e give will leapt to the money -- equivalent to the money you've saved so that you don't end up profiting from the accommodation of your religious views. seems to me that's a fair accommodation. >> well, the theme is accommodation, and i hope that everyone of goodwill is impressed by the liberality and generosity of spirit with which alan speaks. i want to come back to oz guinness just for a is second. oz in, again, one of his books is expressing concern that globally the universal declaration of human rights would no longer be accepted. including but not limited to article 18 which is, it's a declaration, but there are international lawyers who say, no, it does have the force of law. but it was a declaration like our declaration of independence. universal declaration of human rights couldn't be agreed to

anymore globally. but at least in america we, i think, overwhelmingly would say we agree -- >> i agree. >> -- with the sentiments of the universe -- do you agree with that? >> i agree with that. the universal declaration, of course, grew out of the second world war, largely out of the holocaust, written by a jewish frenchman, and it was an amazing accomplishment for which he got the nobel peace prize. there are efforts afoot the try to undo it and to try to up do freedom of -- undo freedom of speech, freedom of religion. there are attempts to try to, essentially, put blasphemy laws back into universal exceptions to free speech, and i think the united states government hasn't taken a strong enough view against that kind of international encroachment on

our particular concept of liberty. many people think it's too american, that we're trying to impose our view on others. >> right. >> this is an area where we're right, and they're wrong, and we should simply not compromise on those views. [applause] >> this, by the way, is grist for the daily mill of the religious freedom project at the berkeley center at georgetown university, and one of the reasons that we at baylor university feel so drawn to come alongside and to support what the berkeley center's religious freedom product under tom farr, tim shaw, their wonderful colleagues are doing in order to have a conversation with public policymakers so that we have individuals who have been in captivity, who have been in prison. can you imagine being in prison because of what you believe, because of what you're saying to someone? that you can then be imprisoned in the 21st century? and yet as tom farr said at the

outset, that is the trajectory according to the pew forum. so it's one of the reasons this conversation and this effort with respect to doing that which congressman flores, the congress in 1993 said let's do something about it, let's have a restoration. that's a great word, a restoration of the culture of religious freedom. as we open this up to the audience, let me remind us all of a quote by william o. douglas. william o. douglas may not have been -- what shall i say? he was a pretty secular person by reputation at least, judge not that ye be judge, but a great friend of freedom. whether you agreed with him or not, he was a great friend of freedom. and he wrote in one of his preponderances for the court, not just speaking for himselfs speaking of america, we are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a supreme being. when you return to the declaration, when you return to

those founding principles and the founding, what i think the founding generation was really lifting up for all of us were the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity. please join me in saying thank you to alan dershowitz. [applause] now we hear from the audience. >> that's right. and let me just confirm for the record that both of our guests have in other words said that the united states ought to have a firm international religious freedom policy, and i'm delighted to have you both on the record for that. i've written for some time that we are not doing the kind of job that we should be doing, and so

i'm delighted to have you end your conversation or at least your penultimate constitution was about that. so thank you, professor dershowitz, for bringing that up. now, i'm going to read some questions here, and i must say that those of you who write like physicians doing a prescription -- [laughter] i'm sure they were brilliant questions, but i just couldn't read them. [laughter] so we had a, we had a little bit of a cross-eyed conversation over there. but we do have some that we can read, so i'm delighted to present this. this first one is for professor dershowitz from the u.s. conference of catholic bishops, and he says -- and, of course, judge starr, we'd like your response too. the government believes greater access to burt control will re-- to birth control will reduce births, and hobby lobby already covers childbirth in its insurance plans which is far more expensive than birth control.

