Floor Statements

Mr. President, I wish I could rise today to talk about the underlying legislation we are supposed to be talking about, which is a bill to fund the Department of Homeland Security, and also address the President's Executive order on immigration, which went around the Congress but also went around the American people.

A judge in Texas agrees with those of us on this side of the aisle who look at this as an illegal act. Instead, the President ought to work with us. The President should work with the House and the Senate and the elected representatives of the American people to actually pass a law to help fix what is broken in our immigration system.

We are not able to get on that legislation, and it is not because we have differences about the bill that we could talk about. We could have votes on amendments and debate this issue, but there are those on the other side of the aisle who have decided they don't even want us to have the opportunity to hash out those differences so we can vote. I think the constituents I represent in Ohio expect us to have that debate, and they want us to have that debate. I hope those on the other side of the aisle will let us have that debate, and we could have a good, honest discussion about this and address both of these problems-- the need to fund the Department and also the need to address this Executive order. I think it is another example where Washington has let down the people I represent.

In the meantime, this is no time for political games. It is a dangerous world. We have a real problem, not just here at home in protecting the homeland, but also with fires burning all around the world. It is time we showed some leadership both here in this Chamber and down the street at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. It is time for Presidential leadership.

If you turn on the TV tonight, what you will see is those fires burning. You will see a world more dangerous than the one we had after 9/11. You will see threats to the United States and our allies that seem to grow with every passing day. But even as these threats grow, it seems as though our President is increasingly hesitant to lead.

Iran, despite the platitudes of the Obama administration, which seems really eager to find an agreement and make a deal, continues its march toward developing nuclear weapons.

ISIS, the group the President once described as the JV team when they were in Iraq flying the black flag of Islam extremism over cities such as Fallujah and Mosul, cities where American marines gave their lives to liberate--the President called them the JV team.

Russian soldiers now move freely through eastern Ukraine, and the separatists there are using Russian equipment, they are trained by the Russian military, led by Russian special forces, and they continue to wage war on an American ally, Ukraine. While we all hoped the recent cease-fire would hold, all indications are that Russia and its proxies are taking advantage of that cease-fire in Ukraine to continue their aggression.

Across Europe--in France, Denmark, and Belgian--innocent people have been murdered. Some were murdered for opposing terrorists aims, and some for the simple fact they are Jewish. These attacks are not random, as has been suggested by the administration. Unfortunately, they are designed to incite fear and weaken our resolve to oppose Islamic terrorism wherever we find it.

We must not allow them to succeed any more than we must stand silent in the face of Iranian threats and Russian aggression. What we must do is take a long, hard look at how we got here and what we must do going forward to change the situation.

In my view, a lot of the chaos we are seeing across the globe stems from a lack of leadership. Into that void, chaos ensues. The defining themes in the Obama administration's approach to foreign policy have been a preference for disengagement and an unwillingness to shoulder the responsibility of global leadership the way previous Presidents-- Democrat and Republican alike--have done. As the administration itself has said, they prefer to lead from behind.

The President has said that ``the trajectory of this planet overall is one toward less violence, more tolerance.'' I don't know about that. I don't think history moves inexorably toward more justice and more peace. These trajectories don't just happen, people make them happen. Leadership is the key.

When America is strong, when we stand unequivocally for freedom and justice and the right of all people to choose their own destiny, when we do not back down in the face of threats and intimidation, that is when we see a world that is more stable, less dangerous, and more free.

More wars, more conflicts, more threats to our security--these don't typically arise from American strength. They arise from American weakness. When we look around the world--whether it is in Gaza or Eastern Europe or Iraq or Iran or Syria, the increase in violence and instability has coincided with the growing perception that the United States of America is either unwilling or unable to take a stand against threats to international security and stability. Addressing these complex challenges--and many of them are very complex--requires a sustained and proactive American leadership role and American engagement. It requires strategies that seek to shape outcomes, not be shaped by them.

