syria. what that is all about, they want to push the war in syria because they want us to get as into a war with iran. this is going to be very dangerous. we should stay out of it. i am a syrian-american. i am also a russian. good leader.ry let him do with russia when he wants to do with russia. george washington warned us to stay out of foreign entanglement and we are playing a dangerous game if we get into world war iii. ushijacked.com. >host: rachel, is that where you're getting the information? caller: i'm getting it from there and also "the guardian" and also rt and also al jazeera. host: rachel in california. any response to what she had to say? guest: not really. i think there's a lot of separate issues should talk

about from iran to syria to russia. betweeny connection what we're doing in russia and the situation in syria and israel and iran? guest: there is a connection, obviously, and that we have been working with putin to alleviate the chemical warfare situation, chemical weapons in syria. and certainly there is some potential implications and how we deal with syria and iran if we sever relationships with putin as a result of ukraine. that is something to consider in the whole scheme of the situation. host: cameron, south carolina, independent caller. caller: yeah, how are you doing? i know a little bit about the region. i spent 15 years they're putting in the infrastructure in the eastern europe -- ukraine, romania, those countries.

i'm not an actual expert, but i on. what iis going i have friends there who did me words from the street, crimea and all that good the biggest question i have is i don't understand -- after watching the -- theom all of europe bbc, reuters -- they are scared to death about this new government in kiev. the reason they are scared to death is they are extreme fascists, and they don't know what is going to happen. host: ok. congresswoman, what do you know about this new interim government in ukraine? guest: the only thing i do know an effort is that the new president is a baptist pastor from evangelical pastor, so i have heard good things about him . so this is interesting news that the caller had. we will have to look into it.

south carolina, democratic caller bank at, walter, you are on the air. caller: hello. good morning. i just want to remind america keep saying we don't want more and we can't afford another war, but we keep electing people that's going to send us to war. when we keep electing republicans -- you listen to john mccain and all those republicans. if we keep electing republicans come we are going to be another war. host: ok. you want to respond to that, congresswoman? guest: the president is the commander in chief and he is of course a democrat who is negotiating with us and come as he should come as the leader of our country, and i know that anyone wants to go to war -- i don't think anyone wants to go to war and i don't know anyone who is calling for a good but we need to be strong with economic sanctions and let putin know

that we are going to be strong for freedom and standby others in the world, democracies want freedom as well. host: what you read from this whole from pew research? most say that the united states should not get too involved in ukraine situation. 29% said take a firm stand against russian actions. guest: i think it is just, you know, confusion about what are the options, what should we do, what could we do. i think most people feel for the people of ukraine. we recognize it is not right to have a country just come in and more or less takeover your streets, your military installations, your airports, just to be surrounded by soldiers and guns, people who didn't do anything. like our last caller, most

people have war fatigue after being at war in afghanistan for 13 years. we need to try to look at other options if possible to avert a large-scale war. livingnolimits tweets in guest: a good start is what we passed yesterday, allowing up to a billion dollars of the part of money that the state department has available for other countries in need to give some financial assistance to ukraine to help them during this crisis. so that is a good start. we will have to go from there. a lot of it will depend on the reaction of putin and what happens in the future. host: bill is next in pennsylvania, republican caller. caller: yes, good morning gang. so nice to hear from you, you are wonderful.

congresswoman, i just came from europe among -- came from europe, and i want to tell you something. the woman who called you before, the russian woman, she explained to you what can happen. i don't think you should be smiling. i think you should be crying. i've been there, i was there for a month, i know what is going on. everybody is scared. everybody is waiting for the united states to come and get us. i don't know if -- i don't care if you are republicans and democrats, all the same, no difference between you. i want to explain to you one thing, ok? you are going to send money over there. you're going to put sanctions over there. you did it to iraq, you did it to other countries. for did you accomplish america and the american people? zero, nothing. host: all right, let's get a response. guest: well, we certainly have