so, he say, isn't hobby lobby already offering to pay for being accommodated? >> well, that's a very interesting, it's a very interesting perspective. in the brief in the other case, they actually assert the position that there's no relationship between providing contraception and the actual birthrate. that was, for me, very questionable. they provide some empirical data that purports to support that, and they say the burden's on the government to demonstrate that close connection. but out really raises a much more profound question, and that is, does the government have a right to take a policy position in any way on whether more or fewer births should be encouraged in a society? i would be very uncomfortable with that. in china, obviously, that position has been taken, in countries with mixed racial backgrounds there have been

efforts to try ore deuce, you know, people, by the way, praise margaret sanger. if you go back and look at the history of margaret sanger, her goal in introducing birth control was to reduce the number of children born to undesirables in the country. it was really not a neutral method of reducing population size. i think the government has to stay out of that area. i think the government has to really be very careful about never telling families whether it's a good thing or a pad thing to have more -- bad thing to have more children or fewer children. and anything that gets into that business even in terms of suggestion, even a bully pulpit, i think, treads on far too dangerous ground. >> i think as a matter of prudence government likely would not say we want you to have more children, especially given the disfunctionalty that attends so much of social and cultural life now. but i do have a different view

which is while respecting conscience, the government can, in fact, be -- if it so chooses -- to be pro-life. we want -- the more the merrier. >> could it also then be pro-choice? >> well, as -- of course. the government can be pro-choice. as long as freedom of conscience -- to me, that's the democratic conversation. >> but why should the government take any position on that? why shouldn't that just be left to individual conscience and the government remain agnostic on the issue of choice, of life? aren't those the kinds of issues the government best stays out of? >> well, it's a perfectly reasonable view, but my view government can, if it so chooses, say we think the better society and the good society is a society with large families. we think that's -- >> but it's the opposite. then it can say, but i don't think it's a good thing for the government to be saying we think

you should limit your chirp to one, that a birth -- >> absolutely, no. >> that would be a bad thing. >> i agree with that. i agree with that. >> how can you accept one and not the other? >> easy. [laughter] >> not so easy for me. >> it is the, first of all, it's the degree of interference, and that's a judgment call. but i'm also talking about the coercive powers of the state and which i would say any kind of coercion would be really wrong. but we, in fact, do encourage larger families in terms of saying we're not going to cut you off in terms of rex after child number one or child number two. so we recognize, and some would say you're incentivizing large families. i would say that's very theoretical rather than real because you're not really going to recover the cost. [laughter] of child rearing. but you can at least say, well, can government have the right to cut off the deduction after the third child? and my own view is i think that

would raise -- >> i agree. oh, i completely agree with you. but i don't think it would be good for the government to announce a specific policy in favor either of larger or smaller families. i very much worry what happened in france. in france after the war, the government took a position, i'm told, that we should reduce the number of children. and if you want to be a good citizen, you should have no more than two and preferably one child. i just don't want my government to get into the bedroom with me. >> no. and i agree. i don't want the government -- but i think you're saying the right of the government to do it. i'm simply saying my view on democratic theory is if that's the view of the government -- that's why we have elections -- then the government has the right to articulate that, and then we have an election. i think it is better for the government to do that which the government does not do. it doesn't go out and say, please reduce the size of your families or whatever. but i think the government would do well, and i think presidents do this by example, by word and

by deed saying, hey, fathers, why don't you care about your children. fathers, why are you leaving the home? >> i agree with that. by the way, i'm told now that in russia, this great democratic leader putin -- [laughter] has looked around and seen that the russian population has gone down dramatically in the last several decades. they have a relatively small population. i think one of the lowest populations per size of the country of any country in the world. and they -- not quite as low as iceland, but they're trying to increase their population. and it makes me a little nervous when i hear about government doing too many things in that area. >> could i just follow on before i read another one? you both say you encourage the supporting of laws? >> oh, that's interesting. alan, take a --

[laughter] >> i have a view. okay, i'll go be first. i don't think the problem is divorce, i think the problem is not getting married in the first place. i think the problem of fathers, of sperm donors who are not fathers who are just providers of an essential component of biologically having a child have to take far greater respondent for their children -- responsibility for their children. as a man who went through a divorce and had custody of my two children, i didn't see any

by refusing to give a religious divorce. and i actually drafted a statute some years ago in which i said one of the major functions of divorce is to permit remarriage, and the state has an interest in that, and, therefore, if there are any effective barriers to remarriage, the court has the right to inquire into those as a condition of granting the man his divorce. it's complicated, and i have to admit i haven't thought the

