the international coalition do not plan to abandon the afgan people. it's my agency's job to provide vigorous oversight of those reconstruction funds. congress created cgar in 2008. unfortunately six hours after the funds had already started. but congress empowered them with a cross can agency jurisdiction to conduct audits and investigation to detect and deter waste, fraud and abuse of this increased funding for

reconstruction. we have a staff of nearly 200 auditors inspectors, investigators and support staff dedicated protecting the enormous u.s. investment by quickly identifying problems and making recommendations to improve program effectiveness. now we all know that 2014 is a pivotal year in afghanistan. the uncertainties and risks have never been greater. the security, political and economic transition is underway. but they boil down, all of this boils down to basically three serious and important questions. will the afgan security forces stand firm against a resilient and persistent insurgency without the assistant of u.s. troops and coalition troops. will the afgan government hold sufficiently open and honest elections to facilitate peaceful

transition? simply put, can the state hold together after the elections? and lastly will the afgan and u.s. government reach a bilateral security agreement paving the way for the international community to continue provided needed assistance. however what i really want to talk about is the issue that underlies all three of those questions. and that is the nagging issue of corruption. the consensus among everyone i spoke with in afghanistan over the last two weeks is simply this. allowing corruption to continue unabated will likely jeopardize every gain we have made over the last 12 years. in other words rampant corruption may be the spoiler for 2014 and beyond. now, corruption in afghanistan

is not new or is it unique. cgar has been highlighting concerns about corruption for a very long time. every one of our quarterly reports to congress has highlighted its threat from the lewding of the kabul bank and the failures of the attorney general to prosecute senior official to the depravation caused by land seizures, extortion of the people and the loss of support for the government accordingly. since 2009 they've conducted a number of audits of u.s. efforts to combat corruption. we've also pointed out that the united states still does not have a unified anti-corruption strategy for afghanistan. cgar has been sounding the alarm for quite some time about a

problem that has only grown worse over each passing year. just how bad is corruption in afghanistan? well last year the general told president obama that quote unquote, corruption is the external strategic threat to afghanistan. dod repeated that judgment in its semi and report to congress saying corruption again threatens the sustainability of the afgan state. transparency international puts afghanistan in the company of somalia and north korea as one of the three most corrupt countries in the world. in a number of surveys, afgans themselves identify corruption as one of the most serious challenges facing their country. in a 2013 survey, 80% of afgans describe corruption as a major problem and 65% of them said it

was worse than the year before. i had an opportunity to speak to integrity watch afghanistan on my last trip there. that's one of the best ngos committed to improving governance. and it's confirmed that afgans consider corruption to be one of their biggest problems. and in a 2012 survey from all 34 provinces mirrored the findings and rankings of the 2010 survey which highlighted it as a very serious problem. while personal experiences with corruption had declined slightly in their last survey the total estimated value of bribes paid rose 16% to $1.25 billion in 2012. and an amazing number equivalent to about half of the government's domestic revenues. about one out of every seven afghans or 15% paid at least one

bribe in 2012. the ampverage number was four. integrity watch just completed a new survey and they discussed with me some of their findings but i'll let them -- because they will release it in a week or two -- tell you all the details. but i can tell you that the problem has grown. they found it's grown. and they found that it's expanded into other sectors of their economy when they hadn't seen it before such as education and health fields. what does corruption really mean in practicing terms in afghanistan? two weeks ago the u.s. military published a study that answered that question in one sentence. quote/unquote, corruption directly threatens the viability and legitimacy of the afghan state. the study entitled and it's a catchy title, operationalizing

county anti-corruption, was initiated by general dunford. the study went on to say, quote, corruption alienates key elements of the population, discredits the government and security forces undermines international support, subverts state functions and rule of law. robs the state of revenue and creates bear krerarriers to economic growth up quoteen unquote. i command general dunford for ordering the doesn't. he doesn't full any punches. but takes a very hard look, and i highly recommend you all to read it, at the root causes of the pervasive corruption in afghanistan. including decisions made by the united states and its allies that have contributed to that problem. now, i'm going to spend a few

