at some future point but it's not listed as threatened, not listed as endangered. but millions of dollars have been spent on tagging barbed wire fences and limiting roads. now land owners have to go to he fish and wildlife service and ask permission for how many head of cattle they can have in case of a chicken. it's an interest dage in america, whether you're a contractor or running a company, it seems washington is the boss of us and we make decisions based on that. . i'd like to welcome in a colleague of mine who has been a leader in his state legislature and now here in his legislature. nunlnunl i want to thank my friend -- mr. nunnelee: i want to thank my friend from oklahoma for bringing focus to this important issue. the foundation for our country

rests on the shoulders of we the people. and under our constitutional form of government, we the people are the boss. and washington is the never advantage -- servant. unfortunately under this current administration, there's not a week that goes by without more evidence of out-of-control bureaucracies, attempting to run local businesses through unnecessary rules and regulations. i could give many examples but in the interest of time, i'll just give one. columbus brick company is located in columbus, mississippi. they've been making clay bricks since 1890. mr. al puck ette is the fourth generation -- pucket is the fourth generation of that family to run that business. after they spent substantial sums of money to bring the factory into compliance with

new environmental protection agency regulations, the e.p.a.'s now threatening new even more expensive regulations . without any input from the public, from the stakeholders, from congress or from we the people. last june mr. pucket appeared before the house judiciary committee. he testified, quote, if the e.p.a. uses the same approach that they have followed in recent rules, columbus brick may cease to exist. after almost 125 years of operation. i expect a minimum of having to shut down two or three kilns. this will mean permanent job loss to 45 to 50 families in our small rural community. sadly, mr. speaker, it gets worse. the e.p.a. regulations do not

result in any significant benefits to the environment. the brick industry in general, columbus brick company in particular, is already operating well within safe levels. unfortunately columbus brick company's not unique in the impact this rule would have on small businesses. many will be forced to close their doors. only in washington are rules handed down to businesses without allowing the affected parties the ability to weigh in before the settlement agreements are adopted. environmental regulations should be fair, reasonable and they should balance cost versus benefits. this body understands this concept and that's why in february we passed the alert act, which would require the administration to account for the cost of excessive regulations, to minimize the impact on small businesses.

mr. pucket stated it best. we're not asking for this rule to go away. we're asking that the practice of establishing unreasonable deadlines without input from the impacted industries go away. mr. speaker, mississippians know that the power and drive of america is in the individual . and the great solutions to the great challenges facing our country don't come in washington. neither do they come in our state capitols. the challenges to our solutions can be found around our kitchen tables. and our homes. and our churches. and our communities. unfortunately it's the mentality that the government is the boss that's been oppressive on companies like

columbus brick. but their spirit of survival is what's allowed them to survive for several generations. washington, and particularly not the e.p.a., is not the boss of columbus brick. mr. speaker, i yield back. mr. lankford: i thank the gentleman from mississippi for being here and being a part of this conversation because this does affect every single corner of our nation. everywhere we go, this tends to be the same issue repeated over and over again. how do individuals make decisions and not have to wait for the federal government to be able to give them permission to be able to do that? we could go on and on. let me give you several other examples. some people may know these well and some may not. if you're going to put in a traffic light, just a simple installation, maybe a day or two at an intersection, to be able to put in a traffic light at an intersection, somewhere in the vicinity of that there will be a board that's been

placed up by the company and there will be 24 different posters stapled to that board to give instructions to anyone who happens to be at that job site installing a traffic light for a day or two of all of their rights under the department of labor rules. 24 posters posted outside, somewhere in the vicinity, on a traffic light. does anyone think that's common sense? i would assume not. but yet it's all over the country. and every company that's installing traffic lights or working on roads and bridges or anywhere they may be, they're hauling around this giant board and putting it up because the federal government makes them do it. and as they install it, they all think the same thing. do i work for the government or does the government work for me? many banks in america now, after the dodd-frank regulations were passed just five years ago, when those regulations were passed or that

law was passed and the regulations are not promulgated, banks will tell you all over the country, small banks, family-owned banks, and small -- in small rural communities, medium-sized banks, banks that had nothing to do with the meltdown that happened in our economy in 2008 and 2009, these community banks will tell you many of them have a regulator sitting there full-time now. if not full time, multiple times a year for weeks on end, a government regulator comes and sits down at their bank and goes through every single piece of everything. and many of these banks will tell you, if they call one of these regulators and say, hey, i'm thinking about making a loan and i'm considering this, i need to know when you evaluate my bank what you're going to say on this many of them will say, i'll evaluate it when i see it. they won't give them proactive advice. they won't help them in advance. but they'll show up at the ebleds of it and be able to downgrade them if they made the wrong decision. that's not a government that's designed to serve you.

that's a government that we serve. and so banks have suddenly become entities of the federal government. constantly worried about some federal regulator coming in and what they may or may not do. again, washington's not our boss. the overtime rules that were just proposed today by the president, it seems like such a nice thing to do. if someone works overtime they should get additional pay. but leaving out the simple fact , people all over america worked hourly and worked to get to a salaried position, so then they saw that as a promotion. suddenly the president of the united states is stepping in and saying, i'm going to actually demote you again and put you back on an hourly type of situation. that if you make a certain amount, you're going to have to count your hours. well, what really happens in real life with that? i can tell you immediately after that rule gets promulgated, pam parks, who owns blue wave and silver wave boats in seminole, oklahoma, contacts me immediately. and says, does the president

have any idea what this would mean in real life, in a real business? i can tell pam, probably not. because what it will mean in real life for her, what it will mean in real life for her employees, what it will mean in real life for companies all over america are multiple things. and when the president washington shows up at a business and says, it's obvious you don't take care of your employees so we're going to force you to do this and we're going to take over your business and we're going to run your payroll different than how you're running it, what really happens is salaried workers suddenly step back down to hourly workers and someone who really wants to succeed and is going to put in the time to do that, the boss has to step in to them on site and say, you can't work more than 40 hours. i know you want to be here and to do extra stuff and try to work your way up the ladder, no, you can't do that. because at a certain pay level, there's a cutoff there. and you have to have extra overtime. now, someone who may make a little bit more, they can stay extra. they can work their way up the ladder.

but someone else now will be prohibited from doing that. as odd as it sounds, what just occurred was the president just imposed a new creeling in workplaces all over the country -- ceiling in workplaces all over the country with no one passing a larbgs with no regulation being promulgated, just a declaration and a rything just changed for lot of americans all over the country and a new cap was just placed on a lot of places. and people that worked for years to move to salary just got demoted back to hourly. and now their boss is watching over them. sadly that boss is washington, d.c. that's not right for blue wave and silver wave boats in seminole, oklahoma. that's not right for businesses all over america. if i get into an issue that is somewhat controversial, excuse me, but let me count the ways that obamacare demonstrates that washington, d.c., wants to be the boss of every business and of every american.

obamacare when it passed said to every american, i know that you plan your budget and you plan your life in certain ways. we don't like how you do that. you're suddenly going to do it our way. you're going to buy a product you haven't purchased before, whether you're healthy or not, because we want you to. because we're your boss. and we're going to tell what you product you're going to buy and if you want to buy a different insurance policy, i'm sorry, that insurance policy is not good enough for us in washington. you've got to pick the one that we pick in washington. that is not american. now, it's a great thing to make sure that everyone in america has access to health care. but to then go to every family and say, it's going to be more than just access to, it's going to be requirement for, whether it fits your budget or not, and by the way, the government's going to pick what fits your but the. that means washington is suddenly the boss of you. it means every workplace across the country, washington, d.c., is now trying to decide which insurance policy works best for

them, that is washington, not for the people in that company. washington is not the boss of us. we're individuals. there's a company named hobby lobby. happens to be based in my hometown. it's an absolutely amazing family that has lived out their faith for years. people see hobby lobby as this giant company. just a few decades ago hobby lobby was in a garage and was a couple of sons cutting out picture frames for their dad and they were selling these little tiny picture frames and starting their own tiny little frame shop. that frame shop is now all over the country and is known to be this great retailer, hobby lobby. they've practiced faith principles from the very beginning of their company. they close on sundays. they close early on wednesdays. they pay well more than minimum wage. they've always had great health care coverage. they're a company that lives