whole thing through. my instinct is not to have the state put its heavy thumb on keeping couples together whose strong belief is not to live together. >> tom's question went to no-fault, and that is a very modern phenomenon, phenomenon of the '60s and '70s. and i think the social science does show that children as a rule do better in a family. >> yes. >> as well as one of the consequences of at least the guy leaving the marriage is that it tends to impoverish the spouse -- >> we should do something about all of that. >> -- who typically has the children. >> i think in most divorces no one is at fault. and the divorce is simply a function of a terrible mistake that was made or growing apart. and the idea of having to point a finger at a spouse and accuse

them, and when we had fault divorces in new york, people would make up fault. they would acknowledge adultery when it didn't occur. and so i think going back to fault divorces would be a serious mistake. >> well, i'm sorry i asked. [laughter] let's move now to a more controversial issue. [laughter] >> you know what they say about a lawyer, never ask a question unless you know the answer. [laughter] ooh, sorry. >> i'd like to -- >> we'll leave the last few minutes of this event as the senate is returning nowceed following weekly party meetingse senators continuing work on a ukraine assistance bill today. live coverage. the clerk: h.r. 4275, an act to amend the employee retirement income act of 1974 and the internal revenue code of 1986, to provide for cooperative and small employer charity pension plans. the presiding officer: under the previous order, h.r. 4275 is

read a third time and passed. the senator from washington. mrs. murray: madam president, i ask unanimous consent to speak as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. murray: madam president, before i begin, i want to take a moment to address something that's been on the hearts and minds of those back home in my home state of washington. on saturday, as i'm sure many of you heard, the town of oso, walkers a small, tightly-knit town alongsidlongside the stilah river was hit with a landslide. that landlied cu landslide cut n of darrington. already, we know we've lost several people and yesterday we learned that there could be well more than 100 that are still missing. so, madam president, right now in washington state, there are

dozens of families who just simply don't know if their loved ones are still alive. even though oso and darrington are 2,300 miles away from the nation's capital, our hearts and pairs are with them. in the coming days and weeks and even years if that's what it takes, all of us will stand with the people of oso and darrington and provide any resources they need to recover and rebuild, and that they have the thoughts and prayers of everyone in this country from the real washington to this one. with that, madam president, let me change gears a bit and address one of the most significant pieces of legislation for women in my lifetime, the affordable care act. on sunday, madam president, this law celebrated its fourth anniversary, serving as a very stark reminder of where our nation's health care system was just four years ago.

four years ago our health insurance companies could deny women care due to so-called preexisting conditions, like pregnancy or being a victim of domestic violence. four years ago women were permitted to be legally discriminated against when 2 came to insurance premiums and often were paying more for coverage than men. four years ago women did not have access to the full range of recommended preventive care like mammograms or prenatal screenings and much more. four years ago insurance companies had all the leverage and all the power and too often it was women who paid the price. well now, thanks to that affordable care act, for the first time women, not their insurance companies or their employers, are now fully in charge of their own health care. in fact, women make up over half of the 5 million people that have already signed up for coverage in the new marketplace.

and over 47 million women have already gained guaranteed access to preventive health services thanks to that affordable care act. that is why i feel so strongly we cannot go back to the way things were, and while we can never stop working to make improvements, we owe it to the women of america to make progress and to move forward and not allow the clock to be rolled back on their health care needs. unfortunately, there are efforts under way all across the country, including here today in our nation's capital, to severely undermine a woman's access to some of those most critical and lifesaving services this were provided under the affordable care act. and no provision of this law has faced quite as many attacks as the idea of providing affordable, quality reproductive health services to the women of america. for this reason i was very proud

to lead members of my caucus in filing an amicus brief with the supreme court in the two cases that are being considered their today. those cases were brought by c.e.o.'s who want to take away their employees' right to insurance coverage for birth control, which is guaranteed under the affordable care act. and just like the many attempts before this case, there are those out there who would like the american public to believe that this conversation is anything but an attack on women's health care. to them, it's a debate about freedom. well, except of course when the freedom comes for women to access care. it's no different than, we are told, attacks on abortion rights aren't somehow a right an infringement 0en a women's woman's right -- on a woman's right to choose. or when we're told that restricting emergency contraception isn't about limiting women's ability to make