minutes on just three of the study's main observations. they echo my auditors and investigators and what they have found over the years. in fact, some of general dunford's findings draw directly from sigar audits. but they also illuminate three critical themes relevant to what we and the afghans will face for 2014. first of all the initial u.s. strategy in afghanistan not the only failed to recognize the significance of corruption. remember, this is dunford's study, but may have fostered a political climate conducive to corruption. the second theme is massive military and usaid and international aid spending overwhelmed the afghan government's ability to absorb the assistance. that coupled with weak oversight, created opportunities

for corruption to grow. the third heem was thetheme was lack of an anti-corruption strategy reduced effectiveness of all coalition efforts in this area. let me address the governance issue and lack of political will together to tackle corruption. as the dunford report indicates, the u.s. military utilized proxy forces composed largely of warlords associated with the northern alliance to drive the taliban and al qaeda from power. however, civilian and military analysts pointed out in the report and elsewhere these warlords often used that u.s. support to rate with immunity and improve their political positions. afghan political leaders have built allegiances by cutting political deals that put such powerful figures in key

government positions. these figures have in turn used their government positions to especially entrench and expand patronage that have traditionally been an important feature of afghanistan's politics. in some cases these networks have morphed into criminal networks involved in everything from extra judicial land seizures and extortion to nar cottics traffic and money laundering. this is something that the noted afghan analyst sarah chase calls an integrated network that alienates the afghan population and ynd mines one of our key reconstruction goals of creating a legitimate afghan state that can deliver services to its people. the kabul bank saga exemplifies how this patronage system and

the failure to prosecute people guilty of gross fraud and abuse is undermining the afghan economy and jeopardizing our reconstruction work there. before its collapse as we all know in 2010, the kabul bank was afghanistan's largest private bank. but individuals and companies associated with the bank basically used it as a ponzi scheme and stole about $935 million largely through fraudulent loans. about 92% of that money stolen went to 19 individuals and companies. afghanistan central bank fortunately for the afghans covered those losses which were equivalent to far more than half of the government's entire revenue in 2010 and represented 5% of their gdp. now, more than a year ago the joint anti-corruption and monitoring and evaluation

committee issued a full report on the kabul bank scandal. that committee reported that the afghan attorney general's office deliberately slow walked the kabul bank investigation and did little to recover funds or bring many of the main culprits to justice. underscoring the difficulty in reducing corruption in afghanistan is the fact that most of those culprits had very, very strong ties to powerful afghan politicians. the kabul bank crisis has had a profound impact and continuing impact on the entire financial sector. sigar recently issued an audit that found that afghanistan's banking system remains extremely fragile and poorly regulated.

our and i had ituditors concluded afghanistan is at the risk of another banking crisis. afghanistan must have a reliable banking system that observes and enforces internationally accepted rules in order to attract foreign investment. and if you don't the attract the foreign investment, afghanistan will remain a client state. a welfare state to the international community. as well as to keep international assistance flowing we have to have a working and safe banking system. failure to sufficiently reform and regulate the banking sector is putting that government's immediate development future at risk. for example, the imf's extended credit facility or ecf provides medium term assistance to low income countries at little or no interest. the loan agreement with afghanistan is contingent on government making banking and

financial reforms that would increase transparency and accountability. the imf will not disburse any ecf funds without a favorable board review of the afghan financial banking systems. it has not disbursed any funds since 2012 because afghanistan has not the made enough progress on those reforms. equally troubling the financial action task force, or fatf, which is a body that sets the standards required to com p bat money laup tering, terrorist financing and other threats just a few weeks ago again down graded afghanistan's status due to continued failure to approve the antimony lawnundering regime.

if there is no improvement, experts caution afghanistan will be black listed in june.ey laundering regime. if there is no improvement, experts caution afghanistan will be black listed in june. when they revisit the issue. a black listing could be devastating to afghanistan's financial sector and the overall economy. you now, this is serious. the afghan government has yet to take it seriously despite our embassy and the international community's repeated efforts to convince them of its consequences to their long term need to attract investments to improve their economy. now, what i've described in the banking and financial sector is also true in other sectors. we don't have time today to go into each one of them, but in response to numerous survey afghan citizens have described the judiciary the police, the courts, and many other sectors of afghanistan as particularly corrupt. equally troubling is the issue

of afghanistan's capacity to absorb aid and the donor's ability to oversee that aid. and that is another point raised by the dunford report. let's consider our reconstruction activities in fiscal year 2010. congress appropriated the president obama's request for horn $16 billion to rebuild afghanistan idea. this did not include the tens of billions of dollars also spent that year on military operations. according to the world bank, afghanistan's total gdp in 2010 was only $15.9 billion. so reconstruction assistance alone amounted to more than the country's entire estimated gdp. since 2010 congress has provided nearly $63 billion more in reconstruction programs. now, many afghans and u.s.