There is a lot at stake. Events in Ukraine, the Middle East, and elsewhere are a direct challenge to the United States-led international order, which has led to unprecedented global prosperity and stability for both the United States and for the world. Confidence in America's willingness to use our unmatched economic, political, and military capabilities to uphold our system deters potential challengers and incentivizes other countries to

play by the rules, which reduces the chances of war. If the credibility of this commitment is in doubt, then the stability and openness upon which U.S. economic prosperity and national security depend is jeopardized and the chance for violence, instability, and economic collapse increases. The world is watching. They are watching to see whether this American-led order can withstand these challenges or if we really are entering into a period of the post-American world.

In Ukraine, the administration's response has been incomplete, reactionary, and ineffective. There are many political and economic dimensions of this conflict, and Ukraine needs Western support to implement crucial reforms in these areas. But there is also a military dimension to this crisis that we cannot continue to ignore. Sanctions alone have not worked. The so-called cease-fire agreements have not worked. As President Obama, Angela Merkel, and Francois Hollande debate and discuss cease-fires and timelines, Russia is deciding the outcome on the ground in eastern Ukraine this afternoon as we talk. Unless we help provide Ukraine with the tools they need to prevent that from happening, any future agreements will only solidify this reality. Let's allow them to defend themselves. Russia continues to believe that military force is a viable option to achieve its goals, and unless the United States and its European allies and NATO help the Ukrainians prove otherwise, this behavior is unlikely to change.

It is well known by now that the President has refused to adopt policies that actually provide Ukraine with the capabilities it needs. A bipartisan coalition, on the other hand, has emerged here in Congress on the need to do more, and we will continue to advocate for a change in course and pursuit of a proactive, comprehensive strategy that actually works.

In the Middle East, proactive American leadership requires upholding our commitment to stand unequivocally with Israel. No other nation in the world would be expected to put up with tunnels into their cities with rockets raining down on people's homes. The press got it wrong last year, and with all due respect, I believe the President got it wrong too. There is no moral equivalence in Gaza.

I have made a few trips to Israel. I met with their people. I have walked the streets of Sderot and have seen the remains of missiles that were targeted against innocents with hatred and an intent to kill and maim. I have been out to the bomb shelters and the indoor fortified playgrounds built so children can have a chance to play without fear. I have spent time with an Iron Dome battery crew outside Ashkelon. I can tell you this: From what I have learned, the people of Israel want peace.

Unfortunately, we know the biggest winner from this administration's wavering support of Israel is Iran. Iran continues to stall on negotiations meant to end their nuclear weapons program. They continue to ask for more time, and the administration continues to grant it. Meanwhile, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is coming to the United States next week to speak of the threat that Iran poses not only to Israel but to the world, and the President seems to be too busy to meet with him. Truly, the world has turned upside down.

A key test of U.S. leadership is ensuring that Iran does not retain nuclear capability in their continued march toward weaponization. If it were in my power, I would put the Kirk-Menendez Iran sanctions bill--of which I am an original cosponsor--here on the floor on the Senate today, and, by the way, it would pass. I believe it would pass with over 60 votes because Republicans and Democrats alike recognize that Iran will not negotiate in good faith unless the United States is unequivocal in our commitment to ending the nuclear threat Iran poses.

You will recall that this legislation does not impose new sanctions that would be imposed now. These sanctions would be imposed if the Iranians do not agree to halt their nuclear weapons program as required, by the way, by the United Nations. These are leveraged for the White House, and the White House should use that leverage.

American leadership is needed for a more stable and peaceful world. I believe the future does not belong to bigotry and hate, but to freedom- loving people of the world, and the United States of America must lead the way.

I yield the floor.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 245

The Senator from New Hampshire said it well. This is a no-brainer. It is three relatively small provisions, one of which is very timely with regard to water heaters, about which we are very concerned. I ask that we move on this amendment in a bipartisan way. It has already passed the House, so it shouldn't be controversial over there either. We hope we will be able to bring the larger legislation to the floor in the future, but this is a good downpayment.

I rise and call up amendment No. 3.

I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, I rise to thank Senator Murkowski for giving me this opportunity. She spoke earlier about the fact that we are going to talk about Keystone in an open process, going to allow amendments, which seems very normal, but in the Senate it hasn't been over the past several years.