in thelot for america meantime, but it is most important, our involvement in afghanistan prevented more terrorists coming to this country. that is where the terror camps were, that is where the attacks on 9/11 were conceived. we have a vital security interest to get involved over there. it has been a tough conflict. but we haven't had another thatk on our land since because of the service and second rise of german women and the investment we have made here. that is worth a lot -- service and sacrifice of our men and women and the investment we have made here. that is worth a lot. we need to get the economy going and jobs created and make sure that people have affordable health care, and there are any other things i'm focused on and others are focused on here that we need to address, including becoming energy independent. we have a full plate of things here to work on on behalf of the american people. , certainlyto do it

making sure that our nationstates safe if one of our highest -- is one of our highest and most important priorities. host: the papers this morning talking about the struggles the united states faces to ease the between russia and europe, if sections were to go through. the impact on europe, especially germany, would be tough for those countries. the headline in "the wall street journal," "are postal to export natural gas faces snags." have been calling on the administration to lift the ban but even if they did, it would not impact the situation. guest: we need to act quickly to encourage the building of infrastructure so that we can export more liquefied natural gas. this administration has put up roadblocks to doing that. we need to push back on that as quickly as possible. "financial times"

reporting that the u.s. will release oil stocks and what they call a test of ability to cope with the crimea crisis disruption. 5 million barrels of oil, less than one percent of the 696 million in the strategic petroleum reserve that will be tapped as a test, according to the "financial times." renée in mississippi, independent caller. caller: how are you doing? i want to ask the congresswoman, do you know that monsanto, the gm of company, the company that dropped agent orange all over vietnam and contaminated organic farmers' fields, have an ukraine but blackwater -- but blackwater blackwater.ught they have basically become an army for the kiev regime. host: renée, where did you learn that? caller: i looked it up online.

up "monsanto bought blackwater." host: what website did it bring you to? caller: just google it, look it up in the search engine, you can find it. host: ok, all right. congresswoman? guest: i will have to look into that. it's the first i heard about it. host: i want to ask your reaction to another "washington post" story this on a banq -- this morning. "key lawmaker favors ending nsa data sweeps." "dutch ropers berger is proposing to end the nsa collection of phone data with the system in which phone companies would provide the agency with daily alerts on numbers suspected of terrorist activity. it would not call

for a requirement that companies hold the data longer than they do now." would you support this legislation? guest: well, we have to look into that. the phone companies have not wanted to keep any data up to 5 years, which the nsa does currently. that is one of the reasons the nsa has said for security reasons it would be good to have access to 5 years of back all information -- back call information. we have to balance our national security certainly with the private interests of companies. if we can achieve the capability to protect our citizens and be able to figure out who terrorists are calling and what they're doing in this country another way, i'm looking -- i'm open to looking at that. carl in madison, virginia. caller: how are you all doing today? first, let me say i'm opposed to

the u.s. getting involved in any kind of military option in ukraine. economically, i think your representative there said very smart things. i don't agree with her drone comments she made several minutes ago. i have a question for her. i would like her to make a comparison between the united states and russia, formerly soviet union. when something occurs internationally, for some reason, it seems to me both countries are similar in the fact that we like to think with their military first and diplomatic options last. and i'm done. thank you. host: ok, carl. guest: i think in this conflict you see its opposite in that and didas just gone in the military first and they didn't try to do any economic negotiations with ukraine. they just took over the area. we are advancing economic sanction ideas, diplomatic

sanctions but i think there is a difference in leadership here. host: john, you are next in massachusetts. republican caller. caller: good morning, everybody. how are you today? host: good. caller: hello? host: you are on the air, go ahead. caller: i would like to ask -- step back a second and ask a question. do you believe that this country as a rule of law, and that the rule of law should be obeyed? we are kind of in the middle of an information age, and when we post -- youeli can read it in the newspapers -- master soldiers supporting regime change in the ukraine, and we are meddling in these foreign things, and i have relatives in poland, and the absolutely have to be -- none of

them is married to someone that came out of kosovo. this foreign policy that we have is a disaster. and in the information age, if we have a rule of law, there is going to be some consequences pay for this. i believe there is going to be consequences paid for this. host: john, what do you mean? what are the consequences? caller: first of all, we have done some intervention and some ,hings in the information age where we have been caught in various different operations, going back to the bush with the first bush, them encouraging saddam hussein to cross into kuwait and then dms to start throwing

babies out of incubators -- ambassadors daughter throwing babies out a ping to and nsa and cia -- host: yeah, john, think we got your point. are the consequences to us doing what we're doing right now, the united states taking these steps, economic sanctions and otherwise? guest: i don't think so. this goes back to the 1994 political agreement, but an important agreement with ukraine where after the fall of the soviet union, where the new countries were being formed and the ukraine had been part of the soviet union and had nuclear weapons, and they agreed to give they up in exchange for could be a free and sovereign nation and russia agreed to that and the united states agreed to that and several countries agreed to that. russia is going back on that by invading, more or less, their country and taking it over.