our own family planning decisions; it's somehow about protecting pharmacists. or, just like last week when an alaska state senator proposed placing state-funded pregnancy tests in bars but rolled out providing -- ruled out providing contraception because "birth control is for people who don't necessarily want to act responsibly." well, madam president, the truth is, this is about contraception. this is an attempt to limit a woman's ability to access care. and this is about women. allowing a woman's boss to call the shots about her access to birth control should be inconceivable to all americans in this day and age, and it take us back to place in history when women had no voice and no choice. in fact, contraception was included as a required preventive service in the affordable care act on the

recommendation of the independent nonprofit institute of medicine and other medical experts because it is essential to the health of women and families. and after many years of research, we know ensuring access to effective birth control has a direct impact on approving -- improving the lives of women and families in america. we have been able to directly thing to declines in maternal and infant mortality, reduced risk of ovarian cancer, better overall health care outcomes for women, and far fewer unintended pregnancies and abortions, which is a goal we all share. what's at stake in this case before the supreme court is whether a c.e.o.'s personal beliefs can trump a woman's right to access free or low-cost contraception under the affordable care act. madam president, i strongly

believe every american deserves to have access to high-quality health care coverage regardless of where they work or where they live. and each of us should have the right to make our own medical and religious decisions, without being dictated to or limited by our employers. contraceptive coverage is supported by the vast majority of americans who understand how important it is to -- for women and families. in weighing this case, my hope is the court realizes that women working for private companies should be forwarded th affordede access to cofnlg regardless of who signs their paycheck. we can't allow secular cooperations or their shareholders to deny female employers access to comprehensive health care under the guise of a religious exemption. it is as if we're saying that because you are a c.e.o. or a

shareholder in a corporation, your rights are more important than your employees who happen to be women. as i sat inside that supreme court chamber this morning listening to the arguments being made on both sides, i couldn't help but think, if these c.e.o.'s are allowed to evade this law, what would happen to the other legal protections for employees? could your boss decide not to cover h.i.v. treatment? could an employer opt out of having to comply with antidiscrimination laws? corporations should not be able to use religion as a license to discriminate. madam president, i'm proud to be joined in filing the brief by 18 other senators who are in office when congress enacted the religious protections through the religious freedom restoration act way back in 1993, when we -- and again when we made access to women's health

care available through the affordable care act in 2010. we are senators who know that congress did not intend for a corporation or its shareholders to restrict a woman's access to preventive health care because we all know that improving access to birth control is good health policy and good economic policy. we know it will mean healthier women, healthier children, healthier families, and a healthier america. we all know it will save money for businesses and consumers. but, madam president, i know many of our colleagues believe that repealing the affordable care act and access to reproductive health services is somehow a political winner for them. but the truth is, this law and these provisions are a winner for women, for men, for children, and for our health care system overall. so i'm very proud to stand with my colleagues who are committed to making sure the benefits of

this law do not get taken away from the women of america because politics and ideology should not matter when it comes to making sure women get the care they need at a cost that they can afford. so thank you, madam president, and i yield the floor. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

ms. mccaskill: madam president, i ask that the quorum call be set aside. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. mccaskill: i ask to speak in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. mccaskill: i rise too urge my colleagues to vote hopefully this afternoon or if not this afternoon tomorrow for a terrific man to be a judge in the western district of the federal district court in missouri. as an old lawyer -- too old -- i find myself amazed that i have

the opportunity to speak to the united states senate about someone i've known a long time, about a lawyer i know very well, and this is a man -- his name is doug harpool. he is from springfield, missouri. and back in the early 1980's he and i ar arrived as very young lawyers in the missouri house of representatives. and i had the opportunity to get to know him well, his character, his integrity, his work ethic. i watched him against tremendous odds and frankly some inappropriate pressure fight for a first major attempt at ethics reform in the missouri legislature. his journey was sometimes a vea lonely journey, but he had a pitpitbull kind of mentality abt going after this kind of topic, believing if you are in public

service, your standards must be be high. believing that if you choose many times at less compensation a path in the public arena, that you have a certain duty to conduct yourself with integrity and the kind of character that could make others proud of your representation. after his time in the missouri legislature, he went on to be a lawyer's lawyer. i don't mean the kind that says, i am a litigator and never goes near a courtroom. i don't mean the kind that say, i handle serious cases and does nothing but shuffle paper. but, rather, a real litigant, somebody who is in the courtroom -- by the way, on both sides of the table. this is somebody who helped clients that were suing people and helped people that were being sued. and he has worked with great regard as a practicing attorney now for many years. and there is nothing better than being respected by your peers,