This amendment is one that results to energy efficiency. I strongly support the underlying bill, and we will talk about it in a moment, but I also support the strategy of saying let's produce more energy, but also let's use the energy that we have more efficiently. I believe those are complementary, and I believe it is consistent with creating more jobs in this country, making our businesses more competitive, and improving the environment. So I appreciate her willingness to allow us to move forward with this amendment.

This energy efficiency amendment we are talking about is a key part of the ``all of the above'' energy strategy that a lot of us discuss, whether it is nuclear, renewable, oil, coal or gas, efficiency ought to be a part of it.

It is an amendment that is the result of a lot of years of work by Senator Shaheen, who was mentioned earlier, myself but also Senator Hoeven, Senator Ayotte, Senator Franken, and many other Members of this body.

Our cosponsors this afternoon are Senator Shaheen, Senator Ayotte, Senator Bennet, Senator Collins, Senator Gardner, and Senator Manchin.

This is legislation that is clearly bipartisan and legislation that shouldn't be controversial. It takes part of the broader Portman- Shaheen legislation that has already passed the House of Representatives and brings it to the floor.

This is also legislation that has passed the committees in the Senate and the committees in the House--energy committees--with wide bipartisan margins. Also, it was on the floor of the House last year and passed with a vote of 375 to 76, including with the support of the Presiding Officer. I thank the Presiding Officer.

There are four provisions and they are all pretty straightforward. None of them has a mandate, none of them has a cost curve. The CBO, the Congressional Budget Office, has told us they don't score. All of them are voluntary.

The first one is an important one. It is called Tenant Star. It establishes a voluntary market-driven approach to try and align the interests of commercial business owners and their tenants. This is important because a lot of the real estate folks would like to have the ability to say this has the Good Housekeeping seal of approval. It is like an Energy Star seal of approval that enables people to know it is an energy-efficient building.

This is broadly supported in part because it is voluntary. It is not a mandate, but it will help us in reducing energy consumption.

The second provision is one that is very timely. This is one that a lot of us have worked on over the years. Senator Hoeven has talked about this. We talk sometimes in the Senate about the unintended consequences of regulations. This would be a great example.

Here we have the Department of Energy promoting a regulation that if we don't stop it now will actually make our country less energy efficient. It is unintended, perhaps, but it is something we need to deal with legislatively now.

If we don't, then we are not going to be able to help save these particular products, which are water heaters. Around the country there are hundreds of electric cooperatives that operate voluntary programs and use what we call electric resistance water heaters.

They use them to store energy at night, and then during a peak demand period they don't have to turn on these electric water heaters. So it is actually an energy efficiency effort.

It is the kind of grassroots, on-the-ground innovation we want to see more of. But this regulation that we have to stop--from the Department of Energy--establishes a new standard for water heaters that effectively undermines this program. How? Because it makes it impossible for these companies to produce these kinds of water heaters that the co-ops are using. So the legislation exempts these water heaters from business standards, allowing these co-op programs that are good for energy efficiency to continue.

People probably heard from their rural electric co-op--if they are a Member of this body--on this issue because it is important to them that it be handled and handled now. If it is not, then these companies will stop producing these water heaters and they will not be able to continue these programs.

The third provision has to do with the Federal Government. Basically it says the Federal Government ought to practice what it preaches.

The Federal Government talks a lot about energy efficiency. Yet it is probably the biggest energy user in the world and probably one of the most inefficient. This says simply that Federal agencies have to coordinate with the Office of Management and Budget, with the Department of Energy, and with the Environmental Protection Agency to develop an implementation strategy that includes best practices, measurements, and verifications for the maintenance, purchase, and use of energy-efficient and energy-saving information and technology.

IT has been a source of great inefficiency in the government, and this legislation simply says let's require these Federal agencies to actually clean up their act so they will be more energy efficient in the area of information technology.

Again, it is a nonpartisan approach. It is one that has been supported by both sides of the aisle.

Finally, along the same lines, the fourth provision requires that federally leased buildings without Energy Star labels benchmark and disclose their energy usage data. Again, these are not Federal buildings that have to report this information, but these are buildings that the Federal Government leases.