officials and scholars have asked, and i do too, how was afghanistan with its very poor economy going to efficiently absorb such largess. and why would krumt officialcorrupt officials and others looking at the floods of poorly from viced cash and annen certain future not take advantage of the opportunity to take a cut for themselves. to compound the absorption problem, sigar has found that the u.s. implementing agencies have exercised limited oversight on this spending. sigar has cataloged a lack of planning, contract management and quality control. consequently sigar has found schools that have been built so badly they are in danger of collapsing, clinics with no

patients bs or patients, or clinics with patients but no doctors or clean water, bases that are not useable, potential of ghost workers in the army and police and roads that are dis disintegrating faster than we can rebuild there. there are many valid excuses. lacks of security tops the list. then there is the high turnover built into our hr systems of the military and civilian some working there. it's amazing. when i go there, i've seen people -- i've only been there two years and i'm like the longest serving person in theater. i see people who give me beautiful descriptions of what they're going to do and three months later they're gone. how can it work on such a turnover that fast? there is also a lack of integrated system to track reconstruction projects. we don't even know what we spent and where we spent it. 12 years into this. that is the frustrating thing p i just approved asking for a

list of where we spent their money. we still don't know. now, the bottom line is, and this came very clear from my latest trip, is that u.s. implementing agencies had no more capacity to oversee the assistance than afghans had of absorbing it. the united states and its coalition were unfortunately slow to recognize that danger. it was in 2010 that shethey started to focus on it, a concerted effort to establish a number of task forces to try to identify and deal with the corruption. during that same period, the u.s. embassy circulated a draft comprehensive anti-corruption strategy.

but it's never been approved. as i mentioned earlier, the united states still does not have a strategy to fight corruption. now, although the u.s. government and its allies have been slow to address the challenge of corruption and despite what i've said, i do not believe it's too late. we have a tremendous opportunity with next month's presidential provincial elections. we have a new and unique opportunity to help the of a began afghans tackle this problem. all the major candidates say they want to combat corruption. so let's really help them.tackle this problem. all the major candidates say they want to combat corruption. so let's really help them. to protect reconstruction, the united states must make this a real priority. as cigar oig has been saying for some time, we must have a comprehensive civilian military

anti-corruption strategy backed by political as well as financial will and capital. likewise as a number of the coalition ambassadors told me just last week and cautioned, this approach must be unified and coordinated so corrupt afghan officials cannot play one country against the other. now, on my latest trip, i was told we must also be tough. we must demand that the afghan government become a true partner in all of this the new government must begin p by complying with the international agreements that it has already made to undertake the reforms promised at tokyo and chicago and elsewhere. we must also embrace conditionality and pragmatic incentives. the united states and other donors must set realistic meaningful conditions orren

incentives in areas we're willing to enforce. in other words, the conditions must be achievable and worthwhile with incentives geared to incremental achievements. but ultimately i was told we and our allies must have the courage to risk saying no. to the afternoon beganghans if they don't comply. my work the significance car has convinced me that the united states must consider the following to help fight corruption. we must hold our own employ crease and government contractors accountable. we must also insist the afghans hold their government employees and their contractors accountable. we must continue to support u.s.

and internationally funded anti-corruption efforts such as task force 2010 afghan threat and finance center and others. we should care less about burn rate and more about how funds are actually being spent. by this i mean we must focus on outcomes or impact of our programs and not on just outputs. we need to recognize that too much money spent too quickly with too few safe guards is a recipe for reconstruction disaster. we need to insist that the afghan ministries develop and maintain good internal controls to receive u.s. and coalition funds. and lastly we must continue to provide support for afghan civil society groups fighting corruption such as the mec integrity watch afghanistan and

nascent independent afghan media. now, i come away from every trip with concerns. but i also come aroundway with hope. the hope comes from seeing and meeting the hard working and extremely dedicated americans whether military sfo civil servants or contractors who put their lives on the line every day to help the afghans build a better future. but this hope also comes from meeting with afghans. and before closing, i want to say just briefly something about afghan civil society. afghanistan has a growing number of organizations and individuals dedicated to exposing corruption and fostering the rule of law. it has the beginnings of a robust media that is highlighted and reflected afghan dis