especially those that you've battled with, because when you battle with someone, you see it all. you see what kind of people you're up against. you see what tactics are they willing to use. you see their raw intellect. you see their ability to think on their feet. so i know that when i started hearing from so many lawyers that were doug harpool's colleagues, what a terrific choice he would be, what i believed about him was shared by so many others. and he will never be a judge that gets robitis. that is a serious disease that strikes sometimes federal judges more than other kinds because they are appointed for life. robe-itis is something that if you're a practicing lawyer you talk about someone that has robe-itis. that is a malaise that comes upon a judge that all of a sudden removes him from the common people, that somehow makes him or her above the

struggles that lawyers are having, makes them above the problems that clients are presenting in their courtroom. this is a grounded man. this is a man who will understand what it is like to litigate a case, why his judgments must be fair and also speedy, why he owes it to the litigants to actually read their briefs, not assign it to someone else, to thumb through and make a decision based on a predetermined notion he might have. this is someone who will take his work with the degree of seriousness it deserves and with the amount of compassion we all should demand. i am so proud to be here urging his confirmation. i am confident that he will be confirmed by a wide margin. i'm even more confident that he will be the kind of federal judge that will make me proud and all of missouri proud for as long as he chooses to sit on the bench. thank you, madam president, and

i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mrs. shaheen: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from new hampshire. mrs. shaheen: madam president, i ask that the quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. shaheen: i rise today to speak to the importance of passing the pending legislation to support the people of ukraine in maintaining their independence at this very challenging time. russia's illegal annexation of crimea marks the first time that one european nation has seized territory from another since the end of world war ii.

now president putin is continuing his military build-up along ukraine's eastern border and russia's actions in the crimea fly in the face of the basic principles of sovereignty that have underpinned security in europe and around the world for decades. the united states and the international community must stand with ukraine and reaffirm our commitment to ukraine's independence and territorial integrity. this moment is a real test for the international community, a test whether the nations of the world can respond in a unified way to support ukraine and to check russia. it will also test whether we in congress can overcome political differences and leave partisanship at the water's edge. i believe we can and that we will rise to the occasion. we had a very good vote last night and hopefully that will

continue as we take up the pending legislation. first, we should provide ukraine with much-needed economic assistance. that is why i strongly support the legislation that is currently before us. it authorizes the administration to extend $1 billion in loan guarantees to ukraine. second, congress needs to continue to push the administration to impose costs on russia for its illegal and escalating actions. i applaud yesterday's decision by the g-7 nations to cancel their participation in the upcoming sochi summit to suspend russia's participation and to convene energy ministers for talks to strengthen our collective energy security. the latest round of u.s. and e.u. sanctions are another very important step. however, congress must continue to explore options for additional bipartisan sanctions

legislation. in addition, the administration should be aggressive in responding to russian provocations using the authorities that we give them. third, we need to demonstrate support for other allies and partners in the region who are threatened by russia's expansionist agenda. nato has already taken some commendable actions in the past week. they deployed additional aircraft and early warning systems, and we are reinforcing our commitment to poland and our baltic partners. this is a significant moment for ukraine, for europe and for the united states. it's imperative that we do our part to help the people of ukraine secure the bright, independent future that they deserve. the people of ukraine and of ukrainian descent, whether they be in kaoef -- kiev or

manchester new hampshire are watching and counting on our support. our urinal lice are -- our european allies are watching and counting on our leadership and maybe more important vladimir putin is watching and counting on our acquiescence. let's us be resolute, stand together in support of the ukraine and let us start by passing this important legislation. thank you, and i yield the floor. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

swapbdz quorum call:

mr. reed: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. reed: madam president, i ask to suspend the calling of the quorum. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reed: thank you, madam president. madam president, the senate needs to do everything it can to help create jobs, improve our economy and address the basic needs of the average american. unfortunately, many efforts to make meaningful progress on these issues have been thwarted in the last few months. specifically for the last 87 days, emergency assistance for job seekers have been blocked by gridlock. and despite the best efforts of several of my colleagues, including my colleague and friend, senator dean heller of nevada, today over 2.2 million americans are being denied assistance in what remains a very difficult economy. but i'm pleased to say that a group of five republicans and five democrats have reached a