So in effect all of us as taxpayers should have an interest in being sure that these leased buildings also have the energy efficiency provision to avoid wasting taxpayer money.

I think these are very important provisions. These are not controversial provisions. I think they are consistent with the idea that, yes, let's produce more energy. Let's make sure we have the infrastructure to bring the energy to the consumer, but let's do it in a way where we are using more energy but also using it more efficiently.

I hope we will see the kind of strong bipartisan support on the floor we have seen in the past on these provisions as they are part of this underlying legislation.

I would like to talk for a moment about the underlying legislation. This is the Keystone XL Pipeline construction. It seems as if we have been talking about this forever. Frankly, we have. This has been going on for almost 7 years now, I believe. Think about that. This is just to get the approval of the pipeline--not to actually build it. Just to get the approval it has taken 7 years. It is time to stop talking about it and move forward on it.

The Keystone XL Pipeline has taken almost 7 years. In comparison, we built the Hoover Dam in less than 5 years. The entire Empire State Building was constructed in 1 year and 45 days. In fact, the entire transcontinental railroad was constructed by hand in 6 years. So there is no reason we shouldn't move ahead on this.

We have learned a thing or two about this Keystone XL Pipeline during this period of time we have been debating it, and everything we have learned leads us to the conclusion it just makes sense to move forward. We know we can do it safely. We know we can do it in an environmentally sound way. We know we can create thousands of good jobs during its construction. Yet as we stand here today, with the Keystone XL Pipeline a source of debate rather than a source of jobs, we are not moving the country forward. I think we have waited long enough.

There has been debate before. I have heard it over the last couple of days and last week. Is this going to create jobs? Yes, it will. The State Department has said it will. The State Department is in the Obama administration, and they are the ones who tell us it is going to increase our economy by about $3 billion, increase the GDP of America, and also create more than 40,000 jobs during its construction--both through the actual building of the pipeline and through the sourcing of pipeline projects to American manufacturers.

By the way, a bunch of those manufacturers are in my home State of Ohio. Ohio produces pipe. Ohio produces the kind of steel--the structural steel--that goes into the construction of the pipeline. Ohio also produces the monitors that go on this pipeline. We also produce other things, such as pumps and compressors. So this will create jobs in my home State of Ohio. I have toured these factories and talked to these workers. They are going to have the opportunity now to roll that steel, build these compressors and so on, and for them this is important too.

Some of the critics of the pipeline have attempted to undermine these numbers by claiming the jobs related to the pipeline are not permanent. I don't know what to say about that except are any construction jobs permanent, by that definition? We certainly want construction jobs. This administration--the Obama administration--talks all the time about the need for more infrastructure projects to create more jobs. This is an infrastructure project. By some measure it may be the biggest infrastructure project in America over the next couple of years if we approve this thing. It will create not just jobs but good jobs. This is the kind of work we want to have more of in this country.

This is a why a lot of labor unions, including the building trades, are excited about this, because they know it is going to be able to lower unemployment and get the people back to work who have lost their jobs.

Others have expressed environmental concerns. Let's look at the facts. Let's look at the science. With every environmental study that has been conducted, the pipeline has passed. In fact, we know the pipeline is safer and more environmentally sound than the alternative. What is the alternative? What is happening now--it is transporting this oil by truck, transporting this oil by train. As we know, and as the CRS report has said, a lot of this oil actually doesn't even come from Canada. It comes from the Bakken. The Bakken is actually in America. It is in North Dakota and in other places. So some of

that oil is now being moved by truck and train. It is better that it go by pipeline. It is more efficient, of course, and less costly, but it is also safer environmentally.

Let's debate this issue. I am happy to do that, but let's try to stick to the facts. The fact is this thing just makes sense. For those who oppose it, I would ask: Why is it so different from all the other pipelines we have constructed in this country? In all our States we have pipelines. When we build this, it won't be the first pipeline to carry oil across international boundaries, by the way. It won't be the second or the third. It will actually be the 20th--the 20th pipeline to carry energy across international boundaries. It will be the fourth one to import oil--specifically oil from Canada.