it is important for us to have our word means something when in 1994 we agreed we would support them. it makes sense for us to economically push back on russia's violation of the agreement. "russia calls aid ukraine illegal amid standoff." president called possible u.s. aid to the new illegal.t in kiev financial support sought by the u.s. for ukraine's interim leadership would violate anyican law barring it to regime that uses force to take over, the russian foreign ministry said." guest: well, i disagree with that. host: why? guest: well, because the people spoke on that regard, and there

was a violation of the former insident hurting the people the country, killing them when they try to very quietly disagree with some of the decisions that were made their. i think he lost his right to remain in power when you turn your forces on your own people. .ost: jerry in rhode island caller: i would like you make a point without saying isolationist or anything, because i think diplomacy with these foreign leaders from different countries is very there's morethat educated people that study international relations and international politics that can understand the different idiosyncrasies that people have. the other point that i wanted to make is that we need to be more .ecure in our own country

for instance, the american bombing. one of the students was involved in a marathon bombing and i don't think we have the right security in this country to protect ourselves from terrorists. also, with the plane disappearing recently, going over towards vietnam and so forth, should we be more involved with some of these larger countries like china and russia? because i think terrorism is affecting all of the larger countries. that's my point and i was waiting for a comment from vicki, please. guest: sure. well i think you are right, diplomacy is very important and we need do everything we can to work with other countries to come up with a peaceful solution to challenges we have. terrorism is an international concern.

that doesn't obligate issues certainly now with russia, when we didn't have -- that does come look at certainly now with them warningwe had us of the boston mamas at a time, working with us in that regard. that is why we might to settle this as diplomatically as possible and encourage vladimir todgen did -- vladimir putin do the right thing and withdraw from crimea and to allow the people to continue to be part of ukraine and for it to be a free and sovereign state. host: tom, frankfort, kentucky. democratic caller. caller: good morning. i hope you will give me time did i want to talk about the welfare of the nation first, and then i want to talk about my own welfare. if the american people are ready to see tens of thousands of casualties in their ground troops, go on into russia and see what is going to

happen when we lose that many people. we got tired of losing people in vietnam. we lost 58,000. that is nothing compared to what is going to happen over there. secondly, i am next marine -- i am an ex-marine. i served in the 1950's. the water that we marines drank and based in a tank platoon -- at camp lejeune was contaminated with agent orange and other chemicals. i am dying from ischemic heart disease. the veterans administration won't do anything for me. there is a lawsuit before the apreme court right now where large electronics manufacturer contaminated the soil around their area, shut their factory down, moved away, sold the property to unsuspecting people who are coming down with cancer.

if they lose that case, it is under the same law in north carolina that the federal government is denying. we marines, our lawsuits and our medical care will go down the drain, and obama has instructed his justice department to back the electronics company. we marines are dying, and nobody cares. and i hope everybody that's ,atching c-span hears me today because if we can't take care of our marines, we shouldn't be over there trying to take care of the ukrainians. thank you very much. host: that was tom in frankfort, kentucky. guest: first of all, thank you for your service to our nation could i'm very sorry to hear about your health problems and what has happened and the allegations of what happened down at camp lejeune. i'm sure that your congressional

representatives from north carolina would be very interested in helping you and looking into this and i would be happy to support them as a member of the armed services ismittee, because it important that our men and women in uniform who sign up and volunteer for service, that they are taken care of and they are protected. i wish you well on that and look forward to working with my colleagues to help you in that regard. as far as going in to ukraine to my don't think anybody is a militaryight now engagement of any kind t because of the concerns you outlined. host: kathy in middletown, connecticut trade independent caller. caller: first of all, congresswoman, you said that putin chose military action instead of working