principal compromise to end this impasse and help get people back on their feet. indeed, senators heller, merkley, collins, booker, portman, brown, murkowski, durbin and kirk have introduced a bill to continue emergency unemployment insurance for five months retroactive from december 28. as i have advocated, this bill contains no cuts to the weeks of benefits available or the structure of the tiers of benefits, nor does it include other problematic policy chang changes. it is, however, fully paid for and includes some positive reforms that better align the unemployment insurance and work force systems to help get people back to work sooner. it also includes language that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle sought and previously have -- we've passed in the senate 100-0, which would prohibit millionaires from receiving federal emergency benefits. i want to thank senator heller for his commitment to this issue, for his steadfastness and

for recognizing that this shouldn't be a partisan issue. he's been an extraordinarily thoughtful, collaborative and constructive colleague in trying to bring this issue to the floor. i also want to particularly thank senators collins, murkowski, portman and kirk because they also have been extremely thoughtful, tireless and resolute in their efforts to find a pathway forward. they've all brought constructive ideas to the table and we've been able to craft a principal compromise that will provide immediate aid to an disiment and 2.7 million americans. this can mean the difference between making a rent people, puttinpayment,keeping the heat y can continue to work. in some places there are three job seekers for every opening. i've been working since last year to extend these benefits.

but every day that passes it is evident that these americans don't have the same type of aid that those last year had. so i'm great we've reached a principled bipartisan compromise and it deserves to move forward quickly so we can provide much-needed relief to our constituents and to strengthen our economy. now, i understand there have been administrative concerns raised by this bill by the national association of state work force agencies which speaker boehner appears to be using as a reason to not take up this bipartisan compromise. frankly, madam president, -- quote -- "administrative challenges" should not be a reason to deny aid to working americans who lost their job through no fault of their own and are out there hitting the pavement searching for work in a challenging economy. also, the secretary of labor has sent congress a letter addressing all the concerns raised by the national group. this letter notes that the secretary of labor is -- quote -- "confident that there are workable solutions for all

the concerns raised by naswa. from the great recession to the present, the congress has worked in a bipartisan fashion to enact 12 different expansions or extensions to the e.u.c. program. a number of extensions included changes to the program that were as or more complex than those included in the current bill. the department of labor has consistently worked with states to implement these extensions in an effective, collaborative and prompt fashion and will do so again." indeed, the states have implemented benefits retroactively several weeks after the program has expired previously. and i would like to add that my colleagues who have joined as cosponsors of this bill, out of an abundance of caution and a desire to allay these administrative concerns, have included clarifying language to ensure that administrative funding constraints relating to the prohibition on millionaires receiving emergency unemployment insurance could not be read in an overly broad fashion. so that will make this

administratively easier to implement. i look forward to debating this bill later that week and i'm hopeful that with this strong, bipartisan showing, we can convince our colleagues on the other side of the capitol that this is the right thing to do for the economy and for working americans who lost their job through no fault of their own and who are searching for work. again, i am delighted to join senator heller in this effort and our other republican cosponsors. they have been extraordinarily thoughtful, constructive, collaborative and in so, they have served not only their constituents but this senate and this country with great and deeply appreciated effort. thank you. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from nevada. mr. heller: madam president, i'd like to begin by thanking my friend from rhode island for his

continued work to help the american people by temporarily extending unemployment insurance benefits. this is something that he and i have been working on together since this past december. pleased to have finally reached a bipartisan agreement that can pass this chamber. i admire my colleague's dedication and i'm greatly pleased we're here this week to support our efforts to keep american families on their feet during this tough economy. i also want to thank senators collins, portman, murkowski and kirk for their continued willingness to come to the table to craft a bill that could garner enough support to pass in this chamber. i'd also like to recognize some of my other colleagues, senator coats, senator ayotte, who, though not cosponsors on this bill today, were instrumental in these negotiations from the beginning. i understand their concerns and i also share their desire to see additional reforms to these programs. regardless, i am grateful for their contribution over the past few months.