Just to give some idea of how the permitting process of XL has been, of the three other Canadian pipelines that have been approved, it took the Federal Government 15 months on one, another was 24 months, and another was 28 months. The permitting process for this one--the Keystone XL--has now dragged on for over 76 months and counting.

So look, I have heard people on the floor say: What is the rush? Why are we rushing this? I don't think we are rushing. I think this makes sense. Just as we have approved other pipelines, we go through a process, and now we should have the ability to move forward on these jobs and the energy security that it provides.

By the way, when this debate is over, we also need to think about our permitting system. To me, this is really an indictment of our entire permitting system in this country. We need to do something about it, where you simply can't get a project approved. And by the way, I am not just talking oil and gas projects. I am talking about other energy projects--solar projects. I am talking about siting windmills. I am talking about hydro projects.

I first got involved in this issue because there was a hydro project on the Ohio River, of all places, that was being held up by Federal regulations. The folks who were trying to get this through came and said: We can't believe how complicated it is to get a permit from the Federal Government. As soon as we get one permit from one agency another agency comes in. They require it be done sequentially, and it is taking us forever, and we are losing investors. Those investors are going not just across the Ohio River to another State, they are going to another country because the Federal permitting system is so bad in this country.

That is why I intend to introduce bipartisan legislation called the Federal Permitting Improvement Act. Senator McCaskill of Missouri is my cosponsor. We are hoping to bring that to the floor very soon too because the American government shouldn't be standing in the way of good projects, particularly these energy projects that are so important. The American Government shouldn't be standing in the way of good American jobs. That is exactly what is happening. We need to streamline the approval process. It can be done and be done in a bipartisan way.

So it comes down to this. We hear a lot about an ``all of the above'' energy strategy in the Senate. Everyone seems to be for it. It is a position the American people support, by the way, overwhelmingly. I have been to the floor many times to express my support for an energy policy that includes everything from nuclear to oil, natural gas, renewables, coal, and of course, increased energy efficiency, as we talked about earlier. We will need all of those if we want to continue to see energy prices fall and to continue to see our reliance on dangerous and unstable parts of the world decline.

An ``all of the above'' energy strategy includes the Keystone Pipeline and other projects like it. So if you want to say you support all of the above, you better support Keystone. If you don't support the pipeline, I think you have to explain to the American people why you stood in the way of 40,000 good-paying jobs, why you opposed a project that is more environmentally safe than the alternatives out there now, and you need to explain why you opposed an ``all of the above'' energy strategy that can keep prices low and help secure North American energy independence. That also affects our national security. For us not to be dependent on these volatile and dangerous parts of the world is good for our national security. Let's stop sending the money to the Mideast. Let us keep the money here in North America.

Let's stop the delay. Let's make construction of this pipeline a reality. The American people are watching. We have all spent time in our States over the last month. We have all heard over and over again that the American people want us to work together. They want us to cooperate where we can, particularly on issues that relate to jobs and the economy and getting things moving in this country. I think this current legislation can be a model for how the Senate can operate and a sign that we have heard the message the voters sent in November.

This final bill will be the model, as I said earlier, of an open process where people can come to the floor to debate, as I have today, and not just on the underlying legislation but on the amendments on energy efficiency. That is good. At the end of this process, it will likely contain some policies that I fully support. And by the way, the final bill will probably contain some policies I don't support, because that is what happens when you have an open process. People will be able to come out here, make their best argument, and people will vote yea or nay, depending on how they feel it affects them, their States, and their constituents. That is what is happening on the Senate floor, and that is a good thing for our country and a good thing for getting to the right policy.

When the amendment process is complete, I believe we will have produced a bill that advances this goal of implementing a true ``all of the above'' energy policy, while creating more jobs for the American people and protecting our environment in better ways. That is what we all want, and that is why this legislation is a win for all Americans.

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

Mr. President, I am also joined by our colleague from Alaska, the ranking member on the energy committee who will be the chair come January. I want to give her a chance to talk in a moment, but let me state a few things.

First, this legislation represents a lot of hard work by a lot of people, including Senator Ayotte from New Hampshire, who spoke, Senator Shaheen also from New Hampshire, Senator Bennet, and others. It is an example of smart, bipartisan legislation that was worked out with the business community, with folks who are concerned about energy efficiency who are in nonprofits. It has no objection, as far as I know, in the real world; meaning there is no group, not a single group, that has objected to it.