economically with the ukrainians. not true. billion toed $15 ukraine. also, you said you supported the ukrainian leader because he is an evangelical. whoas an evangelical, bush, lied us into a war that killed half a million iraqis, but i guess they don't count because they weren't born again. host: let's get a response from the congresswoman. guest: i think all life is valuable good eye not on the foreign services committee, but i've been reading about ukraine as much as everybody else, and that is the only information i had to answer that earlier question on the leadership. from what i have heard, he is a good man, somebody that is worthy of supporting. host: jacob in tennessee, republican. hi, jacob. oh, sorry, i have to punch. sorry about that. you are on the air now. caller: ok, ms. congresswoman, i'm looking for a slight bit of

clarification. earlier in the segment, you said there had not been another terrorist attack on u.s. soil since 9/11. would you clarify the boston bombing as a terrorist attack? guest: that's a good point. i would. that is a homegrown terrorist attack. i was meaning from an outside group coming in, like the people that took over the airplanes. but good point. host: robbie, iowa. independent caller. caller: hi. this agreement they reached in 1994 where ukraine agreed to give up their nuclear weapons, and so the united states -- you think it is our job to take care -- why didn't the united states and russia and israel have to give up theirs? why are we making every other weaponsnot have nuclear when we are the 2 biggest holders of them? guest: that's a good question.

i wasn't involved in that and wasn't in office at that point. but i see your point. republican from missouri, serving your second term, represents the fourth district of missouri, on the armed services committee and the budget committee. we will go to steve in pittsburgh, democratic caller. hi, steve. steve, my apologies. you are on the air. caller: good morning. i wanted to comment on this state of the balkan states near the russian border. this all started with george georgia, invasion of and then also with the invasion of ukraine. i think this all starts with peace through strength but i think there is a lack of leadership. this president is very weak as far as giving flexibility to the russian government and also withdrawing the anti-defense

theiles from poland and czech republic. i wanted to know your comment on that, rappers ended. guest: i agree. i think the president's foreign policy has been fixed at best, and his lack of priority for our defense and defense budget is coming back to haunt us. smells vladimir putin weakness. you are correct. i disagree with the president and that when he changed his missile defense policy in poland and backed off from the commitment there to allow them to have a more advanced system of missile defense that had been promised to them, and i think that the new start treaty was wrong. we end up losing a lot more than we gain in that in that we are having to draw down our nuclear arsenal and russia do not have that large of an arsenal to begin with and doesn't have to draw down hardly any of theirs.

we are weakening ourselves at the expense, i think, of what is going on over there. with this defense budget that has been proposed a couple of weeks ago, we are going to be reducing our defense budget 1/5 over the course of 10 years, and you have china doubling their military budget, and the russians military budget going up 30%. they are prioritizing and building up their military at the same time we are drawing down. i think it is wrong and that is why we will continue to fight to replace these defense cuts. host: john in california, republican hoping -- republican caller. caller: thanks for the opportunity. congressman hartzler, i can't believe what you are saying could you want to spend $1 billion going to ukraine, and here i am, republican out of benefitsing to extend

and you can't find money to take care of us but you can find money to protect corporate investments, tank of america, general motors and russia. american companies that choose to do work there rather than build american products, probably because of epa regulations on and you can't find a way to communicate to the senate that they need to take care of americans first. callers all across the country are talking about the misled priorities and stuffed it as a former military guy, i know that husseinsely gave saddam new weapons and he ended up using them on his people. is andea that bush lied idiotic thing and i continue to hear about these people call about the tower blowing up and they have that going and not the voice of take care of her megan jobs come i can't believe it, and i wish you would talk to your senator for me and let her

know that we need to vote extended benefits and find a way of paying for american stuff first. don't touch social security, cut government spending. when you think about every time -- host: i'm going to leave it there, because i will have the congresswoman respond. guest: you brought up a lot of good points there. we need to get our economy going and the jobs of the way to do it is to back off on a lot of the that arepolicies hurting job creation. you talked about the epa. there is a lot of regulation about agencies hampering job creation in our communities. that needs to be -- that needs to end and we need to be more business friendly. we need to have health care that is accessible and affordable. that means replacing obamacare, which is hurting job creation.

there are things we need you to unleash our economy and get a growing again and have people have jobs again. that is what i am working on. host: robert in toledo, ohio. independent caller. caller: hello? host: morning, you are on the air. caller: a few brief points. i've been following this for months. if she would listen to victoria nuland's taped conversation from the u.s. state department, she would understand that neo-nazis are involved in this. the government of united states has been well aware coup we are backing. we have spent -- who we are backing could spend $5 billion on the orange revolution. they are a neo-nazi organization. it is a simple fact. you can watch john mccain

meeting with their later, and it is amazing how often john mccain meets with terrorists. host: robert, where did you see that? onler: you can look at it many sources on the internet. the internet is delete -- the only place to get information anymore. media is useless. guest. guest: have not heard of that before. host: what are you watching closely on the situation in ukraine? we are going to watch what happens on sunday with the vote. there is a lot of coercion and pressure going on on the people in crimea. and then there will be a referendum in moscow, that they will have to vote on, whether to accept and have crimea become part of their country. in the meantime we will continue know that he will

have consequences for doing this and that is not the right thing to do. he needs to respect the '94

there objection? a senator: madam president, reserving the right 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

reforms, if passed, would diminish u.s. influence on the i.m.f., would reduce our ability to control the decisions of the i.m.f., would move the funds from one in which we have veto authority to one we have no veto authority. astoastonishingly, madam presid, this bill would expand russia's influence and control over the i.m.f. let me repeat that. a bill that is being ostensibly introduced to punish russia for their act of war and act of aggression, would expand russia's influence over the i.m.f. and decrease the united states of america's influence. madam president, i agree with my friend from alabama, who suggested moments ago this is through the looking glass. this makes no sense. i would challenge any of my friends here to stand up here and explain why a sensible response to what russia has done is to expand russia's influence in the i.m.f. and to diminish

america's influence. that makes no sense whatsoever. and, madam president, i want to close with two points. number one, we could pass aid for the people of ukraine right now today. the senator from wyoming rose and asked for unanimous consent to pass the bill that has already passed the house. had the majority leader not stood up and objected on behalf of senate democrats, that bill would have passed into law. it would be already headed to the president's desk for signature. it is only because the majority leader objected that we are not sitting here today having already passed aid for the people of ukraine. i would note, by the way, the majority leader had extended commentary about two businessmen, the koch brothers, who i'm beginning to think are a character almost out of dr. seuss in the majority leader's mind. they are the grinch who stole

christmas. i notice he focuses on the i.m.f. rules, not focusing on the abuse of power by the ris i.m.f., but instead on the need for a vote to regulate the i.r.s.'s abuse of power. let me say, the house bill on ukraine doesn't mention the i.r.s. at all, doesn't mention c-4*s at all. that issue is not covered. so when the majority leader said this is all because of the nefarious koch brothers, set aside the impropriety of the majority leader of the united states senate picking two private citizens, individuals who are engaged in political speech, standing up for what they believe, and the majority leader using his position of political power to lambaste them, to target them. interestingly enough, the majority leader does not seem to have a problem with a california billionaire who's publicly pledged to put $100 million behind democrats to press them to pass climate change

legislation that would cost millions of jobs across this country, from blue-collar workers, from hardworking americans. that billionaire in the majority leader's view is perfectly fine to spend $100 million in the election, but the koch brokers because the two of them -- but the koch brothers, because the two of them have stood up and expressed their views, are subject to vilification and personal afa tac attack from the majority leader. the senate rules allow a member of this body, if his or her integrity is imiewnd to raise -- is impugned, to raise an objection. what senate rule allows a private citizen to raise an objection when his integrity is impugned by the majority leader? those two brothers are not members of this body, so they can have their reputation dragged through the mud and yet they are denied a point of personal privilege to come and defend themselves. that is not the job of the united states senate to vilify

