Taxpayer Accountability Act

Madam President, first let me thank my two colleagues, both distinguished members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Senator McCain and Senator Durbin. Their work and their leadership on this issue has created the type of bipartisan spirit that I think is incredibly important in general but certainly in foreign relations. They both added greatly to the legislation that came out of committee with a strong bipartisan vote that we are considering on the floor.

Last week some of my colleagues in this Chamber were sanctioned by Vladimir Putin for standing up for the Ukrainian people, standing up for freedom, standing up for their democratic aspirations, standing up for the sovereignty of Ukraine. As I said in Brussels at the German Marshall Fund this weekend, if I have been sanctioned for those reasons, then I say, by all means, Mr. Putin, sanction me.

I urge all of my colleagues to be supportive of the legislation. They may be sanctioned at the end of the day, but that is really what standing for Ukraine is all about at this critical moment and what it means beyond.

When we look around the world, we realize that every so often we face a critical juncture at a time of great upheaval and change. With the backsliding of Russian leadership to a pre-1991 posture, we are at such a juncture. Vladimir Putin seems to view the pre-1991 Soviet Union's expansionist authoritarianism as a present-day goal and the last two decades, which saw the formation of new and independent states, as a departure from Peter the Great's expansionist aspirations.

From Ukraine, to Georgia, to the Middle East, we are seeing a new Russian leadership bent on using its military authority, its economic resources, and diplomacy to serve its parochial interests at any cost-- despite violations of its own legal commitments and those it has made to the international community.

Russia's flatout extortion of Ukraine, supported by former corrupt leaders of Ukraine, forced the political explosion which Russia then exploited.

In Syria, President Putin is actively propping up President Bashar al-Assad and perpetuating the world's worst humanitarian disaster.

In Iran, the ink of the Joint Plan of Action signed in Geneva last November was barely dry when reports surfaced that Tehran and Moscow were negotiating an oil-for-goods swap worth $1.5 billion a month, and that they planned to build a new nuclear plant--all steps that only aid Iran in its pursuit of nuclear weapons, while diminishing the sanctions that forced that country to the negotiating table in the first place.

It is no surprise that Putin and his cronies have already threatened to derail Syria and Iran talks if their countries do not step back from punishing Russia for its annexation of Ukraine.

In Geneva, as the P5+1 talks with Iran continue, we can only hope that the crisis in Ukraine will not have a ripple effect in Russia's position or participation.

But, in my view, Mr. Putin has miscalculated. He has reignited a dangerous pre-1991 Soviet-style game of Russian roulette with the international community, and we cannot blink.

He must understand that we will never accept his violation of international law in Ukraine. That is why we passed this legislation in committee--an aid package for Ukraine that provides loans for economic stabilization, supports planning for upcoming democratic elections, aids in the recovery of stolen assets, and expands security cooperation between the two countries, and it holds Moscow accountable for its aggressive stance against Ukraine.

First, this legislation provides for Ukrainian loan guarantees, consistent with the $1 billion announced by the administration in recent days. It mirrors the House legislation.

Second, it ensures that the Obama administration can assist the Ukrainian Government to identify, secure, and recover assets linked to the acts of corruption by Viktor Yanukovych, members of his family, or other former or current Ukrainian Government officials.

Third, it authorizes $50 million for democracy, governance, and civil society assistance and $100 million for enhanced security cooperation for Ukraine and other states in Central and Eastern Europe.

Fourth, it mandates sanctions, complementing the President's recent Executive order, against Ukrainians and Russians alike responsible for violence and serious human rights abuses against antigovernment protesters--and those responsible for undermining the peace, security, stability, sovereignty or territorial integrity of Ukraine--as well as imposing sanctions on Russian individuals complicit in or responsible for significant corruption in Ukraine.

Fifth, it allows the administration to broadly sanction corrupt Russian officials and go after Putin's allies and cronies who are engaged in massive corruption to the detriment of the Russian people.

Finally, it provides needed reforms to the United States' participation in the International Monetary Fund, which would allow the United States to leverage significant support from the IMF for Ukraine today and for similar unforeseen crises that are going to come in the future.

It is the IMF that is leading the effort to stabilize Ukraine's fragile economy, an essential task if there is to be any chance of reaching a peaceful political solution to the standoff with Russia.

Congressional ratification of the 2010 IMF reforms would increase IMF emergency funding to Ukraine by up to 60 percent, and it would provide an additional $6 billion for longer-term support, setting an important marker for other donors such as the EU and the World Bank.