out biblical values in the workplace. they play christian music even over the loud speakers at the stores. they're place that when you shop you enjoy shopping there. people love to take care of people there. that's part of their corporate mentality. but it's also a couple of owners and that family that is also opposed to abortion. they have the unusual belief that millions and millions of other americans believe that children are valuable. and that children are important and precious. and they happen to have a faith that believes that the child deserves life. well, the president disagrees with that faith. so in obamacare, literally the regulations say to that business, you cannot operate your business under faith principles if that faith principle is different than the president's. why do i say that? because if hobby lobby did not provide insurance at all, at

all to their employees, they would be fined $,000 per person per year -- $2,000 per person parayear, if they refused to provide insurance. but if they provide all insurance with everything included in it, that obamacare requires, except for four abortion drugs, just leave out those four, based on religious views, they don't agree with those, four abortion drugs, if they doy don't provide those four, their fine is $36,500 per employee per year. now let me run this past you again. $2,000 per employee if they provide nothing. $36,500 per employee if they provide everything except those four abortion drugs. how serious is this administration about being the boss of that company and telling them if your faith practice is different than ours it is obvious the consequences

are shutting down a company. no unone can afford a fine of -- no one can afford a fine of $36,500. so basically the green family has to choose to either live their faith or keep their business own -- open. but they can't do both at the same time. what kind of country is this? what have we become? when the simple freedom of religion can be swept aside by a washington that says, if i don't agree with your faith, you have to change your practice. washington is not the boss of our faith. we have a constitutional right to live out our faith . i received a letter, frontier electronic system. they are dealing with federal regulation. here's one statement. they wrote us, a phrase most of

these regulations, they do not scale. with 113 employees, we are ccount allege as if we had 113,00. we have larger employers to ensure compliance. come plipes would require some knowledge and compliance, staffing, benefits. and due to the resources, this fact that many of the laws are complicated. many companies are fortunate to have one professional, one that has one in h.r.. because this company has contracting. here's the list of the regulations. to be a company and to be open in america right now, this is

what this particular company has fill fill, they have to that. the american taxpayer relief act of the of 2012. plaque lung benefits act. ealth insurance's act, reconciliation act of 1986, the copy l land act. contract work hours and savet standards. d.o.d.-frank act, the drug free act, employee protection act. employee retirement act. the equal pay act, the executive rder 11246, executive order,

1301. the federal corrupt protection act. fair labors standard act, federal employees act. and genetic act, the health care abblingt the health insurance and affordability. ring instirring, and immigration gnat nationality act. act, ervice and labor lilly ledbetter, long shore abblingt, mental health and dition shon act, mental act,

ational labor allegations act. occupational safety and health act. big one, d that's a obamacare. the pregnancy discrimination act, sarbanes oxley, the title 7 of the civil rights act, the niformed act of 1978, veterans mprovements act, vietnam acts, adjustment and act. ning can anyone keep up with that. this business has to.

with 13 employees how many people does it take just to keep with up with those regulations? mr. speaker, we have a problem. we have a washington, d.c., that has become arrogant. i don't think it's intention install. quite frankly, everyone is trying tosh kind, overly kind and stack on one regulation over another and no company can keep up with this. the attitude is simple. we know better than you. we won't run your company. you quont run your family like t should be run bru tell you like it should be run. you won't run your insurance

company, so we will run it for you. mistreat ll employees. mr. speaker, that is not what we are as americans. ur nation became strong. changed the world with a simple world ethic and the abelt with the people to achieve success that did not issue clued lauppedry list. is there anything wrong with the government setting the boundaries. sutly washington is the boss. and this has to turn around. mr. speaker. special ever simple decisions.

yes. there are thicks that of federal government is going. should families go back to make decisions and yes, knee should. that means there are risks. great reward. we became the most prosperous nation on the plant because our family was not afraid of risk. we can get back to that. but is washington the thoughts of us or is american the boss of washington. i yield back. . the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized osk yields back. the chair will entertain a motion to adjourn. mr. lankford: i do move now that the house adjourn.

the speaker pro tempore: those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes hav

disagreement over how to pay for this. would set up a new way to take providers. >> your article points out the republican plan of the house would pay for it by suspending the individual mandate for five years.

how are democrats reacting to that proposal? democrats do not like it. there have been several votes of the me pieces affordable care act. because of that they are opposing this. are in support of the policy, but they don't want to pay for it by eliminating part of the affordable care act. >> a congressman, also a doctor, tweeted about this. would the president veto his delay, commenting on the news that the white house issued a statement against this. why is the administrative against this? because of the five-year delay? >> absolutely. the president said he didn't want to eliminate the individual mandate, and he is not going to do it even if it means setting up this new payment structure. there is a similar bill in the

senate proposed by senator white and the chairman of the new finance committee. it is not paid for at all. introducing the bill on the floor. let's say the bill passes in the house and something happens in the senate. what's the timetable for getting this solve? it expires march 31, which is driving the action. to permanently eliminate the need they would have to do that by march 31. they would have to bridge this gap between in the senate there is no paid for, and in the house it is paid for. it looks unlikely they will be able to bridge that divide by march 31. that would mean they would have to institute a new tax to prevent a significant cut to providers that would start on

if they cannot come up , it a permanent fix by then would kick the next time this comes to the lame-duck session for this year. >> democrats, are they likely to or ase any countermeasure, last chance to resolve the issue ? >> the democrats have proposed a samethat is the withcement policy paid for the operation money. republicans, some have said they would consider using that. others call it funny money. they say it's not real money, and it shouldn't be used to pay for anything else.

we may see a handful of forblicans tempted to vote the democrats measure, but i would not expect it to get enough support. >> you can follow her reporting at politico.com. thanks for joining us. >> thanks for having me. >> coming up, president obama signed an executive order for new overtime pay rules. then remarks from eric holder on reducing prison sentences for nonviolent drug offenders. but followed by a debate from the u.s. senate on a bill to provide aid for ukraine. on the situation in ukraine. president obama signed an executive order on thursday that

aims to expand executive pay. the order is to recommend more governing pay. on move could take effect. this is 10 minutes. >> ladies and gentlemen, the president of the united states of america. [applause] >> thank you, everybody. thank you. thank you guys. please have a seat. thank you very much. welcome to the white house. started, i want to acknowledge somebody who has been working so hard on behalf of american workers each and every day. our outstanding secretary of labor tom perez. [applause]

tom must have brought some of his family with him. we have got a lot of honored guests here. we have got middle-class workers who rely on overtime pay. we have got business owners who believe in treating their employees right, because it's the right thing to do but also because it's good business. thanks to the hard work of americans like the ones who are here today, our economy has been growing for a number of years now. our business has created more than eight and half million new jobs. the unemployment rate is at the lowest it has been in over five years, but in many ways the trends that have really that third middle-class families for decades have that and worse, not better.

the top are doing better than ever, but for the average family, the wages have barely budge. too many americans are working harder and harder just to get by. to reverse those trends. we have got to build an economy that works for everybody, not just a few. got to restore the basic notion of opportunity that is at the heart of the american experience, opportunity for everyone, the idea that it doesn't matter where you started. if you are willing to work hard and act responsible, you've got a chance to get ahead. and my state of the union at the beginning of the year i laid out an opportunity to give more americans the chance to succeed. it has got four parts, number one making sure we create more jobs to pay good wages. number two, making sure we are training more americans with the skills needed to fill those jobs.

number three, making sure every child in america gets a world-class education, and number four, which is what i am going to be focusing on today, making sure our economy three wards the hard work of -- our economy rewards hard work. it means making sure women get equal pay for equal work. [applause] it means giving women the chance to have a baby without sacrificing job or a day off to care for a sick child or a parent without worrying about means ends meet. in worrying about making sure every american has access to quality, affordable health care that's there when you need it, so if there is somebody you know that doesn't have health insurance, nature they go on healthcare.gov before march 31.

in means wages and paychecks to help support a family. profitable companies can pay higher wages as a way to boost productivity. i have didn't -- i've done what -- they have done what they can to give their employees a wage. -- arrays. fortunately malia and sasha like the sweaters i got them. part of what i wanted to highlight was the fact that on the gap decided to give raises to 65,000 employees across the country. i have called on congress to give america a raise i raising minimum wage $10.10 an hour. the minimum wage $10.10 an hour.