i would also like to thank senator isakson and senator hoeven for their input and am appreciative of their efforts throughout the process. though it hasn't always been easy, this process has truly been a collaborative effort at every level. fortunately, i believe we've -- that we've reached a compromise that will garner enough support in the senate to help 1.3 million unemployed americans get back on their feet as they look for work in the toughest job market in decades. this bill is a responsible, fully paid-for, temporary extension of unemployment insurance benefits that expired in december. it addresses concern that any further extensions ought to be paid for. madam president, it's our economy -- as our economy recovers and people find new jobs, the demand for these social safety net programs should naturally diminish. but states like never, rhode island and many others still

have long economic recoveries ahead of them. ere's little reason to extend these benefits, especially since they were allowed to expire at the end of last december. yobut the fact we mains that too many americans are out of work but want to return to work force. i've heard from many nevada job seekers who, in addition to trying to find a job, are also struggling to put food on the table for their families, pay their rent or mortgage, and are running out of ways to make ends meet. extending these benefits will help these families before their situation goes from bad to worse. my colleagues and i have worked together to come to a reasonab reasonable, bipartisan agreement on both policy and pay-fors. i think we would all agree that there are certain things that i think each side would prefer to see included many this bill, such as additional reforms, but this is the nature of compromi compromise. we also recognize the challenge of dealing with a patchwork of state u.i. systems of varying capabilities, but i believe we're all open to finding ways

to ensure that this extension is implemented in -- as efficiently as possible. this task may not be easy but i firmly believe that it is worth doing. again, thanks to all my colleagues, especially my colleague from rhode island, who have been involved in this process. i look forward to moving to this bill very soon and am hopeful that congress can finally, finally resolve this matter as soon as possible to help restore some stability for the millions of unemployed americans looking to get back to work. madam president, i yield the floor. suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from new jersey. mr. menendez: mr. president, i ask that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. menendez: mr. president, i rise to express my robust concern about russia's actions and the continuing escalations of tensions in central and eastern europe. even with ukranian troops leaving crimea, russia continues to extort the ukraine, disavowing an agreement on gas prices that was part of a bilateral agreement allowing

russia to lease the black seaport in the crimea for its fleet. russia is now arguing that it no longer has to provide the discounted gas because it illegally seized the port, but that it also must be paid back $11 billion for prior discounts. at the same time, russia has amassed more than 100,000 troops at ukraine's border, in addition to 23,000 troops that are in the crimea, making clear the threat of an outright invasion of ukraine and possibly a portion of moldova. putin is watching to see what we will do, to see if we have the resolve to act or if he in essence gets the green light to take the next step. so i believe we need to act now. so although i also believe that

our response to russia's annexation of crimea should include the international monetary fund reforms that passed in a bipartisan way out of the senate foreign relations committee and that obviously received a rather strong procedural vote yesterday in the senate, and i think it's critical to strengthen the assistance package for ukraine and strengthen u.s. global leadership, i recognize that our ability to be able to move this package with it at this point is unlikely. the house republican leadership has proven itself intransigent on i.m.f. reform, and we all know why. trying to link support for i.m.f. reforms on c-4 political committees that may have violated campaign finance laws and may have individuals who

illegally use them to influence federal elections is pretty outrageous. i cannot believe that the house leadership will not put national security interests above a partisan political interest, but obviously politics clearly don't stop at the water's edge on this issue. so while i'm not happy about it, i believe we need to move forward on a bill today that sends the necessary message of support to the ukraine and resolve to russia. but as we take that step, let's realize that it's the i.m.f. that is leading the effort to stabilize ukraine's fragile economy. congressional ratification of the 2010 i.m.f. reforms would increase i.m.f. emergency funding to the ukraine by up to 60% and provide an additional $6 billion for longer term

support, setting an important marker for other donors, such as the e.u. and the world bank. let's be clear about what keeping the i.m.f. provisions would have done. the i.m.f. 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 costs because the $63 billion increase in the u.s. quota is totally offset by an equivalent decrease to a separate emergency facility. however, other countries would put in new money, increasing the i.m.f.'s lending power. the fact is this would be a pure win for the united states. we would fully have paid for the $315 million budget impact of the bill with real cuts and from funds that were underperforming or no longer needed. given that the i.m.f. helps to