Failure to approve the reforms, on the other hand, would undermine both the IMF and the international standing of the United States.

Some countries are happy to see U.S. global influence diminish. Failing to approve the reforms weakens the United States and emboldens our competitors.

The IMF is strengthened at no cost to U.S. finances or influence. The United States retains its Executive Board seat and sole veto power at no net cost, since the $63 billion increase in U.S. quota is fully offset by an equivalent decrease to a separate emergency facility. Other countries, however, put in new money, increasing IMF lending power.

The fact is, it is a pure win for the United States. We will pay for the $315 million budget impact of the bill with real cuts and from funds that were underperforming or no longer needed. Given that the IMF helps to stabilize countries, often precluding future need for military action, the relatively minor cost will pay back many times over.

This is not a partisan issue. Presidents Reagan, Clinton, and both Presidents Bush backed legislation to increase IMF resources, and President Reagan called the IMF ``the linchpin of the international financial system.''

These efforts combined send a message to the world that the annexation of Crimea will not stand.

Let me close by saying we are at a dangerous moment in history, with global consequences, and the world is watching.

If the West does not act, what will China say when it is looking at its territorial desires in the South China Sea? What will Iran say when we are negotiating in Vienna about nuclear weapons? What will others in the world say--North Korea, whose march to nuclear weapons on a greater scale is still in play?

All of them will be looking at what we in the West do or do not do, in making a decision about Russia's brazen

move into Ukraine. They will be watching to see how far they can go, how much they can do. They will be asking: What can I get away with?

The fact is, as a matter of principle, Ukrainian sovereignty cannot be violated for simply looking westward and embracing ideals rooted in freedom. These ideals must always remain first and foremost in our strategic response to international events.

When I was in Brussels last week at NATO and the German Marshall Fund, I said: The broader question that faces us is this: Can a united transatlantic vision and our collective commitment to bold actions in this century match the vision and commitment of those who created the international institutions which brought peace and prosperity to millions in the last century?

I believe that--if we live, lead, and govern, guided by shared values and united by our common concerns--we can lead the world through this transformational moment in history and prevent further Russian aggression from taking us back prior to what was that 1991 world.

That is the choice before us. I urge my colleagues to strongly support the cloture motion so that we can work toward a statement that will do exactly that.

I will be happy to yield to the distinguished Senator.

I think the Senator is spot-on. Right now, Putin is looking at whether or not he proceeds in Eastern Ukraine. He is looking at Transnistria and Moldova. He is calculating and he is calculating: What are the costs? What will the United States and the European Union do?

From my perspective, President Putin only understands strength, and that strength is either in a military context--which, of course, no one is speaking about at this moment--or an economic one. That is why this package is so incredibly important--because it takes every single dimension that the distinguished Senator helped us in the committee on. It aids Ukraine up front for the loan guarantee. It sanctions--and the Senator was very engaged in several elements of that--elements of the Russian hierarchy for engaging in corrupting the country, Ukraine, and at the same time for invading its territorial integrity. It prepares assistance for that election which is supposed to take place in May that is critical to be fair, open, and transparent and, at the same time, provides for the greater resources through the IMF.

So all of these elements are critical. It also includes a very clear statement about greater defense cooperation, which is also critically important.

So these are all the elements of sending a strong message, as Putin is calculating: What will be the cost? If the cost is not high enough, he may very well proceed into Eastern Ukraine or to those parts of Moldova. That is an action that we can ill-afford and the action that others will look at across the world, as I mentioned, that they will calculate: The West is not willing to take the actions necessary to stop my designs.

If that is the case, then I think we are in a world of hurt across the globe.

Madam President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, when the Senate last met, I introduced, together with Senator Durbin, a resolution regarding our response to Russia's invasion of Ukraine. That resolution, which received unanimous support in the Senate, called for a number of specific steps to punish and isolate Russia for its actions.

Among these steps we called upon President Obama to impose sanctions on officials of the Russian Federation who are most responsible for the invasion of the Crimean region. I am pleased with recent announcements by the White House which demonstrate that the President has begun the process of sanctioning some of these individuals, although I had hoped the numbers sanctioned would be far greater.

I also note that today the President is in the Netherlands discussing with

our European allies and partners the need for further steps. I trust and hope he will be successful in reaching a firm consensus with our allies and friends to define a strong united response to Russian aggression.

Further, I also welcome such provisions in the legislation that is now pending in the Senate, the Support for the Sovereignty, Integrity, Democracy, and Economic Stability of Ukraine Act of 2014, which I trust and hope the Senate will be acting on beginning this evening and perhaps extending into this week.

I would note time is somewhat of the essence. If we are going to send a message to Russia, certainly we don't want to be bogged down in internal delay over nonrelated or only slightly related issues. In fact, that is why Senator Durbin and I moved our provisions forward before the Senate adjourned for the break, simply to make sure there was a united, bipartisan Senate unanimously approved agreement on 15 measures that would get the message to Vladimir Putin and the Russians that we take this very seriously.

The legislation we will be dealing with also sanctions the Russians responsible for this recent aggression by prohibiting them from coming to the United States and freezing their assets in America. Our European allies have done likewise, and together we have begun to respond to Russia's outrageous behavior.

However, it is my strong belief that much more needs to be done. We and our European allies must recognize the enormity of Putin's crime as he rejects all modern standards of responsible international behavior and tramples on the sanctity of the territorial borders so vital to the stability of the postwar order.

The international response must be more vigorous if we are to prove that Putin's behavior is unacceptable and cannot be repeated. A strong response now is the best way to reassure our allies and friends who are precariously placed on Russia's borders that this outrage must be stopped, reversed, and ended. Conversely, to do little more than prevent a handful of Russian officials traveling abroad will show Putin and his cronies that in the end we actually do not mean what we say.

Again, the international response needs to be, has to be, much more vigorous if we are to prove that we stand together and united, one voice, claiming that the behavior of President Putin is unacceptable and cannot be repeated.

When Senator Durbin and I introduced our prior resolution on this subject, we signaled our willingness to work with the administration to craft more punishing sanctions, including economic sanctions possibly targeting key sectors of the Russian economy, and I believe many of us here in the Senate on both sides of the aisle want to do more. I have suggested a range of provisions that would reduce Russia's oil and gas exports--which contribute a very significant amount to their economy and are therefore very dependent--I hope the President is discussing those very measures in Europe with our partners as we speak.

We are all aware that sanctioning key Russian economic activities carries the possibility that our economic interests and those of our European allies could be affected at the same time. While this is reason for us to be thoughtful in terms of how we move forward, it is not a reason for inaction. It should not be the basis for our standing by and watching what is happening and simply saying: Well, this could potentially affect us economically back at home and therefore excuse the actions and probably enable further actions by our Russian adversary in this case.

In the end, unpunished, unconstrained, rampant Russian territorial expansion will threaten us all to a much greater extent. Doing something now could prevent something much worse later. Standing up now could prevent something much more serious in terms of what we might have to do later. Sound policy decisions must reflect full assessments of all eventual consequences, and that includes a clear picture of what the world will look like if illegal, forceful annexation of a neighbor's territory is ignored or met only with a rap on the knuckles.

I continue to believe we can and must do more to isolate Russia. This includes, for example, explicitly expelling Russia from the G8--not temporarily but explicitly expelling them and ending the NATO-Russia Council.

In addition, I am proposing today a specific economic sanction that will harm Russian interests in a serious way and, hopefully, with minimal or no damage to our own. I am introducing an amendment to Ukraine aid bill and I trust it will find broad bipartisan support. The purpose of this amendment is to sanction Russia's Rosoboronexport, the sole state agency for export of Russian weapon systems and defense- related goods. This is a state corporation exclusively entitled to export the entire range of Russian armaments officially allowed for export. It was set up for that purpose. It was set up by President Putin. It is a state-owned enterprise and its business is sending Russian arms around the world--some to very bad actors.

Many of our colleagues here in the Senate know of this arms export agency because of Russia's continuing supply of arms to Assad's regime in Syria. Many here have repeatedly called on the administration to stop all cooperation with Rosoboronexport for that reason. We now have a new, broader reason for ending all cooperation with this export agency of Russia. To take steps to meaningfully obstruct that agency's work and the income it provides the Russian state will become the most effective ways we have of demonstrating our condemnation of Russian action by force of arms.

Let me briefly explain my amendment. It does three things: First, it prohibits the U.S. Government from doing any business with this Russian agency by prohibiting future contracts and canceling past contracts.

It is true the recent National Defense Authorization Act, which I supported, also includes similar language. But that act includes a waiver authority and another work-around provision the Defense Department has been using in order to buy Russian helicopters for Afghanistan. This practice has met with objection. It was objectionable when it began and it became more objectionable as the Russians continued to supply Assad. Now, based on what they have done in Crimea, it should be entirely unacceptable.

Also, I just learned this morning that President Karzai announced his support for the Russian annexation of Crimea and approval of Russian actions, which makes our purchase of Russian weapons for the Karzai regime even more outrageous. After all we have done to support President Karzai and the Afghans with U.S. tax dollars and the lives and injuries to U.S. and coalition soldiers--after all we have done over a decade of time--President Karzai reaches out and publicly supports the Russian action, contrary to ours. Russia is the nation which pillaged Afghanistan for a decade. It is beyond belief that President Karzai can support, along with countries such as Syria and Venezuela--haven't heard from Cuba yet, but probably will--the Russian action when we are there trying to save his hide not only with our tax dollars but with our soldiers' lives.

So my amendment takes away this waiver and would put a complete end to Karzai's business dealings with the Russians. Karzai will have to buy his Russian helicopters with his own money, not ours.

Secondly, I propose this amendment will prohibit contracts with any domestic or foreign company that cooperates with Rosoboronexport in the design, manufacture, or military development of military equipment. Other types of business dealings with the corporation for nonmilitary activities would not be affected. We are going after the military exports, many of which go to some of our sworn enemies.

Third, I propose to authorize the President to deduct from our foreign assistance programs any amount that a foreign state recipient spends on Russian weapons through Rosoboronexport. These deductions would be made from the Economic Support Fund and security assistance accounts but would not affect other aid programs. The President would be authorized to reprogram such funds for use elsewhere subject to congressional notification.

If a USAID recipient is tempted to use some of our money to buy Russian weapons, they need to know we would deduct that amount from our assistance programs. They can buy Russian

weapons on their own dime, not on our dime.

Taken together, I believe these proposals would be a very useful addition to the Ukraine aid act and give it the additional teeth it needs. This amendment would harm the Russian arms industry, the Russian economy, Russian prestige, and Putin's standing in the world. That ought to be our goal. Whether it is my amendment, any other amendment, or whether it is the act we will be debating, it needs to harm the Russian arms industry, the Russian energy portion of the economy, Russian prestige, and Putin's standing in the world.

This amendment will serve as a concrete and immediate response to the illegal invasion perpetrated by the Russian Federation. I urge the majority leader to permit a full debate, an up-or-down vote on my amendment, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

With that, I yield the floor.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President, one of the true bright spots in our economy right now has been, and continues to be, manufacturing. Manufacturing jobs have been on the rise. We have over 12 million Americans who are now employed with good-paying jobs in the manufacturing sector. Many of them are in my own great State of Michigan.

This renaissance in the kind of good-paying jobs that built the middle class of this country is being powered in a significant way by American natural gas. More than $100 billion in investments, in more than 120 different manufacturing projects, is being fueled by abundant, affordable American natural gas. Thanks to American natural gas, the people in our country have a great new opportunity to go to work, have a good-paying job, and support their families.

Our country is truly blessed with this natural resource. It is critical that we continue to put our American natural gas to work so we can create American jobs, which is why I am confused and concerned by those who are rushing to send this American resource overseas without a careful review of the impact this will have on the costs to our manufacturers, our jobs, and our families.

I am not opposed to exporting some of our natural gas as part of a balanced, well-thought-out plan. A rush to approve every export facility request immediately is not wise. It is not wise for our economy or our people when we know that increased natural gas is needed here at home.

People need jobs in America. We have about 10 million people out of work. We have an awful lot of people who need a job. Good-paying jobs in manufacturing

can and will be part of their future if we manage our natural gas resources the right way. It is critical for America that we get this right. We need to export our products, not our jobs, and that is the debate I believe we should be having.

Low-cost natural gas is critical to our Nation's ability to create manufacturing jobs. It is critical. If we start exporting too much of our natural gas without monitoring or evaluating the impact over time, we may be giving up a real advantage we have right now for creating jobs and bringing jobs home from other countries.

What do we hear from a lot of businesses that are making decisions to bring jobs home? They talk about low-energy costs. We don't want to give that up as an advantage for America as we compete in a global economy. Also, if increased exports raise prices to the same level as global oil prices--and obviously some folks would like to see that happen for their own interests--American families will be hit with even higher energy costs at home, and that doesn't make any sense either. Exporting more American natural gas simply doesn't add up.

A study last month by Charles River Associates found that using our own low-cost natural gas to increase American manufacturing is twice as valuable to our economy and creates eight times as many jobs as sending this important American resource overseas. Let me say that again: Using our own low-cost natural gas to increase American manufacturing output is twice as valuable to our American economy and creates eight times as many jobs as exporting this important American resource overseas.

I am particularly dismayed that some people are using the very serious crisis in Ukraine as an excuse to rush through new projects to export our natural gas.

Last week I met with members of the Ukrainian community in Detroit. They are deeply concerned about what is happening. This is personal for them. They have family and friends in Ukraine. This crisis should not be used by those in the oil and gas industry to rush through actions that may be good for them in the long run. It certainly will not be good for some people in the short run. Anything that is approved now will take way too long before it has any impact in Ukraine. Raising prices may be good for some in the long run, but it will not be good for American manufacturers. It is not good if the whole idea is to create American jobs here at home, and it is not good for middle-class families.

I want to be very clear: I am extremely concerned about what is happening in Ukraine. We must stand with the people of Ukraine and our allies in Europe against the outrageous actions of Russia and President Putin. This crisis is very serious and requires a serious response by the Senate. I know colleagues on both sides of the aisle care deeply about this issue. I hope and I assume we will pass a package to help Ukraine as soon as possible.

Again, this crisis should not be used as an excuse to shortcut the permit process or the thoughtful evaluation that I know the Department of Energy is committed to doing to make sure we get this right. This crisis should not be used to rush through new natural gas export facilities that may undercut our effort to create good-paying jobs here at home.

The Department of Energy has already agreed to permit six liquefied natural gas LNG export facilities that will export over 9 billion cubic feet of LNG every day--and that is not counting the other 30 applications that have been approved for export to countries we have free trade agreements with. I am not suggesting that should not have been done; I have not opposed that. But we better be careful on how we move forward and how we evaluate the impact on our economy.

As we all know, LNG export facilities take years to build. We could approve permits for 100 new LNG facilities tomorrow, and unfortunately it would do nothing to address the crisis in Ukraine and potential supply disruptions to our other important allies in Western Europe.

Here is what I am most concerned about: We all know that gas prices are decided by the global marketplace. Prices are high in Asia right now. We don't have the existing infrastructure to get natural gas to Ukraine. The gas in the export facilities that are rushed through are very likely to go to Asia--very likely to go to China.

Should American natural gas be used to lower prices and create jobs in China or in other parts of Asia or should we be using low-cost natural gas to create jobs right here at home? I hope we can all agree on the answer to that question.

Rushing through more natural gas export facilities, unfortunately, would not help Ukraine. However, it could have a negative effect on our own economy in the long run. Increasing exports would reduce our supply here at home and raise consumer prices, and we all know how devastating that would be for our families. Higher prices for natural gas means it will cost more to cook your dinner, heat your home, and power your small business.

The recent propane shortages and dramatic price spikes we saw in States across the country should raise a red flag for everybody. We simply cannot afford to export too much natural gas too fast without truly understanding the impact on our own jobs and families. Plus, sending so much of our natural gas abroad will neutralize the competitive advantage we have right now for cheap and abundant fuel. We have an advantage right now, and we need to keep that advantage.

My concern is that we would be giving the big oil companies a boost because there would be higher prices for natural gas which would keep oil as a viable alternative because there would not be the advantage of natural gas anymore if we go to the global marketplace and all the prices go up.

In the end, the people of Ukraine and our allies who need our help would not be receiving it. Our own manufacturers, businesses, and families would not be receiving it. Instead, it would be going to the oil companies.

Shame on us if we squander the opportunities that low-cost, abundant natural gas resources offer our country. I believe we need to be smart in how we manage our resources.

Again, I am not opposed to exports. It is a question of a balance. It is a question of thinking it through in a thoughtful way and having an American plan where we are balancing out part exports, part keeping natural gas here at home, and making sure our manufacturers have the edge in a global economy because they have lower cost energy. We need to make sure we are bringing jobs back from overseas because of lower cost energy. We need to make sure our families have low-cost fuel and other energy assistance.

We need to be smart at this point in time about our resources. We have the opportunity, I believe, to find the right balance that allows us to both benefit from some exports and benefit from the resources by creating jobs here at home. Our manufacturers are families, the middle class of this country, the folks trying to hold on, folks trying to get into the middle class who know manufacturing jobs are a part of the way of doing that. They are counting on us. Our economy is counting on the fact that we will be smart about the way we make decisions about our natural resources. Right now with natural gas we have the opportunity not only for the States that have it to do well by exploration and extraction but by leveraging that as we look at the opportunities for manufacturing; leveraging our own resources, which we are told will give us eight times more in benefit in terms of jobs than just having our natural resources in America exported around the globe and the prices floating up to the higher prices of oil.

I thank the Chair. We are going to have a lot of discussion and debate on this issue going forward. I look forward to that. I think this is an opportunity for us to have an American plan on manufacturing, with American low-cost energy, to be able to jump-start our economy moving forward.

I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Madam President, I rise today to support the Ukraine assistance package, which will be on the floor for a vote later this evening. I want to thank the leadership of Senator Menendez and all the great work Senator Corker has put into this bill. I was proud to help put it together, along with Senators Johnson, McCain, and many others who were part of our debate in the Foreign Relations Committee.

I come to the floor, as I am sure others have and will over the course of this afternoon, to talk about the vital importance of a big bipartisan vote in favor of this legislation this evening.

Having just come from Ukraine--I was there this last weekend with a number of my colleagues, and it was my second trip to Kiev in the last 3 months--I can tell you they are awaiting a very strong signal of support from the U.S. Congress that will send a message we are going to stand together with our Ukrainian brothers and sisters as they engage in this epic battle for their independence, for their freedom, and for their sovereignty.

I won't belabor the underlying details of the bill, but the three components of the legislation are all equally important to Ukraine. We heard support for all three of these pieces while we were there over this last weekend.

First and foremost, clearly, we have to deliver on our promise of economic aid. There is $1 billion of loan guarantees in this bill, and it is contingent upon the signing of a new agreement with the IMF, but it will also leverage about $15 billion in funds from Europe. This is important because even before this crisis precipitated by the Russian invasion of Crimea, Ukraine's economy was incredibly fragile, and this international crisis has done nothing but to further weaken the country.

Ukrainians have a new government--one they have faith in, one they can believe in--that will finally bring an end to the corruption which has been rife throughout the Ukrainian Government over the past decade. But this new government will be undermined by an economic crisis that will occur, guaranteed, unless the United States steps up and provides this assistance. But we can't do it alone, and so that is why the second component of this bill would allow the United States to agree to a set of IMF reforms that would dramatically increase the amount of funding the IMF has to provide countries in crisis, such as Ukraine.

Every other IMF member has signed on to these reforms except for the United States, and it has been largely due to the intransigence of this body that the United States stands on the sidelines. Some people have categorized the IMF reform component of this bill as superfluous, as a political add-on. That couldn't be further from the truth. When we were meeting with Ukrainian officials in this new government last weekend, they specifically asked that we pass the IMF reforms, because they know the only way they get an assistance package that is in the neighborhood of $20 billion or $30 billion is through the IMF. And the IMF will be much more likely able to provide that if the United States steps up and agrees to these reforms.

Lastly, we need to send a strong, clear message to Russia there are consequences for their actions in Crimea. By giving the President the authorization to move forward on a broad range of sanctions, we will show that Putin was wrong when he calculated that a march into Crimea would come at little to no cost to Russia.

I want to talk for a minute about what this really tells us about the status of Russia in the region and in the world. I am sure my other colleagues will come down to talk about the importance of sanctions and how they may change the calculuses being made in Russia and Moscow today.

I have watched the media portray the events of the last couple of weeks as some sign of Russian strength. To me, this isn't a sign of Russian strength, this is a sign of Russian weakness.

Putin has designs for reestablishing some sense of the old Soviet empire by reasserting control over what Putin calls the near abroad, which are the former Soviet republics and Soviet satellite states. His dream of reestablishing the Soviet empire fell apart the day President Yanukovych fled Kiev.

Ukraine is the crown jewel of the near abroad. As Putin tried to recreate that empire under the guise of something called the customs union, he knew he couldn't do it without the second biggest country in Europe bordering on Russia--Ukraine. His invasion of Crimea was a panicked reaction to this new reality--a Ukraine now oriented toward the European Union.

So today, I think it is important to understand the position Putin is in. He has made a mess for the international community to try to clean up through his invasion of Crimea.

Crimea represents 2 million people in a country of 45 million, and 90 percent of Ukraine has a government in Kiev which just signed an association agreement with the European Union. Russia's economy is going to hemorrhage if he continues the occupation of Crimea through a broad-based set of international sanctions. He has become a pariah in the world community.

I agree with my colleague from Indiana: We shouldn't just be talking about removing Russia from the G8; we should take Russia out of the G8 and make it completely clear to them that they don't have a place at the international table along with countries such as the United States, France, Germany, and England if they behave in this way.

The bill we are debating today will give the President and new government in Kiev tools with which to try to address and perhaps end this crisis. But it is important to remember that this is not about reestablishing the Cold War. The world is oriented along paradigms that have nothing to do with who is with the United States and who is with Russia. This panicked invasion of Crimea, while rightly occupying the headlines on a nightly basis, is a display of Russia's weak position in the region and the world after the failure of their puppet government in Kiev to survive.

Lastly, I will talk about the broader history, both looking in the past but also looking to the future, we may miss when we concentrate on an hour-by-hour basis on the crisis at hand.

Having had the opportunity to visit Kiev a few times in the past several months, I have had the opportunity to learn a little bit about the history of the place and of the people. There is a wonderful cathedral in Kiev called the Church of St. Sophia. It is absolutely stunningly beautiful. It was built by Ukraine's greatest leader, Yaroslav the Wise. He presided over an empire which was at the time called Kievan Rus. Kievan Rus was essentially the hub of trading on the Eurasian continent. It took goods from the east and transported them to the west. It took goods from the Scandinavian countries and transported them down to the Mediterranean. Everything ran through the territory of Kievan Rus. It speaks to Ukraine's past but also to its future.

They have been set up with a false choice within the crisis of the last several months: Join the European Union or stay aligned with Russia. But what we know is that Kiev historically has stood at the crossroads--not just east and west but of east and west and north and south. This is Ukraine's past, but it is also going to be Ukraine's future.

While we try to deal today with a Russia run by a leader whose foreign policy seems dictated by a desire to poke a stick in the eye of the United States, I ultimately think viewing the

forest through the trees also means acknowledging that Russia's future ultimately, in a post-Putin era, is about integration with Europe and integration with the West as well. Frankly, this is the direction Russia was heading until Putin took power.

The conversation about how we realize that ultimate paradigm is a conversation for another day. But when Senator McCain and I went to Kiev in December and stood on the stage speaking to a million Ukrainians who had come down to the square to protest the current government, they were there to talk about one concept: dignity. For some it was about Europe, for some it was about corruption, and for some it was about the brutal violence on the square displayed by Yanukovych. For most people, they wanted to restore dignity to their lives, and what dignity really is about in the end is the ability to choose for yourself what your future is. This is why we are here to support Ukraine.

No country--the United States, the Russian Federation, Germany-- should dictate to the Ukrainians what their future should be. That is why, in the wake of the invasion, in the wake of years of economic manipulation from Russia, we are going to extend a firm hand to the Ukrainians with an assistance package and a message of economic consequences to Russia.

The world we envision ultimately is one not only where Ukraine gets to go back to its historical routes and draw from east and west but one in which Russia realizes that their economic salvation lies not in setting up some new Cold War but in fully integrating themselves, their economy, and their political institutions not only with countries such as Ukraine, not only with the nations of the EU, but beyond to American shores as well. This is the future.

But that reality will never exist for the young nation of Ukraine unless it survives this moment. And we can send a strong message this evening that this body stands with that future for this young nation of Ukraine by supporting the package before us.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Thank you, Mr. President.

In Alaska there is a great deal of attention focused this week on the Great Alaska Earthquake of 1964. March 27 marked the 50th anniversary of this amazing physical event, the second largest earthquake that has ever been recorded, an episode Alaskans have been talking about for the past 50 years and will be talking about for the next 50. I rise this afternoon not to speak about that anniversary but to speak of a 25-year anniversary that while not caused by Mother Nature had a devastating impact on Alaska and the surrounding waters of our State. I would like to speak very briefly about where we are 25 years after the Exxon Valdez ran aground on Bligh Reef.

The Exxon Valdez was a 987-foot tanker. It was carrying 53 million gallons of crude oil. It struck Bligh Reef in Prince William Sound at 12:04 a.m., on March 24, 1989, and within literally hours it had released approximately 11 million gallons of crude oil into the water.

As most know, the Alaskan coastline isn't just a nice thin straight beach; it is hundreds and hundreds of coves and islands and miles of shoreline. That oil spread over approximately 1,000 miles of shoreline across our coast. It is absolutely a fact that this environmental disaster is something that has left an impression on Alaskans not unlike what we experienced 25 years prior to that with another one of Mother Nature's devastations, the Great Friday earthquake in 1964.

It is important when we have milestones, when we have anniversaries or times where we pause to think about what has happened before, that we not only think about the tragedy at the time but we think about how we have moved forward from that time, hopefully learning from those incidents that trigger such strong memories.

So many Alaskans have stories of how they worked to help clean up the oil spill in the aftermath of the Exxon Valdez, whether it was fishermen who had been displaced--they were no longer going out and fishing; instead they charged their vessels to be part of the massive cleanup effort that was underway. The stories that are out there throughout our State and from folks around the country are as poignant and touching 25 years later as they were at the time, because as the environment was impacted, the lives of Alaskans were clearly impacted.

I like to think I spend a good amount of time in the small fishing community of Cordova--a community that was dramatically impacted by the Exxon Valdez spill--visiting with fishermen and fishing families decades after the fact and hearing their stories not only of the loss they incurred because they were not able to go out and fish, they were not able to meet their boat mortgages, but the other stresses the community experienced because of this disaster, whether it was personal bankruptcies, whether it was divorce, whether it was social issues because people just couldn't deal with the fact that their landscape and their livelihoods had been changed. It was a very trying and traumatic time. I think those scars take decades to heal.

My hope is that, as Alaskans, we come together and learn from these tragedies and events so we can move forward. We are pretty resilient people. The people who have been so dramatically impacted are proof and evidence of that.

What else have we seen as we have tried to learn from that tragedy? I think it is fair to say that at the time--back in 1989 when the Exxon Valdez ran aground--there was perhaps, as some would call it, a complacency. Perhaps we were just not monitoring operations as we should have,

but we had an industry that had been operating quite safely--absolutely safely--for decades without incident. When you lose that vigilance, things can happen, and things happened with the Exxon Valdez.

Since that time, we have learned that you have to have a level of preparedness as you operate in areas such as the Prince William Sound, you have to have a level of preparedness that meets the challenge you face. At the time the tanker ran aground, the spill response equipment that was there and had been planned for was not readily available. We didn't have sufficient boom available in the event of a disaster. We didn't have the fleet that could go out and assist in the disaster.

Now, 25 years later, Alyeska has 189 skimmers, 49 miles of boom and on-water storage capacity of almost 38 million gallons. We have put in place a requirement that North Slope oil must be transported in double- hull tankers. You cannot bring a tanker in to carry North Slope crude unless it is double-hulled. It doesn't matter what the weather is, we require a level of escort--a two-tug escort--out of the Prince William Sound. It can be a flat, calm summer day or a foul winter day, but every tanker going out is escorted by two tugs. We also have radar monitors that are in place that truly allow for a greater level of oversight and scrutiny.

What we have done in response to the spill is, I think, something that is worthy of note. Clearly, it is something that Other Nations look to as the example of preparedness. We have our Prince William Sound Regional Citizens Advisory Council in place. They are truly active and engaged, not only with the community, but with the fishing fleets.

We have learned that the company Alyeska--the management company for the transportation of Alaska's North Slope oil--conducts two major oil spill drills every year to make sure that there is a level of preparedness. We have about 400 local fishing boat owners that are trained to deploy and maintain the boom. They come together with drills to make sure we never have anything like we saw with the Exxon Valdez again.

I think it is fair to say that 25 years after the spill, we are continuing to monitor not only the land and water but our fisheries. I recognize we still have a herring fishery that has not yet recovered. We still have a bird population--the guillemot--which has not recovered.

Twenty-five years is a long time. When you have a disaster, as we had, it does leave an impact. My goal, mission, and effort as a legislator is to make certain we do not have a level of complacency where we close our eyes and fail in our efforts for preparedness again.

I think what we have demonstrated in Alaska since the spill is, as I say, admirable in recognizing that we had failed in a level of prevention, but we also recognized we could learn from that tragedy and move forward, and we did.

I wanted to take a couple of minutes this afternoon and acknowledge that there are still many Alaskans who woke up this morning not thinking about the weather or getting their kids to school, but with a very strong reminder of where they were 25 years ago and how the events of that day changed people's lives. Again, the goal here is to never have a tragedy of that scale and scope again.

With that, I thank the Chair, yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.