this year of action while congress decides what it is going to do, and i know democrats are pushing hard to get minimum wage legislation passed, i am going to do what i can on my own to raise wages for ordinary americans. a few weeks ago i signed an executive order to require contractors to pay at least $10.10 an hour. today i am going to give more americans the chance to earn overtime pay. over time is a pretty simple idea. if you have to work more, you should get paid more. soyou want to know why it's important, just ask some of the folks here. nancy works at the wheel refinery in pennsylvania. nancy, raise your hand. there you go. give nancy a big round. [applause]

years nancy has been a single mom raising and educating for kids on her own, and that's not easy, as you might imagine. she has been able to do it thanks in part to her overtime .ay for more than 75 years the 40 hour workweek and the overtime that comes with it has helped countless workers like nancy get ahead. it means that when she is asked to make significant sacrifices on behalf of her company, which he is happy to do, they are also looking out putser and realizing that the strain on her family and having to get a babysitter and all kinds of adjustments she estimate. to make.s it's just fair. it's the right thing to do. millions of americans aren't getting what they deserve. that is because concessions

originally made for high paid white-collar employees now covers workers earning as little as $23,000 a year. $23,000, youking are not high in management typically. if your salary is even one dollar above the current rush holt, you may not be guaranteed overtime. , youe current threshold may not be guaranteed overtime. it doesn't matter if you're working 50 or 60 hours a week. your employer doesn't have to pay you a single extra dime, and i think that's wrong. it doesn't make sense in some cases this rule makes it possible for salaried workers to be paid less than the minimum wage. not right when business owners who treat their employees fairly can be undercut by competitors who aren't treating their employees right. if you are working hard, you are

barely making ends meet, you overtime.paid working americans have struggled with stagnant wages for too long. everyday i get letters from folks who feel like they are treading water. are putting in hours and working harder and harder to get by, but it's always real tight. workers like the ones with me today want to work hard. they don't expect a free lunch. the fabulouslyct wealthy. they just want a chance to get ahead. today i am taking action to help give my workers a chance. i am directing the secretary of overtime.estore if you go above and beyond to help your employer and your economy succeed, you should share little in that success. this is going to make a real

difference in the lives of millions of americans from fast food and retail to office workers and cargo inspectors. we are going to do this the right way. we are going to consult with workers and businesses. we are going to work to simplify the system so it is easier for employers and employees alike. with any kind of change like this, not everyone is going to be happy. americans have spent too long working more and getting less in return. wherever and whenever i can make sure our economy rewards hard and and it -- responsibility that it is treating fairly the workers out there building this economy every day. that's what i am going to do. what every american wants is a paycheck to help them support the families, experience a security, and pass that on. that's what we're going to be fighting for.

with that i am going to sign this memo, and i want to thank everybody for being here. [applause] >> [inaudible] [laughter] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] >> i got to make sure i use every penny. there you go. [applause]

tell everyone i said hi. >> thank you. i appreciate it. [applause] ,> it's time to create new jobs to build and rebuild industry to give the american people room to do what they do best, and that cannot be done with the tax program that provides incentive to increase in activity for workers and industry. our proposal is for a 10% across-the-board cut every year for three years and tax cut for all individual taxpayers emma make a total of -- taxpayers, make a total of 30%. this will also apply to the tax income.rned

hope we could be retroactive with this. as it stands, the effect of starting date for these personal income tax rate reductions will be as of july 1 this year. that whileind you this 30% reduction will leave the taxpayers with $500 billion more in their pockets over the next five years, it's actually only a reduction in the tax -- tax increase already built in the system. unlike some tax reforms, this is not merely a shift between different sets of taxpayers. >> find more highlights of house floor coverage on our facebook page. c-span, created by america's cable companies 35 years ago and brought to you today as a public service by your television provider. attorney general eric holder

has proposed -- has introduced a on sentencing for drug crimes. the senate is expected to vote as early as april. this is about 10 minutes. >> thank you so much, members of the commission. good morning, and thank you for the invitation to appear before you to discuss our shared goals and to provide the justice department's views on proposed changes to the federal sentencing guidelines related to certain drug trafficking crimes. i appreciate the opportunity to speak in support of the amendment under consideration today. department strongly supports the proposed change. if adopted this would lower by 12 the bass levels associated with various drug quantities

involved in drug trafficking crimes. this would have the effect of modestly reducing guideline penalties for drug trafficking offenses while keeping the guidelines consistent with current statutory minimums and continuing to ensure top penalties for violent criminals, career criminals, or those who used weapons while committing drug crimes. the straightforward adjustment to sentencing, while measured in scope, would nonetheless i believe send a message about the fairness of our criminal justice system, and it would help rein in federal spending while focusing limited resources on a threat to public safety. let me be clear. my primary obligation as attorney general of the united states is to ensure the safety of the american people. overes i have implemented the past year are designed to do exactly that while making our efficiente fair and at the same time.

the proposed amendment is consistent with the smart on crime initiative i addressed last august. its implementation would further our ongoing effort to advance commonsense criminal justice reforms, and it would deepen the hartman's work -- the departments were to make the criminal justice system more effective and more efficient when battling crime and the behaviors. as it stands and as this commission has recognized, certain types of changes result in too many americans owing to prison for too long and at times for no truly good law enforcement reason. other the united states comprises just five percent of the world's population, we incarcerate almost a quarter of the world's prisoners. one in 28 american children currently have a parent behind bars. state and federal governments combined $80 billion to an incarceration during 2010 alone. 216,000 current

federal inmates are serving time for the drug-related crimes. ons focus relies incarceration is not just financially unsustainable. it comes with costs that are impossible to calculate. under why in recent years president obama and alongside this commission and with the researchers, law enforcement officials, and government leaders on both sides of the aisle, we have taken significant steps to improve criminal justice policies and implement targeted reforms. i'm particularly proud of the work we did together, which has reduced the sentencing disparity between crack and powder cocaine . a disparity this commission

found justifiable and which president obama alleviated with the passing of the fair sentencing act of 2010. just over a year ago in an effort to take our collective work to the next level, i lost a targeted review of the system to identify areas for improvement and seek ways to make the system more effective and more closely align with our highest ideals while not sacrificing our duty to promote public safety. in a speech i announced a new smart on crime initiative based on the result of this review. it has already allowed the justice department to make critical improvements to conserve resources, to improve outcomes, and to disrupt the destructive cycle of poverty and crime that traps too many americans and that weakens entire communities. one of the key changes i mandated as part of this is a modification of charging

policies to ensure people can get certain low level, nonviolent federal drug crimes appropriatentences to their conduct, rather than stringent minimums that should be applied only to the most serious criminals. this would help institutionalize this work am a controlling the federal prison occupation and ensuring just an proportional sentences. i am pleased to note this approach enjoy significant bipartisan support on capitol hill, where a number of leaders, including senator leahy, dick durbin, and michael lee, along with representative bobby stock and labrador have introduced determining ar more appropriate sentence for those convicted of crimes. i observing the most serious penalties for drug traffickers,

we can promote public safety while saving billions of dollars and strengthening communities. as my colleagues and i work with congress to pass this legislation, we are simultaneously moving forward with a range of reforms. we are investing in evidence-based oh grams like drug treatment and veteran force that can serve as alternatives to incarceration in some cases. we are working to reduce unnecessary collateral consequences for formerly incarcerated individuals seeking communities, and we are working on innovative strategies that in many cases have been pioneered at the state level. officials from both parties have directed significant funding away from present construction and towards evidence-based programs and services like

supervision or drug treatment that are proven to reduce recidivism while improving public safety. rather than increasing costs, a new report projects these states will actually save $4.6 billion over 10 years. many have already seen drops in recidivism rates as well as overall crime rates, even as the prison populations have declined. the full impact of our justice policies remains to be seen. it's clear these efforts are bearing fruit and showing significant promise across the country. think we can be encouraged by this ongoing work, which enables us to promote public safety and rehabilitation while making his senators smarter and more productive. each of us is here because we recognize we cannot he satisfied. a great deal of work remains to