On the other hand, there are dozens of people who support it, including business groups, environmental groups, and people who want to have the opportunity on a voluntary basis--no mandates, as the Senator from New Hampshire has said, to be able to know that there is a certification that a building is energy efficient, to be able to have information.

Second, I want to make the point that it is part of four provisions, one of which is urgent because it involves a decision we have to make now--tonight--in the Senate in order to keep a regulation from the Department of Energy unfairly imposed on businesses and consumers in America, and this is the water provision.

So not only are we objecting to something I don't think anyone objects to in the real world, but also we are blocking something that would be good for our consumers and good for business.

Because of our inaction tonight--because we had this objection for reasons we don't know because we have not been able in two nights on the floor to get a reason. All we heard was: We object. No reason. We are stopping the ability for companies to produce water heaters that are then used by rural electric co-ops that are used in an energy- efficient way, because during a peak demand they are turned off. So they could superheat the water and be turned off in peak demand, called demand response. It is an efficiency measure.

The regulation doesn't make any sense that bans the production of these water heaters, but it is because of legislation that Congress passed that DOE feels they have to oppose the regulation.

So tonight we had the opportunity not only to pass something good on Tenant Star, not only to do other things that are good for the Federal Government to become efficient--the biggest energy user in the world, by the way--but also we have an urgent matter before us; that is, to change this regulation before manufacturers are blocked from producing these water heaters.

Rural electric co-ops all over the country are watching tonight, and they are disappointed. Why? Because they use these water heaters, and they use them in an energy-efficient way. They are not going to be able to do that going forward because manufacturers are literally having to stop producing these water heaters because we are not acting.

So after the first of the year I hope we will be able to, in regular order, take this forward, and hopefully some of these manufacturers will begin to produce these water heaters again. Once we can take care of the regulations that are onerous on business owners and consumers and does not make sense for energy efficiency.

Finally, this is part of what I hope will be the past Congress. I hope in the future Congress, which will start in January, that we do things in a different way. I hope we begin to look at ideas from both sides of the aisle, find common ground, and move forward in legislation to help the American people.

This is a small matter. I understand that. It is a big matter if you are a rural electric co-op or if you are one of these commercial buildings that want to use Energy Star or if we care about the fact that we think about $5 billion is wasted in energy inefficiency by the Federal Government that could be addressed by some of the other provisions here tonight.

I think this is, unfortunately, symbolic of where we are as a Congress. We can't even get simple things done.

This legislation was reported out of the committee in the House unanimously--all four provisions. We are talking about the Republican- led House unanimously on the floor of the House passed by a vote of 375. I think it was 375 to 34, as I recall. We don't see those kind of bipartisan votes often.

Then it came over here. It has gone through the energy committee. The energy committee's vote was something like 18 to 3, as I recall. It has come to the floor now for the third time--the fourth time, if we include last night.

This legislation has been fully vetted. We have had hearings on it. We have done all the right things. We have played by the rules, and those of us who played by the rules on this legislation again are being stopped as we get to the floor of the Senate.

I hope we will see not just good energy efficiency legislation passed in the next Congress but other legislation as well to deal with our Tax Code that is out of date, antiquated, to deal with the overreach and regulations, some of the regulatory reform measures that the Presiding Officer and I have talked about.

We can deal with the fact that we are falling behind in terms of exports; that we are not dealing with some of our urgent problems we should be dealing with to get this economy moving.

We have to change the way we are doing business around here. We are letting things move only in very incremental and, unfortunately, partisan ways. We are not allowing the process to work.

So I am hopeful this legislation will be taken up in January. I am very disappointed it was objected to again tonight for no apparent reason. I am hopeful this will lead us to be able to better represent the people who hired us, the people who said: Go to Washington. I want you to find common ground because there are big problems to solve, not just give speeches. We have had enough of those. There is enough rhetoric. It is time to get things done. This is a small example of what could have gotten done tonight but for an objection with no apparent reason.