private citizens, and i would note that the provision he's talking about is not in the house bill, which means, when the senator from wyoming stood up and asked for consent to pass the house bill, if the majority leader had simply refrained from objecting, we would have passed aid to ukraine tonight. nothing to do with the koch brothers, nothing to do with the i.r.s. that's not in the house bill. the reason the majority leader objected is that he wants to hold aid to the ukraine hostage to force through these misguided i.m.f. reforms. that is the wrong decision. final point i want to make, madam president: the world should understand -- russia should understand, the people of ukraine should understand, mr. putin should understand that all of us are

united in standing with the people of ukraine, that the united states will act -- i am convinced it will act decisively to impose sanctions and serious consequences on russia for this unprovoked act of war. we will act decisively to stand with the people of ukraine. there should be no doubt in any observer's mind that this will unify both parties. we will stand together. we would have done so tonight had the majority leader not made the sing cal decisio cynical ded hostage. politics should end at the water's edge, and i think it's unfortunate to see the majority leader trying to use the crisis in ukraine for political advantage. that's the mistake. but there should be no

ambiguity. we will impose sanctions. we will stand with ukraine. and the people of america understand that mr. putin's aggression is reliving the days when the soviet union was an evil empire. it's reliving those days. mr. putin calls the collapse of the soviet union the greatest catastrophe of modern times. well, all of us surely hope he does not succeed in his intentions of restoring the soviet union, restoring that evil empire, restoring the cloud of oppression across europe and across the world. and we stand united with the people of ukraine and with the people surrounding russia in support of freedom and against his unconscionable act of war. madam president, i yield the floor. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from alabama. mr. sessions: i'd like to thank the senator from texas for

his comments and for his eloquence. i believe he's touched on the right issue. i would just add one thing. i was in the ukraine about three years ago. a delegation was there. we met with state department people. we met with ti tymoshenko, the fabulous leader of the orange revolution. he had those beautifushe had ths in her hair, and she was concerned that she would be put in jail. i just can believe it. the ambassador told us she hadn't committed any crime. but she was placed in jail, served two and a half years. they released her her now. she was in a wheelchair. you could see she had suffered from that. the people of ukraine did a fab- did a fabulous, wonderful thing when they stupid for democracy.

-- when they stood up for democracy. i stand with them, just like i stood with the people of georgia when the russians invaded kosovo. so i would say unequivocally, bipartisanly, this congress, house and senate, stands firmly with the people of the ukraine. we want to help them. the one thing substantively we could do today to make a difference for the people of ukraine is to pass this bill that would provide $1 billion in loans to them. i truly believe we should do that. i'm deeply disappointed that the majority insists that unless they get their reform of the international monetary fund that they want to see happen -- it's unrelated directly to the needs of ukraine -- that they won't accept that legislation that the house has already passed.

i -- i think that's a bigamies take. i thank the chair and would yield the floor. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from new jersey. mr. menendez: madam president, i returned to the floor because i just can't let some of what has been said go unchallenged. first of all, as it relates to the majority leader, the issue of the connection that's been made between i.m.f. reform and the c-4 investigation, the unlimited, undefined, not known secret money that goes into these entities and elections was not first raised by the majority leader. it was first raised by senator corker in an article. it was subsequently raised today on the floor by senator mccain. so casting aspersions upon the majority leader suggesting that he is ultimately impugning the

reputation of anyone is pretty outrageous when the members of his own side of the aisle recognize that it was simply wrong to connect i.m.f. reform and the ability to help the ukraine in the most powerful way now with some c-4 investigation. secondly, only in washington, only in washington could someone have you believe that the i.m.f. reforms that we are promoting means more power for russia. yeah, we're rushing in this chamber. john mccain is rushing in this chamber. bob corker is rushing in this chamber to give more power to russia. only in washington could anybody believe that.

or that our other colleagues on the committee who voted for the legislation to have i.m.f. reform were actually voting, our republican colleagues were voting to give russia more power, more power, so they could impress people more. it stretches the incredulous nature of that argument. on the contrary, why are we in part of the mess we're in? because when ukraine was having serious economic challenges, it was putin and russia that was coming with their money, not the i.m.f. in a way which ultimately might have been important because the i.m.f. needs the resources, the leveraging that we create by virtue of this legislation. so you can't divorce it. if you really want to help the ukraine, you need to have the resources to the nism that ultimately guarantees the full

ability to bring the ukraine back into economic order, and from that bill, then all the other elements of security as well. thirdly, the budget point of order. you know, the ranking member on our committee made it very clear, i want to be supportive but we have to have this paid for, and we did. now, people can disagree with the pay-for, but it's paid for. it's paid for. something the house of representatives didn't do. and by the way, let me tell you what else the house of representatives didn't do. they didn't do anything about sanctions, nothing, zero, nada. so the bottom line is we would send the message that, yes, we want to partially help the ukraine but not in the most significant way we can, which is with i.m.f. reform and the leveraging of the resources we would bring to that and the leveraging of our voice that we

would bring to that and determining the future there and for the next crisis in the world, which is unfortunately around the corner. so for those who claim they are all for helping the ukraine and national security, you should have allowed us to have this vote tonight. lastly, with reference to my dear friend and colleague who i have a great deal of respect for, senator barrasso, who said i didn't permit his amendment on l & g to move forward, his amendment was ruled out of order because it was not within the jurisdiction of the committee, and the reality is on the merits of it, it's not about the representing the ukraine right now. the ukraine doesn't have the infrastructure for l.n.g., they obviously don't have the resources to build the infrastructure for l.n.g. turkey which controls the strait has said they are not going to let l.n.g. go through it because of their concerns for security.

so the bottom line is that is not about helping the ukraine today. maybe if all of those issues, infrastructure, the resources to build it, getting turkey on board, if all of that can be done, then maybe in the future that's part of a further, longer term solution, but it's not about right now. what was about right now was the loan guarantees. it was about the sanctions to make sure that the russians and those within the ukraine understand that they are going to be subject to real consequences by virtue of corrupting the ukraine and undermining its territorial integrity, and then lastly having a long-term ability through the i.m.f. to achieve the goals of stabilizing the ukraine economically and also preparing for the next emergency. that's what was at stake tonight. now, we'll get there, but when you see movements of russian

troops, when you see the circumstances that are unfolding, when i hear colleagues that say we're not doing enough and then just want to do a fraction of what is necessary to really help the ukraine, i begin to seriously wonder. so, madam president, i hope the majority leader will have this as the first order of business when we return. i think there is bipartisan support for the package the way it is. it's unfortunate that as our colleagues travel to the ukraine, they can't go with the final message that this was passed today, but it will pass, and as i said to the prime minister of the ukraine yesterday, an extraordinary individual who met with members of the senate foreign relations committee, in the long history of the world, only a few are called upon to answer the call of freedom in some of its most dangerous moments of history. he has been called upon to do that on behalf of his country at

this time, and we are called upon to stand against the aggression and to help a country be able to do so, and i hope that we'll get past this issue of linking i.m.f. reform with the whole economy of campaign finance issues here so that we

on foreign affairs will come to order. and we are again privileged to hear from secretary of state john kerry. last year, secretary kerry spoke before our committee following a trip to asia dealing with issues related to the north korean

regional crisis. today, russian regional aggression is at the forefront. and i'm pleased that the house took a position and spoke very decisively this week, condemning russian actions in clear and unmistakable terms. the u.s. has a strong interest in a democratic and prosperous ukraine. to that end, the house last week passed important legislation to bolster the troubled ukrainian economy. the senate should move on this legislation today and leave imf debates until later. while the committee is interested to here about events in ukraine, the purpose of this hearing is to question the department's budget requests for fiscal 2015. needless to say, resources are tight. and must be aligned with clear goals and objectives. this committee is responsible for oversight of how department

resources are spent and we expect the department to think strategically, not reactively. there is no margin for waste. there's no margin for abuse. and i am pleased that the inspector general position was finally filled on a permanent basis after a five-year vacancy. mr. secretary, thank you for hearing the request of this committee and acting. last year, secretary kerry testified that the u.s. is the guardian of global security. today, u.s. guardianship is frayed. committee members are very concerned that iran negotiations will leave the iranian regime alarmingly close to a nuclear weapon. syria, according to the united nations, is the worst humanitarian crisis since rwanda. libya is failing and forgotten. in egypt, we haven't push add economic reform agenda based on individual property rights that is desperately needed there.

for asia, a senior pentagon official asserted the other week that because of budget constraints, america's high profile pivot to asia is being looked at again because candidly, it can't happen. mr. secretary, as always, the committee stands ready to work with you on these and other critical issues. the department must do a better job of holding foreign assistance recipients accountable, insuring that they are meeting bench marks for reform and development especially in krupps like afghanistan where so much has been invested. our assistance is not an entitlement. it is a sign of our willingness to help others help themselves. nor should foreign assistance dominate our relationships with partners and with our allies. this committee's electrify africa legislation is an example of using assistance to improve the local investment environment while creating jobs here in the united states, all at a cost

savings to the american taxpayer. our efforts abroad must be aided by robust broadcasting to help advance our national interests. the current media climate is crowded with state media like rt from russia and cctv from china as well as nonstate media like hezbollah's television station. these are our competitors on the ideological battlefield. and as former secretary clinton told this committee, right now, we are losing. reforming the broadcasting board of governors is no longer an option. it is a requirement and i am pleased to be working on legislation with my colleagues to do just that. mr. secretary, our nation faces many challenges and the difficulty of prioritizing is come pouped by our fiscal crunch. through it although, i look forward to working together to ensure that america maintains the leadership role we both

support. and i will now turn to ranking member ingle for any comments that he might have this afternoon. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman, for holding this hearing to review the administration's fiscal year 2015 international affairs budget request. mr. secretary, as ranking member, i want to welcome you. it's a pleasure to welcome you back to the committee. i want to begin by commending you for your tireless work on a wide range of critical issues. your efforts underscore the great importance of continued u.s. engagement in the world and strong american leadership. at a time of crisis in the middle east, central africa and now europe, the internal affairs budget request supports our diplomatic and development efforts in these and other regions. it provides critical funding to strengthen our allies, fight the spread of infectious disease, combat terrorism and support many other essential activities. the international affairs budget also stimulates job creation and

economic growth here at home. by helping countries build their economies and develop free marks we make it easier for american companies to sell their products abroad. the budget request also provides critical resources to help insure the security of our diplomats and development workers. these brave men and women serve on the frontlines every day and we must ensure there is adequate funding to keep them safe. finally the international affairs budget includes humanitarian assistance that reflects the compassion and generosity of the american people. while we cannot solve all of the world's problems on our own, we have a moral obligation to help insure that hungry children don't starve, that refugees displaced by war or natural disaster have basic shelter and that the poorest of the poor do not succumb to easily preventable diseases. >> the international affairs budget accounts for less than 1% of the federal budget.

let me repeat that, 1% of the federal budget. in my view, ha it's a very sound investment in our security, economy and humanitarian goals. secretary kerry. >> know you agree with me that the united states must maintain its leadership. global health. however, i am frustrated to see that the budget request proposes significant reductions to numerous global health programs. i'd like to work with you to ensure that we have the funding necessary to maintain the tremendous gains that have been made in the fight against hiv aids and tuberculosis and to address emerging threats like pandemic influenza. mr. secretary, on ukraine, i believe we must continue to stand up for ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity and make it clear to president putin there will be serious seniors consequences for his aggression. chairman royce and i are drafting legislation on ukraine and we look forward to working with you to ensure that the united states provides a robust assistance package to the new ukrainian government and imposes appropriate sanctions against

human rightsita busers and those hose are complicit in the violation of ukraine's sovereignty. i am also deeply concerned about the on going crisis in syria. nearly three years after the start of the war, assad remains in power and offshoots of al qaeda are growing stronger. refugees continue to spill into neighboring countries and we are all horrified by their stories of violence, torture and starvation. secretary kerry, i hope you will use this opportunity to discuss the administration's strategy to the end the terrible conflict in syria. in 2004 when i was able to get past the syria accountability act, we knew then that assad was a bad player. we couldn't haven't imagined how bad he really is now. iran remains among the biggest threats it our national security even as negotiations resume next week with the p5-plus-1. i hope these talks succeed but i agree with you our engagement with tehran cannot be based on trust. iran continues to be a bad