be done. by adopting these proposed amendments and federal sentencing guidelines, this commission can take what i believe is an important step to provide law enforcement leaders with 21st century solutions they need to address 21st century challenges, and to build on the progress we have already seen in constructing a criminal justice system that deters and punishes crime, keeps us safe, and ensures those who have paid their debts a chance to become productive citizens once again. as the commission considers from and issues testimony diverse panelists over two days hearing, -- over today's hearing, i urge you to make the justice system more fair and to make the american people more safe. i look forward to continuing to work closely with each of you and with members in congress and throughout our administration to strengthen america's criminal

justice system and to forge a more just society. thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today, and i would be happy to take questions at this time. >> on the next washington journal, michael r on oh discusses a plan to eliminate fannie mae and freddie mac -- discusses a plan to eliminate fannie mae and freddie mac. and then we talk about the investigation and the irs targeting of political groups and alternatives to the administration's budget. everygton journal is live morning at seven eastern on c-span. you can join the conversation on facebook and twitter. house swore in its new its newest member to represent florida's congressional district. he takes over the seat of

billion, who passed away in october. after the swearing-in, the representative spoke briefly on the house floor. >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from florida be permitted to take the oath of office today. his certificate of election has not arrived, but there is no contest, and no question has been raised with regard to is election. >> objection. representative jolly and the entire floor face me. support and defend the constitution of the united states against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that you

please raise your hand. do you solemnly swear you take this without purpose of evasion and that you will faithfully dischargeo help me god. mr. jolly: i do. he speaker: congratulations. without objection, the gentlelady from florida, ms. ros-lehtinen, is recognized for one minute.

ms. ros-lehtinen: thank you, mr. speaker. as dean of the florida delegation, it is my pleasure to welcome the newest member of this proud body, congressman david jolly. today is a significant progression for david from staffer to elected representative. a progression beginning from his many years working for his community as a staffer for our esteemed late colleague, congressman bill young. i'm confident that david has returned to these halls to ensure that bill's legacy is carried on. one of extraordinary constituent service as well as his unwavering respect and civility for all of us in this chamber. i also know that david will, in his own words, bring his own deep desire and drive to get things done for this country. david is a fifth generation floridian and is joined in the gallery today by his rightfully proud parents and family to mark this momentous occasion. i'm certain that

he'll work hard to maintain that sentiment with each of them as well as with his constituents in he is a welcome edition to our florida delegation, a fresh and strong voice for our sunshine state and great nation. and before i yield to my distinguished colleague, corrine brown, let me also say that just like you, david, i, too, won a special election to fill the seat of a legend of this institution. so believe me when i say that having big shoes to fill should be seen as both an exceptional honor as well as an exceptional opportunity. congratulations and welcome from all of us.

the speaker: the gentlelady from florida may resume. ms. brown: thank you, mr. speaker. i want to welcome our newest member to congress and to the florida delegation. as i'm sure he already knows, congressman jolly has big shoes to fill. bill young was a true statesman who put the needs of his district and our home state playoff politics, and florida is a better place to live because of it. i have always said to whom god is given much, much is expected. when you're born you're going to get a birth certificate, when you die you get a death certificate. and that little dash in between is what you have conto -- done to make this weighter place. i look forward to working with the congressman to make florida the best it can be and the united states. i also want to say that the st. petersburg mayor is here, would you stand. thank you. welcome.

welcome to this united states house of representatives. the speaker: the gentleman from florida may resume the time. mr. jolly: mr. speaker, thank you to my new colleagues. thank you, ms. ros-lehtinen, thank you very much. and to the people of florida's 13th congressional district, i want to say thank you today for giving me a remarkable life opportunity. the opportunity to serve. for my new colleagues, i simply want you to know two things about this new member. first, i believe in this institution. the people's house. i believe in all that is good and right about this institution, the opportunity that this institution has to make our nation better. to direct our nation down the right path. to solve problems for all of us and secure for every american for all of us the sacred blessings of liberty. the second thing i'd like you to know about this new congressman

is i believe in civility. i have the wonderful opportunity to work for a man with whom you each served and left an indelible legacy in this house, one of civility. we are all elected to fight for our communities, to fight our our constituents. we are elected to fight our our convictions forks the causes we believe in, but it is a fight for the future of our country. it is not a fight against each other. and i know that. we have had a nationally watched race. that race is now over. and now it is time for my -- for me as a member of congress of this body to join with each of you to follow in the footsteps that you have made in serving your community as i begin to serve mine. you have my commitment today to work with each and every one of you. i look forward to it. mr. speaker, i thank you for this moment. i look forward to working with

each and every one of you and i want to say thank you one more time to my friends and my neighbors and those in my community in florida's 13th congressional district that have given me this honor today. thank you very much. god bless each and every one of you. mr. speaker, i suppose i yield back my time. the speaker: the gentleman ields back his time. under clause 5-d of rule 20, the chair announces to the house that in light of the administration of the oath of the gentleman from florida, the i coming up next, the u.s. senate discusses a bill to provide aid to ukraine. john kerry appears on the house floor.

he discusses the situation in ukraine. that is followed by representative marcy kaptur. >> on the next washington journal, the congressman michael cap lawndale -- capuano discusses an idea to eliminate freddie mac and fannie mae. then we discussed the investigation into the irs. and we will return to the administration cost budget. washington journal is live every morning at 7:00 a.m. on the span -- c-span. you can join the conversation on facebook or twitter. >> the house foreign affairs committee hold a hearing on right -- friday. it will discuss the house

committee that deals with relations on taiwan. >> it is time to create new jobs, to build and rebuild industry, and to give the american people room to do what they do best. that can only be done by tax program that increases productivity. for a 10% across the board cut every year for three years. that is for all individual income tax payers. that will make the total cut 30% of stop that three or reduction will also apply to the tax on earned income. a will lead to differentiation between the tax on earned income and unearned income. i hope that we can be retroactive on this. stands, the 10% federal income tax reduction will call

for july 1 of this year. that, let me remind you well this 30% reduction will lead -- leave the taxpayers with $5 billion more in their pockets. it is only a reduction in the tax increase already built into the system. unlike some tax reforms, this is not merely a shift of wealth. yearse highlights from 35 of house floor coverage on our facebook age. c-span, created by america's cable companies 35 years ago. we are brought to you today as a public service by your television provider. >> the group of seven senators led by john mccain are headed to ukraine tonight. they will meet with that country's political leaders. mccain took his party to

task on thursday for blocking be that -- the senate ukraine aid bill. it guarantees $1 billion to ukraine and imposes sanctions against russia. some of the republican senators blocking the measure are part of delegation heading to ukraine. this is one hour 15 minutes. it includes senator mendez, senator corker, senator reid, and senator cruz. to object -- the presiding officer: the senator from arizona. mr. mccain: madam president, the majority leader has asked that we move and pad -- pass this legislation which was considered in the senate foreign relations committee, was open for amendment. several amendments were adopted. several were rejected. and by a vote of 14-3 the senate foreign relations committee reported out this bill. why should we care about this legislation?

i will try to be as brief as possible, but i urge my colleagues' attention to the latest "new york times" report today "russia massing military forces near border with ukraine." russian forces are massing near the border with ukraine, airborne, ground capabilities, example, an individual added, noting that the parachute drop was on a scale not seen since the collapse of the soviet union. the forces there are by -- the training of units involve at least assault artillery batteries, assault helicopters and at least 14,000 soldiers. as we speak vladimir putin is either planning on or contemplating an invasion of

eastern ukraine. we've seen the movie before, provocateurs, people having to come and restore order. there is no order and then we see military intervention. and then there is going to be another referendum such as supposed to take place on sunday in the crimea, which i predict 80% of the vote will do so when that is clearly not what the will of the people of crimea are. so -- incredibly, incredibly there will be an objection from this side to this legislation when the people of ukraine are crying out for our help and our assistance. my friend from -- senator barrasso will now be proposing the house amendment that has not one single sanction in it. not one sanction. i'm surprised that the senator would want to propose a bill that doesn't have any punishment for the russians for what they are doing right now.