stabilize countries, often an ingredient -- an ingredient precedent for precluding future need for military action, a relatively minor cost, would have been paid back many times over. and we will have another crisis in the future in which the i.m.f. will be critical to whether or not that crisis can be defused and solved. now, i repeat what i said before -- this should not be a partisan issue. presidents reagan, president clinton and both president bushes backed legislation to increase i.m.f. resources. and ronald reagan called the international monetary fund -- quote -- the linchpin of the international financial system. in a letter to the house and senate leadership last week, which i ask unanimous consent to include in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. menendez: members of the

bretton woods community which were the original entity that created some of the organizations like the i.m.f. that created global stability wrote that implementing -- this is a quote -- implementing the i.m.f. reforms boll terse our leadership in the fund and provides the united states with what? leverage to continue to preserve our national security and economic interest abroad. now, let me tell you some of the folks that signed that letter. madeleine albright, former secretary james baker, william cohen, stephen hadley, henry kissinger, condoleezza rice, lee hamilton, brent scowcroft, paul o'neill, frank carlucci, larry summers, john snowe, henry paulson. this is a bipartisan list of who's who in foreign policy, all saying that this is critical to

do. let me be very clear -- opponents have argued that i.m.f. reforms provide no added relief to the ukraine so it's superfluous to this bill. that argument is patently false. the 2010 i.m.f. reform strengthened the i.m.s. that's why they were done. as it relates to the ukraine by increasing ukraine's quota, the reform's -- reforms increase available short-term lending from $1 billion to $1.6 billion and longer term resources the i.m.f. can leverage for the ukraine by up to $6 billion. it also strengthens our ability to shape an i.m.f. support package for ukraine. now, critics say i.m.f. reforms undermine u.s. influence and increase russia's influence in the i.m.f., and they're dead wrong again. we remain the largest i.m.f. shareholder, even after reform. we are guaranteed our executive

board seat, and we will continue as the only country, the only country with veto power over major i.m.f. decisions. meanwhile, the reforms rationalize the voting structure of the i.m.f. to increase buy-in of by nam i can emergent economies in a way that ensures continued u.s. leadership in a more relevant international institution. on the other side, the reforms matter little to russia which already has a board seat. they say i.m.f. reforms cost american taxpayers billions and put taxpayer money at risk. again, wrong. there is no cost to american taxpayers. the reforms included in the senate ukraine bill preserve u.s. leadership, the veto position in the i.m.f., without increasing, without increasing our financial commitment to the i.m.f. the i.m.f. is the most solvent

financial institution in the world, and the risk of i.m.f. default is de minimus. now, we would have paid for all of this budget impact with real cuts, as my colleague and ranking member on the committee, bob corker, asked, and we came together and we figured it out. the appropriators helped us to determine underperforming funds, programs that would -- from which we could take these funds, and we ultimately came to a very successful conclusion. i regret that the failure to strengthen the i.m.f. to support the ukraine and other unforeseen crises around the world will endanger the system that we have so painstakingly built, and it shouldn't need arguing that fragmentation of global economic governance is not in our national interests. the fact is, mr. president, i.m.f. reform combined with the aid package for the ukraine

would send a clear and unambiguous message to the world that the annexation of crimea will not stand, but i understand this institution and our political realities, so i have come to the floor to ask that we come together to at least accepted our message of support to the ukraine and another message to putin. we should act today. we cannot and should not stand for the violations of international norms perpetrated on crimea by russia. the world is watching, and the world's superpower cannot be seen as incapable of rising to russia's challenge. that is the responsibility before the senate today. so for those who have criticized the i.m.f. reform and because the house leadership doesn't want to pursue it because of extraneous matters having to deal with politics and not

policy, willing to risk national security issues, you're going to get your way today, and i would hope that therefore the rest of this package which provides a loan guarantee to the ukraine of a billion dollars, that provides sanctions against the russian regime and others who corrupted the previous ukranian government and who have violated its territorial integrity, the assistance to ensure that democratic elections can be held this may in the ukraine, the greater defense cooperation with the ukraine, all other elements of this legislation should have universal support. and we should do it today in order to ensure that we send a clear, unambiguous message as 100,000 russian troops are on the eastern front of the ukraine. that is, i believe, a critical moment for us to answer

affirmatively. with that, mr. president, i yield the floor and observe the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call: