Floor Statements

I announce that the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Warner) is necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Warner) is necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Warner) is necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from Louisiana (Ms. Landrieu) and the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Warner) are necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez) is necessarily absent.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, as I speak, all over the country telephones are ringing. When the recipient of the call picks up, they are greeted by the friendly voice of a college recruiter from a for- profit college or university. It is easy to go back to school, this recruiter will tell those who answer the phone. In fact, we can sign you up for Federal loans right now.

That is the key. These for-profit colleges and universities target individuals who qualify for easy Federal money. Pell grants and GI bill benefits are preferred. And all the promises sound so good to those who are receiving these phone calls. After all, going back to school is supposed to be the path to success and more money in your life. But before they know what has hit them, these people who answered the phone call from for-profit schools and universities find out they are taking on more debt than they can even understand and may end up with a so- called education that is worthless.

That is what happened to Jaqueta Cherry from North Carolina. After trying a community college, Jaqueta was lured by the kind voice on the other end of the phone and the fancy commercials on TV. She saw them in North Carolina. You see them across the United States. Get on a bus in Chicago and look around at all the signs trying to lure young people on those buses into for-profit colleges and universities.

Jaqueta said: The schools blew up my phone.

She enrolled at Everest College, which is part of the Corinthian College chain. The California attorney general is currently suing this chain of schools, and the Department of Education is investigating allegations that they lied to the Federal Government about their job placements.

In the meantime, Jaqueta's living situation changed, and she had to drop out and couldn't continue her studies at Everest. It wasn't long before she was tracked down by another for-profit school through a pop- up ad she clicked on, on the Internet. If someone is college age and gets on the Internet, they will see these ads bombarding them from for- profit colleges and universities. She got a call the next day from the Education Management Corporation's The Art Institutes and signed up for an online program.

After taking out more loans, Jaqueta found herself unable to continue her courses. Her roommate had moved out, left her with unpaid bills, and her only access to the Internet was a phone that was turned off 2 days prior to her final exams. At that point she was thousands of dollars in debt with nothing to show for it. Guess what. The calls kept coming. DeVry--the second or third largest for-profit school in the United States, based in Chicago, currently being investigated by the Federal Trade Commission for their advertising and marketing policies-- called her, and then ITT Tech called her as well. They are being sued by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau for pressuring students into high-cost private loans.

The calls she gets from Everest and The Art Institutes these days are not the kind voices they used to be. ``They're very mean and threatening,'' she says. Not surprising. You see, Jaqueta is no longer an ATM machine from which they can draw Federal dollars.

For many years for-profit schools were allowed to operate relatively freely and often one step ahead of the regulators. I am hopeful that with the investigations I mentioned and the many others that are occurring State by State, we may be turning a corner. We need to hold these schools--all schools but especially for-profit schools-- accountable to taxpayers, who often subsidize up to 90 percent of their operations, and to students, who ultimately are their victims.

If we take all the Federal money that goes to for-profit colleges and universities and total it up, it is around $20 billion. This private sector group would be the equivalent of the ninth largest Federal agency in Washington. They

survive on Federal money. The only thing different is, of course, their employees aren't Federal employees and their CEOs make more money than any employee of the Federal Government could ever dream of.

There are a lot of agencies involved in looking at these for-profit colleges and universities--Department of Education, Securities and Exchange Commission, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Federal Trade Commission, Department of Defense, and others. It is important that they work together.

This morning I held a hearing in my Defense Appropriations Subcommittee. In front of me was the Secretary of the Navy, the Commandant of the Marine Corps, and the Chief of Naval Operations, and we talked about these schools. I can tell you in private what they told me. They are saddened at how many military families are lured into these schools and waste their GI benefits, going online to places called the American Military University--boy, doesn't that sound official. That sounds like the real thing. It is another for-profit school that just happened to pick a name which appeals to a lot of soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines.

A nephew of mine was a doorman right up here. Then he served in the Army and was sent overseas to Afghanistan. I was so proud of him. He got home safely. Then he was sent to Korea. He came home safely. Now he is out of the Army. He contacted me once and said: I have good news for you. I avoided all those for-profit schools you warned me about, and I signed up with the American Military University.

He didn't know any better. He thought for sure that this was real. It is really not. I advised him that there is one university from his home State, the University of Maryland, which has been offering courses to the military for decades--and their hours are transferable when he comes home.

Oh, he said. I should have thought of that.

What the Navy told us this morning is they are now sitting down with the sailors and their families and saying: Think twice before you sign up for these for-profit schools. You are wasting your GI benefits on schools that could be worthless. Think twice about whether those hours are transferable when you get out of the service.

Sadly, there are too many American citizens--young people primarily and even members of the military--who were lured into these awful schools before anybody warned them.

Senator Tom Harkin of Iowa and I are working on a bill we will introduce next week to ensure that the agencies currently investigating all of these for-profit schools are coordinating their efforts. He and I teamed up on this issue a long time ago. It is going to be a shame when Senator Harkin retires from the Senate this year, but the for- profit schools should know that the spotlight Tom Harkin turned on with his committee hearings is going to continue even after he leaves.

An industry that receives more than $25 billion in Federal dollars and has such a terrible record needs aggressive oversight. We don't owe it to just the taxpayers who are coming up with $25 billion for these schools; we owe it to the students who are lured into these schools, lured into debt, and end up many times with nothing to show for it.

We need to keep three numbers in mind when we think about the for- profit colleges and universities, and I always warn people that these three numbers will be on the final, so listen closely.

Ten percent of the students who graduate from high school go to for- profit colleges and universities; yet they receive 20 percent of all the Federal aid to education because they cost twice as much. For- profit colleges and universities account for 46 percent of all student loan defaults. So 10 percent of the students, 46 percent of the defaults. Why? They charge too much, they lure these students deep into debt, and the students can't finish school or end up with worthless diplomas when they graduate.

The sad reality is that the Federal Government is complicit. We are complicit because we don't blow the whistle on these schools, which should never, ever--never--qualify for Pell grants and Federal student loans.

There is a kicker. Unlike virtually every other debt you can incur in life, student loans are not dischargeable in bankruptcy. I have had students $150,000 in debt after 4 years in school and their lives are virtually ruined. They had no idea what they were getting into. When they were private loans, those loans grew geometrically whenever they failed to pay. Where are those students today? They are living in their parents' basement. They cannot afford to get married, they cannot buy a car, and if they get married, they cannot afford to have children. They certainly cannot afford to borrow money to go to a real college or university. They are stuck, and we ought to do something about it.

Student loans in this country are exploding. They are trapping generations of students such as Jaqueta in poverty, and they are hurting their opportunities for being full members in our society and economy. We have to address head-on these for-profit colleges which are a scourge on education. There are a few exceptions, but by and large this industry with 46 percent of the student loan defaults is shameful.

Chairman Harkin is going to hold a hearing in the Senate HELP Committee this week on the student loan programs. I am going to work with him and submit some testimony. Senator Jack Reed of Rhode Island and Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and I are putting together a package of bills. We are going to address this issue from a lot of different perspectives. There is no reason a college student should sign up for a private loan with higher interest rates and worse conditions for payback when they are still eligible for government loans which are more flexible and have lower interest rates. Yet some of these irresponsible schools steer their kids into private loans. The kids don't know any better, neither do their parents. Secondly, they end up loaning money to these students and to their families that they will never, ever be able to pay back. Senator Reed says they ought to have some skin in the game. At some point if they have been overextended in loans, they ought to have to eat some of those losses when the students cannot pay it back.

Senator Warren is tackling an even bigger issue about refinancing college loans. What is it all about? It is about giving a fair shot to these families and these students. We are going to talk a lot about this.

When I think of where I am today, it is because of my mother who checked my report card every 6 weeks and told me I could always do better and because of that I ended up in college and law school and here I stand. I borrowed money from the government to do it and couldn't have done it otherwise. So I believe in education, and I certainly believe kids from lower and middle-income families, when they need to borrow money, should have that opportunity. What is happening today is out of hand. The debt we are piling on students and their families is unconscionable, not just the for-profit schools but across the board.

On this side of the aisle we believe these students deserve an opportunity, and they shouldn't be saddled with a debt that can literally ruin their lives. We are going to be working on this issue as part of our effort this year to define what Congress can do to make this a better nation for working families across the board to make sure everyone--everyone--has a fair shot.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I listened carefully to the comments of the minority leader, Senator McConnell, and he is asking for bipartisanship and quick action on the Ukrainian matter before the Senate today. I agree with him completely.

In fact, it was about 10 days ago when Senator John McCain, on the other side of the aisle, joined with me and six of our colleagues, and we took a late-night flight on a Thursday evening, flew all night long to go to Kiev, Ukraine. We spent the whole day on Friday meeting with government leaders. We had one night in a hotel room and then the next day, Saturday, a whole day of meeting with their leaders as well. Late that night we caught a plane back to Washington, arriving at 5 in the morning.

It was a whirlwind trip but an important one because it came just hours before the Russians staged this phony referendum in Crimea--a referendum that had been condemned by the United Nations Security Council, with the exception of Russia's vote. They voted against the condemnation, which was to be expected. China abstained.

So the question before us is, What can and should the Senate do, and when should it do it? Well, we have a measure before us that passed out of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. I believe the vote was 14 to 3. I may be mistaken by a vote or two there, but it was a strong bipartisan majority. Senator Menendez then brought it to the floor.

When it came to the floor before our trip to Ukraine, Senator Reid offered to bring it to the floor and pass it and do this on a bipartisan basis quickly--just what the Senate minority leader is now asking for--but there was an objection. The objection came from the Senate minority leader's side of the aisle. A Republican Senator objected to moving this bipartisan measure forward quickly. So Senator Reid set up the vote that happened yesterday when 78 Members voted in the affirmative to move to this measure. That is a good thing. I hope we can bring it up this week, and if the other side or any Senator has a proposal for an amendment, I hope they won't keep it to themselves and conceal it but bring it forward. Let's talk about it and see if we can amend this measure, change this measure in a constructive fashion, without introducing a lot of amendments which might bog us down in long-term debate.

The Ukrainians are waiting to hear from the United States. What they

want to hear from us is very simple. Are we on their side? Will we stand with them as they resist Russian aggression and the possibility of Russia moving from Crimea into Ukraine proper. This is a legitimate concern in Ukraine.

We met with the governor of Donetsk in the eastern reaches of Ukraine, where there are more Russian-speaking people and perhaps more Russian loyalty than perhaps in other parts of the country, and he is concerned about provocateurs coming in from Russia stirring up the local people in demonstrations. Several people have been killed in the process. They want to see things stabilized and quieted. In order to do that, I think the United States and freedom-loving nations around the world need to stand with Ukraine. This is the purpose of our resolution: to sanction Russia for its aggression in Crimea, to warn them off from any further aggression into Eastern and Southern Ukraine, to provide some basic assistance to Ukraine, and to set up a process where this new government in Ukraine can borrow--underline ``borrow''-- money under conditions from the International Monetary Fund to rebuild their economy. It is an economy on the ropes.

The previous leader Yanukovych was loyal to Moscow. People came to the streets and said they felt the government was insensitive to their own feeling that there also should be an attachment to the West and that Ukraine could in fact at least look to the West in terms of its economic future. Yanukovych resisted--demonstrations on the street, hundreds of thousands of people in the Maidan and Kiev, Ukraine, and 103 of those demonstrators gunned down, shot and killed in the streets, by snipers firing from government buildings.

There is a high state of emotion in the Ukraine today, as Yanukovych fled the country and the parliament took control. The new prime minister is a man who, at the age of 39, has an awesome responsibility. He carries the burden of his nation on his shoulders. He came to the United States asking for our help. President Obama met with him. He met with Members of the Senate, and I thought that conversation was positive--moving us forward. Now it is up to the Senate this week to move on this measure. Let's not bog down in partisan debates. Let's not get off on tangents.

One of the issues I think will be brought up in the course of this week is the question of energy, and it is an important question because Putin has to be viewed for what he is today. He is the leader of Russia, and he is trying to save and sustain a failing Soviet franchise. He said: The most disappointing event of the 20th century was the elimination of the Soviet Union. Those were Putin's words. He has this dream of restoring an empire, reaching out to countries which used to be republics of the Soviet Union and members of the Warsaw Pact nations, and trying to bring them back into the Russian fold. We saw it 8 years ago when he invaded Georgia and took territory there.

I have been there. I have seen it. Behind the barbed wire in South Ossetia we see the Russian troops. They are garrisoned trying to protect that region of Georgia which they seized 8 years ago. The same thing is true now in Crimea. This is Putin's idea. If he can't win the hearts and minds of neighboring nations, he will take them over with masked gunmen, Russian soldiers, and energy extortion.

There was a debate in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee about whether or not we can come to the assistance of those surrounding nations being preyed upon by the Russians and Putin--and to do it with assistance through energy. In the last several years we have found an abundance of natural gas in the United States. Somewhat surprisingly, our country, 5 years ago dependent on foreign energy sources, now has a surplus of natural gas.

So the question was raised: Can we transport this gas to these countries, liberating them from dependence on Russia for energy sources? It is a very important question. It is a timely question. But it is one we should view in the context of where we are today.

The good news is companies are moving back to the United States to reestablish manufacturing in our country--good-paying jobs. Why? We have skilled workers, some of the most productive in the world. Secondly, we now have this surplus of natural gas--an important feedstock for manufacturing jobs. With those two elements and transportation costs, we find more companies coming back to the United States, and we need them--in Illinois, in New Jersey, and desperately around the United States.

So the question then is raised--an important question: Would we jeopardize our economic growth, our creation of manufacturing jobs, if we started exporting the natural gas which we have discovered? It is a worthy debate, an important debate. It is one that is really important when we consider the future of building manufacturing jobs in America.

Secondly, we take a look at this natural gas debate, and we have to put it in historic context. Those who say to export, just to sell it, and that it is another commodity, need to put this in historical context. If 5 years ago the United States had gone through a famine, would we be exporting agricultural goods today without concern? I don't think so. We would think twice about it because we can remember that not that long ago we were vulnerable. Thank goodness we weren't and haven't been. But think about the energy famine we suffered some 5 years ago. We were dependent on OPEC. We were dependent on foreign suppliers. We were worried about where our Nation was going from an energy perspective.

The discovery of new sources of natural gas, new methods of extraction and new sources of oil, for example, have given us hope that we are going to be an energy surplus Nation. But it is a newfound treasure, and it is one about which we ought to be careful and measure carefully.

Some say we have plenty, more than we can use, and it should be an international commodity. Others say take care and make certain we make the decisions best for America, number one.

Should we debate that and decide that in a matter of minutes or hours on the floor of the Senate this week or take the time to look at it carefully? I think the latter.

When I went and spoke with the new Prime Minister of Ukraine, Yatsenyuk, I mentioned this possibility: What if we exported liquefied natural gas to Ukraine? He said: We don't have a place to receive it today. It is a pretty substantial investment of infrastructure to receive LNG into our country and to use it effectively. We are not in the position with our economy to make that investment today. We are going to look to other energy sources in the near term.

So the notion that natural gas exports will have benefit for Ukraine or any nation in the near term may be wishful thinking. Shouldn't we look at that part of the equation honestly about what they can absorb, when they can absorb it, and whether they want it? I think these are all legitimate and critically important energy policy debates in which we should engage.

But let's not make any mistake about it. We need to pass a resolution condemning what Russia has done in Crimea and threatens to do in Ukraine. They have gathered at the borders of Belarus and in Russia, on the eastern reaches of Ukraine--military forces far beyond what was necessary to guarantee an orderly referendum in Crimea a little over 9 days ago. They are poised to move forward. I pray that they won't.

We have to make it clear in the West--whether it is President Obama's visit with the G-7 nations, whether it is the European Union in resolution or even our Senate and House--that we stand with Ukraine. We want to stand by their sovereign and territorial integrity.

Many people didn't notice--they should have--but in 1994, Ukraine was the third strongest nuclear power in the world. After the breakup of the Soviet Union, Ukraine had more nuclear weapons than any country on earth, save the United States and Russia.

In 1994, they came forward and said: We are prepared to eliminate and destroy our nuclear arsenal if we have the assurance of major nations this won't jeopardize our future and it won't jeopardize our territorial integrity. They produced what was known as the Budapest Memorandum. The Budapest Memorandum was signed by the United States, the United Kingdom,

Ukraine, and Russia, guaranteeing that at least in principle all those nations would respect the territorial integrity of Ukraine. Within the last 2 weeks, Russia has not only reneged on that promise--it has in fact invaded Ukraine and taken over territory there.

It is important for us, when it comes to Ukraine, to not only stand by the Ukrainian people as they move toward a more democratic form of government, but it is important for us to reinforce the premise that if a country will give up its nuclear weapons, will not pursue the development of nuclear weapons, and become part of the nuclear club, we will basically say: That will not create a dangerous situation for your future. This is what the Budapest agreement was about, recently violated by Russia, one of the signatories.

If we want to make the argument in Iran, North Korea, and other countries, that they should foreswear their nuclear weapons, shouldn't we also be standing by the premise that if they do, at least civilized nations will stand behind them if they and their sovereignty are threatened? This is what is happening today in Ukraine and Crimea.

It is not just a question of the survival of the Ukrainian Government but also a question as to whether civilized countries around the world trying to lessen the threat of nuclear weapons will stand with one voice and condemn the Russians for what they have done.

It is very clear Putin has ambitions far beyond the Republic of Georgia and far beyond Ukraine. He engaged in this charm offensive at the Sochi Olympics and talked about the modern Russia and what it meant in the 21st century. The very same troops who were protecting the athletes from terrorism in Sochi, as soon as the final ceremony ended, were shifted and transferred into Crimea to invade that nation. The charm offensive was clearly over. NBC may have covered the Sochi Olympics, but it didn't cover the invasion of Crimea in real-time. But it happened, and we know it happened.

Having been to Ukraine with Senator McCain and six other colleagues, our bipartisan delegation found a deep attachment in Ukraine to the United States. It is an attachment sometimes linked to specific families. I happen to represent the City of Chicago, where there is a prominent section known as Ukrainian Village. When I returned from Ukraine and went back to this section of Chicago, near the church where the Ukrainians worship on Sunday, we had over 500 people who gathered to hear what I had seen and heard and to talk about where we should go when it came to the future of Ukraine.

But it is worthy to note that there weren't just Ukrainian Americans in that room in Chicago when I returned a week ago. In the front row were Polish people--and we have more Poles in Chicago than almost any other city outside of the nation of Poland--Lithuanians, Latvians, Georgians, and even Venezuelans. They had all come there to listen carefully, many of them with memories that not that long ago they were under Soviet domination and lived in fear of what would come from Moscow. These same people were standing together. They were standing in league with their Ukrainian-American neighbors, with the understanding that throughout its modern history Russia and the Soviet Union have taken over countries nearby when they could, and many times we didn't speak out.

I have heard the argument made that perhaps, if the United States showed more military force in other places in the world, we might have discouraged Vladimir Putin. That argument doesn't make sense. Look at history. We were in the midst of the Vietnam war and we had committed half a million troops. The greatest military in the world was engaged in Southeast Asia when Brezhnev, the head of the Soviet Union, invaded Czechoslovakia. We were engaged in two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, actively showing the power of our military in those countries, under President George W. Bush, when Vladimir Putin invaded the Republic of Georgia.

So I think it is an empty argument to say if we just show our muscles and start a war someplace, the rest of the world will be fearful. I don't think it is a recipe for the future. What the President is trying to do is to establish political and economic sanctions on Russia which will cost their economy and put pressure on them to stop this aggressive conduct. That, to me, is sensible.

Let's take up this measure. If Members have amendments, bring them to the floor. Let's pass it today, not later this week. Let's show that we stand with the Ukrainians and oppose Russian aggression, support sanctions when needed, and prepare to loan to the Ukrainians the money they need to sustain their economy and to build it in the future.

Ukraine is the second largest country in Europe. It is moving toward the West. Let us welcome them. As long as they are going to make certain their future is consistent with our democratic values, I think it is important we not only continue this dialogue but show we can truly be their allies and friends.

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

Mr. President, I understand we have an announcement from the Chair.

Mr. President, I congratulate Jean Manning on her retirement from the Senate and thank her for her 21 years of dedicated service. Her wise counsel will be missed in the Senate. That is why the Senate recently passed S. Res. 391 designating Jean Manning as Chief Counsel for Employment Emeritus of the United States Senate.

Jean grew up in the heart of Chicago and received three degrees from the University of Illinois--a B.A., an M.B.A., and a J.D. While pursuing her law degree, Jean was a member and the articles editor of the University of Illinois Law Review and was awarded the Rickert Award for Excellence in Legal Writing. Not forgetting where she came from, today Jean remains very active at the University of Illinois, where she is a member of the University of Illinois Foundation and of the College of Law Board of Advisors, serving as president at one time.

In the early 1990s, Congress as a workplace underwent a sea change when all major employment laws became applicable. In 1993, following a nationwide search, Jean was tapped to establish and manage the Office of the Senate Chief Counsel for Employment. She and her staff helped guide Senate offices as these employment laws were implemented and has continued to assist our offices to this day. Jean has counseled Senate offices to ensure compliance with the Equal Pay Act, the Family and Medical Leave Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act and many other laws. It was her responsibility to see that Senate offices understood and followed employment laws so that Senate employees have the rights and protections the laws provide.

To Jean's credit, the Office of the Senate Chief Counsel for Employment

has earned a stellar reputation throughout the Senate. Her office provides impartial and discreet legal advice, training, and representation to Senate committees, support services, and the 247 Senators who have served in this body since Jean's hiring. Jean and the attorneys under her supervision have resolved countless administrative matters within the Senate and have always been ready to assist with any question a Senate office may have on employment matters. Considering the Senate is comprised of some 150 offices--Member, committee, and support services--this is no small task.

Jean also has represented Senate offices at all levels of the Federal court system, including the U.S. Supreme Court. And since its inception 21 years ago, the Office of the Senate Chief Counsel for Employment has never lost a case.

I thank Jean for her exceptional service to the Senate. The Senate is losing a great legal advocate, educator and source of institutional knowledge. We will miss her, though I will be among the many who will gladly welcome her back when she returns to Illinois.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 25, 2014, at 9:30 a.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 25, 2014, at 10 a.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Importing Energy, Exporting Jobs. Can it be Reversed?''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be authorized to meet, during the session of the Senate, on March 25, 2014, at 2:30 p.m. in room 430 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Teacher Preparation: Ensuring a Quality Teacher in Every Classroom.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Emergency Management, Intergovernmental Relations, and the District of Columbia of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 25, 2014, at 2:30 p.m. to conduct a hearing entitled, ``Transparency and Training: Preparing our First Responders for Emerging Threats and Hazards.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities of the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 25, 2014, at 2:15 p.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 25, 2014, at 2:30 p.m.

Will the Senator yield for a question?

Madam President, I wish to say through the Chair it was an honor to join my colleague Senator McCain in a whirlwind trip to Ukraine: 48 hours, maybe 6 extra to spare; 2 full days of working, meeting every leader at every level of government there and sensing their concern over the pending so-called referendum on Crimea and what Russia will do next. The Senator from Arizona and I stand together in a bipartisan fashion, urging the passage of this resolution as quickly as possible.

I just left the phone--the reason I came to the floor, I say to the Senator from Arizona, I was on the phone with the Ambassador of Ukraine and we were talking about the situation there, and I said: Senator McCain is on the floor and I would like to go down and say a word.

He said the people of Ukraine are watching what we are doing. They are watching what Congress and the United States are going to do.

There are some differences between us. There are some differences between the parties. There comes a moment--and there always has, at least in the past--where we decide we are going to stand together as a nation, particularly when it comes to issues of foreign policy. This resolution doesn't address every issue the Senator from Arizona has raised, but it certainly addresses some key issues on which the Senator and I both agree. We both voted for this in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and we both want to see this move. The sooner the better.

I wish to salute my colleague, the Senator from Arizona, for returning to the Maidan, that area in Kiev where 103 Ukrainians lost their lives demonstrating against the former government and asking for change. Our experience together, visiting that country with a delegation of eight Senators, I hope sent a strong message: There is bipartisan support for Ukraine and we will not tolerate Putin's aggression at the expense of innocent people.

Through the Chair, I couldn't agree more. I think it is significant that when the new Prime Minister of Ukraine was scheduling his first trip outside of the country, where did he come? Here, Washington, DC. With whom did he meet? The President and the leaders. We sat together with him in a room downstairs--the Senate Foreign Relations Committee room. He came here because he wanted to bring the message to us of what he feared would happen if Putin's aggression went forward, and he wanted us to bring the message to the world that the United States stood by him. How can we possibly explain to these people who are worried about the existence and survival of their Nation that we got tied up in some political squabble between the House and the Senate and the two political parties? It is important for us to move and move quickly.

The Senator from Arizona understands this as well or better than most. Many of us have come from countries which were once under the yoke of the Soviets and we remember full well what it took to finally get independence and democracy. Today, Vladimir Putin is fighting to save a failing Soviet franchise, and where he can't win the hearts and minds of neighboring nations, he instead uses masked gunmen, troops, barbed wire, and energy extortion. That is how he works. He is not winning this battle, but he is saying to the world: The only way I can keep my ``friends'' in line is with pressure. So the United States, and I hope other civilized nations, will join us in saying that is unacceptable.

I thank the Senator and I agree with him. Now is the time to act in the Senate.

I announce that the Senator from Washington (Ms. Cantwell), the Senator from Louisiana (Ms. Landrieu), and the Senator from Missouri (Mrs. McCaskill) are necessarily absent.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Chris Landberg, a detailee from the State Department to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, be granted floor privileges for the duration of the consideration of any legislation related to Ukraine, including S. 2124, Support for the Sovereignty, Integrity, Democracy, and Economic Stability of Ukraine Act of 2014. The original request comes from my colleague standing here, Chairman Bob Menendez from the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

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

Mr. President, across the country every day millions of Americans are working in low-wage jobs, going back to school to increase their skills in order to pay their bills and take care of their families. They do their best to balance work and family obligations, but too many moms and dads really struggle with the high cost of quality, safe childcare.

One out of three families with young children earns less than $25,000 a year, and childcare can cost $4,800 to $16,000 a year. In many parts of the country childcare for two children now exceeds average rental payments.

According to a recent report by Child Care Aware America, in more than half the States--including my own State of Illinois--it costs families more to put an infant in childcare than to cover tuition and fees in a public college. In many parts of the country, childcare for children now exceeds average rental payments. Low-income families spend almost half their salaries on childcare. It is a significant part of the family's budget. Child care and development block grant is an important program that helps low-income working families with the cost of childcare and afterschool programs. This program serves more than 1.6 million children in the United States every month. In Illinois, more than 50,000 children receive support.

As we learn more about the significance of the first few years in the life of a child's development, it is not enough just to improve access; we have to improve the quality of childcare for young children. Children in their early years are facing some of the most important moments of development, and their experiences in the first few years could literally shape their young lives. Early childhood education gives kids the solid foundation they need, not just to kindergarten but beyond. Working parents who don't have good options for quality childcare face an unfair dilemma.

Just ask Tabatha Okamoto of Chicago, IL. Tabatha has faced the challenge of finding adequate childcare for her son since he was an infant. On days when she cannot find a spot in a childcare center she hopes that maybe a family member or maybe a neighbor will be able to take care of him. She worries about losing her job, and she was almost fired because there were so many days she was late because of childcare issues.

Even when she finds reliable childcare, she still has a tough time figuring out how to pay for it. Tabatha is a good mom, but she has a lot of expenses and a low-income job. She pays her rent, health insurance, and other bills and $800 monthly for her son to attend Little Fox Day School in Lincoln Square Center. It would be too much for her to handle on her own. Because of this program being debated on the floor of the Senate, Tabatha's out-of-pocket costs are now between $250 and $375 a month for this daycare at Little Fox Day School. It is less than half. It is still a sacrifice to come up with $250 to $400 a month, but at least she has a fighting chance to make sure her son has good daycare. More importantly, this program is giving Tabatha the peace of mind to know her son is in the right place when she goes to work every day.

It has been more than 20 years since we started this block grant. We need to update it. The grant program before us on the floor today, the child care and development block grant, would make much-needed updates to the law, expanding access to toddlers and infants and lower income families, strengthening health and safety standards and training, and ensuring the program is meeting the needs of children with disabilities, and expanding background checks for childcare providers.

I want to thank Senators Barbara Mikulski and Tom Harkin, who have been champions of children and working Americans, for all the work they put into this bill. I want to thank Senator Richard Burr on the other side of the aisle and Lamar Alexander as well for making this a true bipartisan effort.

I hope my colleagues will join me today when this bill comes up for a vote. This is the kind of bipartisan bill we all should support. Working moms and dads need peace of mind knowing their kids are in a safe place that would help their children develop in the right way.

I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Boxer) and the Senator from Missouri (Mrs. McCaskill) are necessarily absent.