and then another one of my colleagues will probably come out and object to us passing, taking up and passing the bill that was put through the senate foreign relations committee, open to amendments in a process that could not be criticized by anyone. so what's the message we're sending to the ukrainian people? what's the message we're sending them? that we have a problem with a fix for the i.m.f.. and then also there are some who are demanding changes in the regulation by the treasury department concerning campaign contributions. why what -- what has happened? where are our priorities? is the i.m.f., no matter whether it's fixed or not fixed with this legislation, more important than the lives of thousands of people? is that what we're talking about here? i will say to my friends who were objecting to this -- and there are a number of them on my

side -- you can call yourself republicans. that's fine because that's your voter registration. don't call yourself reagan republicans. ronald reagan would never, would never let this kind of aggression go unresponded to by the american people, and we're not talking about -- we're not talking about troops on the ground. we are talking about responses that impose sanctions and punishment for vladimir putin, who clearly has said that his goal -- the greatest disaster of the 20th century was the dissolution, the collapse of the then-soviet union. we know what vladimir putin is all about, and we know what he understands. so now because of an i.m.f. fix, or a campaign finance fix, we are now going to reject a piece of legislation that was done in a bipartisan basis with the leadership of the chairman who i see on the floor, of which i'm

proud, ranking member, senator corker of tennessee, and we're going to say no. and you know the most ridiculous thing about all of this is? that the majority leader has filed cloture. we have well over 60 votes. so we're going to be back in about 11 or 12 days, whatever it is. cloture will have been expired. it's well over 60 votes. and we will pass this. instead our signal to the people of ukraine today as russian military forces are massing on their border, wait a minute, it's more important that we get our campaign finance regulations fixed. it's more important that we have the i.m.f. fix is a higher priority than the lives of the men and women in the ukraine. i've been embarrassed before on the floor of the senate, i will tell the president, but i haven't been embarrassed this

way about members of my own party. one of the most proudest aspects i've always felt of our republican party and the leadership of ronald reagan and others is we stood up for people. we stood up for people when the iron curtain was there. we stood up for natan scharansky. we said tear down this guy. now we've got this guy and what are we saying? no. a shameful day. i will not object. mr. menendez: madam president, reserving the right to object, and it is not my ultimate intention to object, but hopefully to persuade my colleagues not to object, you know, i have been watching my colleagues on television, in committee, on the senate floor

rail about what is happening in the ukraine, rail about the lack of action from their perspecti perspective, and here we are at a moment that after a very considered process in the senate foreign relations committee, which i'm privileged to chair, working alongside with the ranking member, senator corker, and with colleagues such as senator mccain, a distinguished member of the committee, with a very strong bipartisan vote on a major piece of legislation, that in fact when it comes time to act, we have those who say "noings" even thoug"noings" --who say "no," ey go on tv and bemoan the lack of afntle i finaction. i find it incredibly difficult to suggest that what the house

passed can be the only response to what is happening in the ukraine. yes, it is a loan guarantee, which we include in our legislation. but, by the way, everything we do we pay for. so for those who are fiscally conservative and are concerned about it, we pay for what we seek to do. that cannot be said of the house. secondly, we go beyond a loan guarantee, as important as that loan guarantee is to making an expression to the ukrainian government, to the ukrainian people, to our partners in europe and in nato. we say that there has to be responsibility taken for those who corrupted the ukrainian government, for those who undermined its sovereignty, for those who unde undermined its security. so we have provisions, both permissive and mandatory, to sanction individuals who are found -- have been found to, in fact, so corrupted the

circumstances and/or affected the territorial integrity or sovereignty of the ukraine. one of them is sponsored by senator mccain, which was adopted unanimously, mandatory provision. you want to be doing something about russia. you can not do it with the house bill. you can only do it with the senate bill. and now the i.m.f. -- i respect people who for some reason have an ideological difference about monetary decisions. but you want to talk about security, you will not have security in the ukraine if you cannot stablize it monetarily. and a $1 billion loan guarantee is not enough to make that happen. it is the i.m.f. that is going to be the singular force to create economic stability inside the ukraine, which is

fundamental to meeting our security challenge as well. now, to hold i.m.f. reform hostage to the question of whether unlimited campaign money can go in our elections without deciding whether or not that is being done appropriately under the law, as it exists, is outrageous. there is a reason we care about ukraine. it is not simply because we want to do the right thing by a country that has been invaded in the crimea and for which thousands of russian troops and equipment are amassing along its border in eastern ukraine. it is because this has a global consequence. if the west doesn't act, what will china say when it's looking at it's territorial desires in the south china sea? what will iran say it is we are

negotiating with them about nuclear weapons? what will others in the world -- in north korea, whose march to nuclear weapons on a greater scale is in play -- all of them will be looking at what we and the west do as it relates to the ukraine and making a decision, how far can i go? what can i get away with? and to be able to stablize the ukraine, you need to ultimately have the international monetary fund. and to hold that hostage because of investigations going on, wherever they may lead and however they may lead to the question of campaign finance moneys may be inappropriately ultimately be used in violation of law is pretty outrageous. so what's at play here is our

national interest, our national security, the sovereignty of the people of the ukraine, the message that we will send across the world about what we stand ready to do. that should not be hostage to political interests that have nothing to do with those issues. so, for all of those who have been getting up and making speeches, for all of those who have been going on tv with plenty of criticism, here is your opportunity to act and act now. and there is no reason that we cannot do that at this moment. with that, madam president, i yield the floor. and i withdraw my reservation. mr. corker: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from tennessee. mr. corker: i'll be brief. i want to say to the leader, we certainly have had some discussions regarding operations on the senate floor and the speed with which we deal with witthings and the amount of deb. but i want to thank him for

trying to bring this issue to a vote today. i want to thank him for what he's going to do in a moment -- and that is to file cloture on this piece of legislation that passed out of our committee with strong bipartisan support so immediately what we get back we'll take it up. i do wish we could do it tonight. we have a group of seven or eight senators on their way to ukraine. nothing would be better than for them to know that we passed this strong piece of legislation out this weekend while, by the way, there's getting ready to be a referendum that's going to take place early next week in crimea, while we have russian troops on the border, while we have a prime minister that was here last night showing extreme courage, a 39-year-old man, dealing with the issues that he's met with today. we will not have the opportunity to take action on this issue. i do want to say, though, whenever we take it up -- and it appears it will not be tonight;

hopefully it will be as soon as we get back -- this is a strong piece of legislation. it deals both with giving ukraine a bridge to the future, while they're dealing with economic issues internally. it deals with sanctions to isolate russia, the thing that we all know needs to happen, to keep them from continuing this activity. and it puts in place the reforms that our country has already agreed to, that congress has not taken action on, that makes the i.m.f. more fully able to deal with this issue, which is a poster child for why you would want the i.m.f. to operate in a responsible and strong manner. so i support this legislation strongly. i thank the chairman for working with us the way he did. i thank chairman -- chairman mccain. maybe that'll happen. i thank mccain for his leadership on these issues. and, again, i want to thank the

leader for placing this in an urgent manner before the senate today. i lament the fact that we won't vote on it today. but hopefully we'll pass it broadly when we run. with that, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator -- the assistant majority leader. mr. durbin: reserving the right to object -- and i will going to be brief, but i want to make this point: it is rare that we take an action on the floor of the senate that is watched around the world. and that is happening tonight. that is happening tonight. because the crisis in crimea and ukraine has focused the attention of the world on russian aggression, aggression by a country which hosted the sochi olympics, a charm offensive so that we could see the new russia. the day after the final ceremonies, they sent their troops into the crimea. that isn't the new russia. that's the old russia. it is a russia that many of us are familiar with. a russia for many of us that have lithuanian blood -- my

mother was born there -- remember what happened there. we remember and we know that the ambitions of vladimir putin will only be stopped with the resolve of the west, the resolve of the west starts here in this chamber tonight, an opportunity for members on both sides of the aisle to stand up and to approve the measure which passed the senate foreign relations committee yesterday 14-4, with the great leadership of senator menendez of leadership, senator corker of tennessee, a bipartisan effort to say that what the russians have done is wrong, that if they continue this course, we will initiate political and economic sanctions and that we will join the international community in strengthening the ukrainian economy so that it can prosper and embrace democracy i and the western values, which we treasure much that's what'. that's what's at stake with this

request this evening. to hear people say, well, let's not do it because we really should debate the future of the i.m.f. ... for goodness sakes, can't we save that for another day? for the people in ukraine? for those in america of ukrainian descent, can't we say, we'll save for another day the debate on the i.m.f.? and others have suggested that there's another -- another course of action here. if they say -- they say, if we want to help ukraine, we have to say the u.s. department of treasury cannot investigate violations of 051-c-4 organizations. what does that have to do with ukraine? nothing. here's what it boils down to: those who are making that demand are saying we cannot protect ukraine unless we're prepared to protect the koch brothers from the possibility of investigation and prosecution for wrongdoing. that's what it comes down to. that is an outrage. if you submitted that as a plot

line to "house of cards," they'd reject it and say nothing could be so outlandish. but we've heard it -- not once but many tiessments fo many tim. let's stand up tonight and send a message to russia and to the ukraine that we stand behind those people whose lives are at stake, as they try to move forward toward democracy, as they move forward toward a free election. let's stand behind them and not hide behind some procedural effort. i will not object to this effort and hope that the unanimous consent request is agreed to. mr. barrasso: madam president, reserving the right to object, today russia's defense minister announced new military operations in regions along the ukrainian border, a disturbing development that comes a day after ukraine's interim prime minister visited prime minister and met with members of this body. we are now faced with the inescapable reality that the

senate is about to enter a recess week, having taken no meaningful action to aid the interim government in kiev. we are left with one option: taking up and passing the house-passed bill, which authorizes $1 billion in loan guarantees. we can pass that measure now by unanimous consent and as sure our friends in -- and assure our friends in ukraine that they are not forgotten. the senate foreign relations committee bill congresstain provisions that are unrelated -- contains provisions that are unrelated to the crisis in ukraine and not needed immediately and must be debated by this body. the bill also contains sanctions, cuts to the department of defense and other appropriations provisions. the foreign relations committee bill touches the jurisdiction of several committees and is certain to be met with opposition and perhaps a protracted conference with the house. where were we to take it up today, in the face of russian armored vehicles, we are offering rhetoric, despite the

fact that the committee bill addresses matters within the jurisdiction of the armed services committee, the appropriations committee, cuts to defense department spending, the chairman of the committee refused yesterday -- yesterday -- to allow me to offer amendments concerning the export of natural gas to markets in europe. the senate should debate whether or not helping the ukrainians through the export of natural gas ighast-- ofnatural gas is i. "the wall street journal," "west tries to loosen russia's grip." "u.s. hopes gas boom can undercut putin." the senate should debate whether helping the ukraineians with the export of natural gas, it should have that debate. but none of those matters can be addressed today, none of them conform the only bill that can get to the president quickly is the house-passed bill and we should pass it now. so, madam president, i object.

the presiding officer: objection is heard. mr. barrasso: now, i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of calendar number 328, h.r. 4152. i ask unanimous consent that the bill be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table. mr. reid: madam president? the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. reid: reserving the right to object. the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: i was talking to my friend, the senior senator from arizona, a little while ago. he and i came here many, many years ago together. from the house of representatives. we came to the senate together. we're separated because arizona has more people than nevada -- in certainty. during those many years, we've had some experiences here in the senate that are memorable.

i don't know as much -- and that's an understatement -- about military preparedness and the military as john mccain does. that is a gross understatement. but he is somebody that we should listen to when it comes to things dealing with aggression and military operations. madam president, ukraine is kind of personal to me. a baby was born, his parents named him israel goldfarb. he was with his parents, brought to the united states, changed his name. that man is my wife's dad. my father-in-law. he was born in the ukraine.

my wife landa and i have been to ukraine. and this is dealing more with more than someone's father-in-law, may he rest in peace. it deals with 45 million freedom-loving people who are being threatened by the big bear, wanting to return to the days of the soviet union, and for my friend, the senator from wyoming, to come here and say there is nothing we could do about this today, that is absolutely wrong. there is plenty we could do about it today. but we're not going to do that. why? well, my friend says there are committees who are concerned about jurisdiction. now, how does -- how do the people in ukraine feel about that one? how do they feel about that?

that the bipartisan heavy vote that we got out of the markup in the foreign relations committee, they may have stepped on someone's toes dealing with the jurisdiction of the committee. madam president, this is -- this is much more important than that. the international monetary fund is very much related to ukraine, and my friend from wyoming knows that. he's on the committee. he knows about the importance of the i.m.f. 45 million people are desperate for help. they are afraid. they are afraid. russia has deployed paratroopers to the border with ukraine. they didn't -- they didn't drive in. they were dropped from the air. these russian cold war tactics and this president putin, i -- i

want to make a suggestion to him, and that's this. he is going to have this plebe site on sunday -- plebe side on sunday in the crime yeah. why doesn't he have one in chechnya? what would happen there? would they support russia? no. they are an oppressed people because of vladimir putin. he wants to have a vote on what the people of the russian federation want to do, let them vote in chechnya, see how that vote would turn out. this is so transparent what he is doing illegally. these cold war tactics, trying to intimidate the 41 million people in the ukraine, that's just what it is, intimidation. the entire world condemns what he has done, with rare, rare exception, and they are going to condemn even more if he goes further because action will have

to be taken to isolate russia and its economy. this robust bill passed by the foreign relations committee to the floor is important. madam president, i don't throw around a lot of accolades, especially of my republican colleagues. i should do more, but i don't. i have to get better at that. but i have told personally and i tell the people of tennessee and the people of this country and the people around the world, the speech that was given by the ranking member of that committee, the junior senator from tennessee yesterday in that committee was historic. it was a wonderful speech that set aside bipartisanship and directed its attention to what is going on in a part of the world that must concern us. this measure that comes from the house of representatives, i can't -- i can't do better than what the senior senator from

arizona said. how can we send eight of our senators to ukraine and say yeah, we decided to do something but we're not going to do anything to suggest in any way that what russia has done is wrong. there is not a sanction that would cause anything to happen with what the house has done. i -- i can't imagine, i can't imagine how anyone in good conscience, after what has gone on since the last few days, how anyone could agree to do something. our great country is going to go to ukraine and tell them that we passed something that helps you, although we don't condemn russia in any fashion in the resolution. we're being asked to agree to that? i don't think so, madam president. the role of the i.m.f. in stabilizing ukraine's economy

and keeping ukraine free is important, but it's important not only for the ukrainians, it's important for this country. it's part of our national security interests. so we know that the people are upset about committee jurisdiction, and we know it's out in the public that -- and i have kept this to myself for quite some time because it was done when we were doing other things like the omnibus efforts made at that time to just give up on the investigations of the koch brothers and all the others. and remember, treasury is not investigating only republican super pac's. they are investigating super pac's, as they should. republican super pac's, tea party super pac's, libertarian super pac's, all of them. if that isn't something that should be investigated, i don'tt know what is.

now, i have talked about senator mccain's efforts in recognizing and identifying us and we listened because of his experience in the military, but we should also listen to what he says about campaign spending. i'm sorry to take so long. i know people want to leave, but i want to say this. i have been part of raising money here in washington for a long time, more than three decades. and i have done it when i first came here, the only money you could get, you listed where they worked, their address, everything about them, and then you will remember there was a way they found -- both parties found a way to sneak it. they did it through corporations. they fund the one through state parties. i remember that. i felt so unclean, for lack of a better description. people give you these big checks

to give to the state party. and then mccain-feingold passed. the next election, it was as if i had taken a bath, a bath after having run a marathon. john mccain understands why we need to investigate all this soft money, the super pac money, and when he says it, we should listen. maybe you don't want to listen to me, but we should listen to john mccain because he has a record substantiating his efforts on that behalf. so this thing is being objected to, what we're trying to do here, protect the 45 million people in the ukraine because of this investigation, the koch brothers and others. young people not going to get into details about social welfare organizations and all that. we all know the political front groups that spend millions of dollars on misleading ads, and it's unfortunate. so it's too bad that we have this. it's hard to believe that some

are so wedded to the koch brothers and others that they would torpedo a bill that is vital to the national execute of this country and the freedom of tens of millions of ukrainians and the birthplace of my wife's dad. this is wrong, and i am very disappointed, very disappointed in my friend from -- -- from wyoming, that he would come forward and do this. i tell you, it takes a lot of courage because there isn't a lot of academic integrity in that -- strike the word integrity. there isn't a lot of foundation for what he has done. it is unreasonable, it is unfair, and it's about -- without substantiation, and i object. mr. sessions: madam president? madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from arizona. mr. mccain: i thank you, madam president. i know that the senator from alabama wants to speak, and i can assure him i will not remain on the floor to hear it.