dissatisfaction with corruption. it also has organizations who are working to raise awareness and increase accountability of afghan governing institutions. likewise, my investigators and auditors have worked closely with many brave and dedicated afghan law enforcement officers and public servants who are committed to the rule of law and the economic and social development of their country. we should never forget them. we should never abandon them. in conclusion i believe we have a window of opportunity to tackle corruption. if the elections go well afghanistan will have a new government. however, this new government will be dealing with an international community that has far less patience for corruption than before. so it must act quickly to prove to the international community

that it is serious about attacking the problem. united states and its coalition allies must speak with one voice on the issue of corruption. we must set achievable conditions for assistance. we must also carefully reexamine each and every one of our reconstruction programs to determine whether their objectives still make sense and are realistically attainable. i was very pleased to see that isaf in particular was doing that with every one of their reconstruction programs. the costs in afghanistan both in lives lost and moneys spent have been enormous. it if we don't take advantage of this opportunity and get serious about corruption right the now we are putting all of those fragile gains at arriving. risk. this is our longest war. if we get it right we can create a model for future contingencies.

and help the afghan people build another country that does not become a safe haven for terrorists. thank you very much. [ applause ] >> thank you very much. as expected, this was forceful and detailed. and we are grateful that you took the time soon after your visit to afghanistan to come and share your views with us and with the audience at home

courtesy of c-span. last year we hosted your counter part for iraq, stewart burn. at that event he released a book about learning the lessons from iraq. and one of the things that came up was why the united states has failed to prepare for these kinds of stability and reconstruction operations. we've gone in a number of times to different countries around the globe and each time it's groundhog day. we try and create things on the fly. and as you said, the momentum is created to have an extensive burn rate and not on thousand justify the spending or to make sure the money stays in the

country. why do you think this is the case and if so where does that responsibility lie in washington? >> you know let me answer the question a little differently. i've been looking if he problem of bad government problems since 1982. i believe my staff is doing a wonderful job. what we are identifying is not new to the u.s. government. last summer we came up with a number of reports that i thought were youunbelievable. buildings that cost $30 million and they were going to rip down brand new. a school that was basically

melting because it was so poorly constructed. and i remember calling up senator nunn and i said, senator, what's going on? and i see a former colleague of mine from senator nunn's office sitting in the audience. and senator typical, and that's why it was so great to work with sam, he said let's get the old gang back together again. so john hamre a bunch of the other people from the armed services and psi, let's get together and talk. so we went over to csis actually and sat down had a nice lunch. and the bottom line was, and i remember he pointed me to talk to a couple of his friends who were former heads of gao, and they reminded me, and the senator reminded me, and head of gao reminded me, defense department procurement has been on the high risk list since

1991. and it's never gotten off. the defense department to this day cannot give you an auditable budget an auditable books and records. you look at all these agencies, i first was exposed to problems in the goverent by so this isn't new. what is unique about afghanistan and what's unique about iraq is when you're in a war and then it sort of like you're spending on steroids and money is going out the door for the war effort. so i can't answer director why we don't learn. all i can say is we have many problems and how we procure, how we hire employees how we fire employees, how we hold people accountable. and it's a problem that's been

going on since i came to washington in 1982. i first started working for the government in 1978 and people were complaining about, you know turnovers, boys and all of that. so i think the problem is we just never make changes. we write a lot of reports. i won't mention his name because i don't like to burn my sources a nice, very bright three-star general who works in this area who had a very candid conversation with me, and he said, you know i did this in the balkans. i did it in haiti to i did it in africa. i did it in iraq. you know i'm army and we write lessons learned. and he said, we wrote lessons learned report after every one of those engagements listing out all the problems. and he said when i went over to

afghanistan in the first time he's been there two or three times, he said i figured it was all fixed. the problem is we write great lessons learned reports. we don't write how to apply them. so you've got to incentivize them. i don't want to filibuster the question, but one of the things that unique about us and to think which my little agency is we are special inspector general's office, and i took this job i could've been fast, dumb and happy and many of my staff could, in fact dumb and happy at the other jobs. .. jobs. i recruited people in most of the senior staff and even some of the less seen jor, took a pay cut to come with me. we all have the view that we