because i know what the senator from alabama is going to say, that it has something to do with paying for out of defense spending. i'll match my record with the senator of alabama on defense spending any time, day or night. and the fact is that this money is taken out of programs that were already canceled and were going to be returned to the treasury, and if they had been used for defense, then it would have busted the budget agreement that the senator from alabama has so stoutly defended time after time. so i -- in a bit of preemption of the senator from alabama, your argument is wrong that this is taking money out of defense. you are dead wrong. so all i can say is i'd say to my colleagues again, the senator from wyoming came down and wants us to take up and pass a bill passed by the house of representatives which has not a single binding sanction in it,

not one. not one binding sanction in it. not one strong message to the people of ukraine that we're supporting them. russia's defense ministry announced -- russia's defense ministry announced new military operations in several regions near the ukrainian border on thursday. even as chancellor angela merkley -- merkel warned, the acting president of ukraine was quoted bayou cranian news media as saying russia forces that had massed near the border were ready to invade. so we now have russian forces about to invade a sovereign nation, and what are we talking about? an i.m.f. fix. suppose the senator from alabama was right and this is some money that's being taken out of national defense.

how much money are we going to have to spend on national defense if vladimir putin goes unchecked throughout europe? and the next target, by the way, will be the baltic countries because they have russian-speaking pop laigz -- populations as well, and we may have to have provocations there. voldova, georgia where russia occupies abkazia. but what are we arguing about? whether the i.m.f. fix is appropriate or not. what are we arguing about? whether it is in dispute as to whether this is actually some reductions in defense spending. where in the world is our priorities? where in the world is our sympathy and our concern and our need to support the people of ukraine in this hour of need?

so -- and i don't want to go on too long, but the issue of natural gas, we all know that that's the way out of it long term. does anybody think that including a provision on natural gas is going to have any effect whatsoever on events that are now happening and will happen in the next few days? of course not. i'm a strong supporter of getting natural gas to these countries, but it's not going to happen in the next days, weeks, months or maybe even years. so to use that as an excuse, of course, is, again -- i have watched in the last few months two fool's errands. one was when we shut down the government. we were all so proud we shut down the government, turned away 600,000 people from our national parks, took $27 million out of the economy of my state, on a fool's errand that was not going to succeed. now we see another fool's errand because the majority leader will file cloture, there will be well

over 60 votes and ten or 11 or how many days from now, we will pass it and these sanctions will be enacted. in the meantime, in the meantime, the first message to the people of ukraine who are -- had russians in the view of the ukrainian president ready to invade, we are telling him no because we don't agree with an i.m.f. fix or we think the money may be or may not be coming out of defense. a senator: will senate yield for a brief question? mr. mccain: i would be glad to. mr. murphy: thank you, senator mccain. senator mccain and i were in ukraine at the end of last year and we had the privilege to speak on the maidan in front of about half a million people, maybe even a million people who were there protesting the current government, the corruption that had reigned free, their decision to move away from an orientation towards europe, and after senator mccain's remarks, the crowd

rose up with a chant of thank you, u.s.a., thank you, u.s.a. and wherever we went during that trip they were desperate for the help of the united states. and they are grateful for the fact that both the house and the senate is moving forward on the issue of providing loan guarantees, that aren't nearly enough, that's why we need to have the i.m.f. reform so they can deliver the bulk of the assistance but they feel they are standing virtually alone as russia marchs across their borders and desperately want the united states to lead an international consensus to make it clear to the russians there's a price to be paid. the russians marched into crimea because they didn't believe the united states and europe would enact the kind of crippling sanctions that would have otherwise caused them to make a different decision. and what this moment could be about right now on the floor of the senate as we head back over to the ukraine to express our support that there is bipartisan

consensus in the senate and the house that we're not only going to stand with them on the question of economic support but we are going to enact a set of sanctions that will make russia consider a different decision. and my question to senator mccain, as important as the economic support is, that's not what they're asking for here. they're not asking for the passage of the house bill. they're asking for the united states as we have time and time again to lead an international consensus to send a strong message to russia and we're going to go over there and have a good series of meetings this weekend but we could have had a much stronger message to be brought to them if we answered their call ultimately to provide economic support and, and stand with our partners in europe sending a strong message to the russians. mr. mccain: i thank my friend from connecticut and i want to say that if we take up and pass the house bill, it does one thing. it gives them loan guarantees for $1 billion. there's not one single other binding provision in the house bill that my colleague from

wyoming wanted to take up and pass instead of this bill which went through the committee with the input, by the way, of the administration, this bipartisan administration cooperation on it, and i would urge my colleagues to read the provisions of this bill. they are tough. they are tough, enforceable provisions that will make vladimir putin and his owing agark corruption uncomfortable. -- oligarch corruption uncomfortable. one of the reasons vladimir putin is doing what he's doing, he's afraid of a free and independent and noncorrupt ukraine on his border might send a message to the russian people. sanctions on the russian federation complicit or responsible for significant corruption is a major provision of this bill. sanctions on persons responsible for violence or undermining the peace, security, stability, sovereignty or territorial integrity of ukraine.

there are many other provisions in this bill which are binding which will make life very uncomfortable. instead my dear friend -- and he is my dear friend from wyoming wants us to take up and pass a bill that has one thing and one thing only, a billion-dollar loan guarantee. by the way, the e.u. has given them $15 billion. all i can say is we will pass this legislation and we will go and we will assure our ukranian friends this bill will be passed and we will act and i hope people at home, i hope people that know ukraine and know the people of ukraine and know the friends and relatives and others will make it known to their elected representatives that for us to sit by and not help these people is would be writing a disgraceful chapter in american history. i thank my colleague. mr. corker: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from ken tennessee. mr. corker: if i could just add to the comments of senator

mccain. we met last night mite knight with the prime minister -- last night with the prime minister. they don't need this economic aid today. they have to sign an i.m.f. agreement agreement first. it's weeks before they even need what the senator from wyoming wished to pass. on the other hand, what we're trying to do is to push russia back and as the leader mentioned, this bill has tough sanctions, and, by the way, europe is meeting on monday to begin looking at the sanctions they want to put in place. so if we were to pass the sanctions that we have in this bill which are tough sanctions, sanctions that we have never imposed before, sanctions on economic extortion, sanctions on corruption, what that would do is help boost the european community along to do the same thing. our goal is to isolate russia, to keep them from continuing to put pressure on ukraine. i couldn't grate more. with why -- agree more.

why would we pass a bill that does no good as it relates to trying to push russia back and isolate them when we have an opportunity right now to pass a bill that shows that we're willing to isolate russia and actually give strength to what european community is getting ready to do, hopefully this next week. so i agree, i wish we were taking up the bill that we all worked on together that passed by huge bipartisan majority and i wish we could send you off with the sanctions in hand passed out of the senate to show the people of ukraine that while militarily there may not be involvement, we stand together with them to do everything we can to isolate russia, to isolate putin, and to make sure that economically they pay a huge price if they try to take any other actions in this area. so i agree with you. i yield the floor. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the majority leader.

mr. reid: there has been an objection, i think unfairly but there has been an objection today. but everyone should understand the first legislative matter we will take up when we get back here is going to be this. there's nothing that i know of at this time that's more important than this. so senators should be aware of this. this nothing we're going to run from. we're going to act on it shoes we get back. it's really too bad we haven't been able to move forwards on this. we would should have, a could have but we'll move to it as soon as we get back. the presiding officer: the senator from alabama. mr. sessions: madam president, what's happening in the ukraine is a real disaster. it should never have happened, it's so bad, and it reflects a weakness in american foreign policy that goes deep, the american people understand that, i think the whole world is baffled at the lack of clarity in american foreign policy and by say if john mccain had been elected president and were president

today we would never have had this invasion of the soviets, the russians in the ukraine, in the crimea. so this is a big problem. it's not going away. it's a very deep, serious problem. the fundamental thing that we can do today, we should do today is move forward with what the united states can contribute to this situation, which is pass the $1 billion loan fund. the european union is doing that, 15 through the i.m.f. why don't we do that? why don't we do that? the reason is this leadership is determined to push forward a policy change in the international monetary fund that's been up here before the congress since 2010 and has not been passed and does not have to be passed today. they have insisted on that. they have placed the ukraine in

second place to their reforms that they've been pushing for with the i.m.f. and there are serious problems with that. it gives russia more clout, among other things -- not a lot but gives them more clout in the international monetary fund. and it costs money and it violates the budget. i'm the ranking member on the budget committee. it's subject to a budget point of order. there's no doubt about that, anybody can suggest otherwise if they want to but it violates the budget. and we ought not to be doing this in violation of the budget. we don't have to. we don't have to. but this administration negotiated with senator mccain and senator corker and the leadership of the -- the democratic leadership in the senate and they agreed, this would be the policy. not what the house passed but they would add more to it, they would reform the i.m.f. and we

were all just supposed to accept it. and i told senator from tennessee, a very fine senator, that i'm be ranking on the budget. he knows that. we work together to try to adhere to the spending limits congress has imposed on ourselves. we just voted on this ten years ago, the president signed this reform, that raised the spending but limited it and they want to spend more than that in a way that's not legitimate. so i'm just baffled, why in the world would we not take advantage of the -- yes, that the house has sent to us, pass this legislation, allow us to make our individual contribution of a billion dollars -- and, by the way, we're scoring it about $315 million -- about $50 million because it's unlikely we'll be fully paid back.

so why don't we do that? is it pride? is it pique? is it politics? i can't imagine it. so you don't get everything you want, colleagues. take what you can get. it's really the only thing that amounts to anything now. the i.m.f. has put the $15 billion up. they don't need this reform to do their loan money, their aid to the ukraine. they don't need this legislation for that. why is it so important? senator durbin said, well, we should -- why can't we debate this another day? right. why can't we debate the i.m.f. another day? the reason would be, if his bill were to pass, the debate is over. the law that the president wants to pass would pass without congressional involvement smith and -- in it and members of congress have been dealing with

these issues for a long time. it's a serious question. it does not need to be here today on this legislation. it just does not. and like i said, i've warned our colleagues that we do not need to be passing legislation that's not paid for in this fashion, and i would object to it. they had time here to fix it. but no attempt to fix it. and so it's a little disturbing to me to see colleagues who themselves have decided what the best solution is come to the floor and attack those of us who have a good-faith objection to it. when we're perfectly prepared to support the fundamental thing that needs to be done, and that is the $1 billion loan package, the united states pass agreed to fund, the congress -- the house has agreed to support, i

support, virtually every member of congress supports but not this big reform package of i.m.f. that is not justified. i really feel deeply that this is a big mistake. why in the world we wouldn't act today and take yes for an answer, i can't imagine. this just goes beyond what i think is realistic. madam president, i would conclude by saying again, something is very wrong with the foreign policy of the united states of america. and i don't think whether we reform the i.m.f. or not is not going to send a message to russia. so the idea that somehow we're going to affect them by exactly what is passed here today i believe is incorrect and i

believe fundamentally that this package is what we can do, what we should do and we should do it today. and we should come back and be prepared to impose serious sanctions or whatever the president asks for. and finally i'm disappointed that the president of the united states is not more consultive with congress in order to determine what it is that we need to pass legislation, and would continue to insist on passing reform legislation of the international monetary fund that in all likelihood will be rejected by the house. so i just feel like we're through the looking glass here. i hate the tensions are so high, but if we would take yes for an answer, pass this the house bill, -- have a full evaluation of reform of i.m.f. and pass sanctions as we go

forward, that would be the right thing for us to do. i would yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cruz: madam president, i want to commend the senator from alabama and the senator from wyoming for their leadership on this important issue. the crisis in ukraine has riveted our attention for the last four months as we've seen brave men and women standing in the freezing cold, standing for freedom, standing for their desire to stand with the west, to stand with europe, to stand with america and be free from the domination of putin's russia. we all strongly support the efforts of ukranian people to choose a different path from sub juggation to russia, to choose choose -- sub juggation with russia, and closer friendship with the west. all of us on both sides of the chamber are united in decrying the military aggression of

russian strongman vladimir putin as he has invaded a sovereign nation with military force, committing an act of war, and no one should be confused as to what mr. putin is attempting to do, indeed acting ukranian prime minister said very clearly that putin is trying to reestablish the borders of the old soviet union, is expanding, expanding sadly into a vacuum of leadership the united states has not been filling, russia is filling that vacuum. and the seizure of crimea is only the beginning of putin's aggressiveness and he will continue i would predict to be aggressive. unless he meets significant resistance. we're united in believing that there is an important role for the united states to play in responding to this crisis. i believe that we should take concrete actions to respond to

russia's invasion of the crimea. number one, we should press to expel russia from the g-8. number two, the administration should immediately begin enforcing the magnitsky act, which it has failed to do up to this point, designed to punish human rights atrocities by russian officials. and indeed we should expand it to include ukrainian human rightrights abusers. and we should immediately reinstall the anti-ballistic missiles that president obama mistakenly canceled in an effort to appease mr. putin. that effort did not succeed and we should go forward with allowing eastern europe to defend itself. additionally, there is a great deal we can do to aid the people of ukraine. the people should immediately

offer the government of ukraine a free trade agreement, indicating that their goods are welcome in the united states and our goods in their country, and we should explore other options to assist them in economic recovery, consistent with free market principles. including a moving as quickly as possible to allow them access to u.s. energy exports, and in particular liquid natural gas. russia uses liquid natural gas as a tool of economic blame. this is critical to the source of russia's power, not just over ukraine but over much of europe. the united states is blessed with abundant supplies of natural gas, and it is only foolhardy government policy that hands in the way of our exporting that natural gas, meeting the need and helping ukraine be free of the economic blackmail. we should move immediately in that regard not just because it would help ukraine, not just because it would represent a serious blow to russia, which

russia relies on the energy exports. and if the united states provides them instead, that's a serious economic blow to russia, but because it makes perfect sense from the perspective of the united states of america, from our economic interests, at a time when we've got the lowest labor rate participation, when millions of people are out of work and hurting, we should be developing and expanding our resources, and energy provides an opportunity to transform the geopolitical playing field, to use our abundant resources i s n this a -- resources in a free market manner to free and liberate the people of ukraine. there is also a financial component of the assistance to ukraine that it makes a sense should come from the international monetary fund. that's what it was created to do. and the i.m.f. today stands fully capable of meeting that

need. now, madam president, my friend from arizona has an admirable passion on this issue for the people of ukraine and for stand up to mr. putin, and i commend my friend from arizona for his passion in this regard. however, the reason this bill has not passed today is because the majority of this chamber, the majority leader made a decision, the chairman of the senate foreign relations committee made a decision to inject into the aid and sanctions plan for ukraine an extraneous issue, an issue of the i.m.f. that has nothing to do with the underlying issue. that was a mistake. that was a mistake, and i would suggest these so-called i.m.f. reforms are misguided policy. they don't make sense for four separate reasons. number one, they're unnecessary. there is no need whatsoever for these reforms. indeed, the i.m.f. is perfectly capable of managing the task on

hand, and estimates have shown ukrainian aid would cost no more than 5% of its current resources. so this -- the i.m.f. portions are unnecessary, extrinsic. i agree with the speaker of the house, john boehner, who says these i.m.f. so-called reforms are unnecessary and extrinsic to this bill. but, number two, these i.m.f. provisions, if passed into law, would dramatically expand the financial exposure of the united states of america, effectively doubling our contribution, expanding our exposure. now, if that is good policy, that should be debated on its merits. we should not be opening up the u.s. taxpayers to billions in additional financial reliability. it shouldn't just be tied to ukrainian aid and forced through the senate. that's the wrong approach. but, number three, most inexexplicably, these so-called