With that, I appreciate the fact that my colleague from Alaska has stayed late to be able to talk about this tonight. She will be the next chair of the energy committee, and she has the ability. Working with her colleagues on the other side of the aisle, to get some great legislation accomplished, and I hope this will be one of them.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

I ask unanimous consent that the energy committee be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 2126 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration; that the bill be read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. President, this is with regard to the energy legislation that passed the House and has four commonsense, simple provisions we hoped to be able to pass by unanimous consent tonight, and hopefully I will be able to convince my colleagues it is something that is good for American jobs, American business, and for energy efficiency. There are four or five speakers who would like to talk on this. What I would like to do, if I could, is ask them to begin the debate here and then I will wrap it up at the end.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I thank my colleague from North Dakota. He has done a great job of talking about the importance of the overall bill, and then these four small provisions we are trying to do tonight. But specifically he made a great point about the importance of dealing with this water heater issue. He feels it every day, because in North Dakota he is hearing from his rural electric co-ops saying: This is crazy. Why would we not go ahead and pass this legislation?

In effect, what he just said was: We need to pass this legislation to be able to keep the Federal Government from imposing a regulation that makes no sense for anybody, whether you believe in energy efficiency or not. It makes no sense for anybody.

I am hopeful we can get this done. I know we had an objection earlier in the

process this evening. I am hopeful we can convince the colleague from Oklahoma who objected that this is commonsense legislation that has to get passed.

We have heard from Senator Shaheen also, who has been the Democrat leader on this with me. We also heard from the chairman of the energy committee come January, Senator Murkowski, a Republican from Alaska. She is a strong supporter. We have heard from Senator Ayotte, also a Republican from New Hampshire, who is an expert on energy efficiency as it relates to what is called Tenant Star and better building programs. This is one thing that we ought to be getting done here during this lameduck session of Congress. We are doing other things that I think could be improved, but this is one where it is so simple.

Just to be sure people understand what we are talking about tonight, these are four provisions that have all passed the Senate committees, have all passed the House committees--unanimously, by the way, these four provisions passed unanimously in the Republican House of Representatives. It has come to the floor twice here in the Senate.

For other reasons which had to do with process and not allowing amendments, the overall bill was objected to, but not these four provisions. Then these four provisions went to the House floor for a vote. They were passed overwhelmingly 375 to 36. This is the sort of legislation that has been fully vetted. Everybody knows what is in it. It is being supported across the spectrum. We could help people right away.

There is also an urgency here, because these manufacturers that are making these water heaters that the Department of Energy, under their regulations, wants to prohibit, those manufacturers are telling us the deadline is right now. Even though it is not until March-April that the regulations have a deadline, the manufacturers are already stopping production of these water heaters because it takes that long to get them manufactured and get them distributed out to those rural co-ops.

It is urgent that we do this now and not wait until January. If we do not, we are going to hurt a lot of consumers and we are going to hurt a lot of these rural electric co-ops, and again do something that makes no sense. You want to encourage these water heaters to be built, because these water heaters are part of a program where, because they are not used during peak times, called the demand-response program, they actually save energy. This is a good thing. I am hopeful that provision will be able to get through, along with the others.

This is a bill, again, that has already passed the House, unanimously out of committee, overwhelming vote on the floor. All we have to do tonight is say yes and it goes to the President for his signature. The administration has indicated they will sign it. It will then become law.

There are three other provisions we should also talk about. One is called the Tenant Star provision. It was talked about a little bit earlier tonight. Let me be sure people understand what it is.

Some of you are aware of a program for appliances called ENERGY STAR. That is so you, as the consumer, can go into an appliance store and determine whether something meets the standard, the Good Housekeeping Seal for energy efficiency. When we bought a dryer recently, that was nice to be able to know whether it had the stamp of approval. Some people like energy-efficient appliances. Why? It saves you money. It is also good for the environment. So that is not a mandate. It is not a tax incentive. It is not a grant program. It contains no regulatory authority. There is nothing in it that requires any new spending. But it does give a boost and a powerful branding opportunity to commercial real estate owners to market their buildings to tenants, investors, and other key audiences. It says, just as the appliance Good Housekeeping Seal says, it says to a business owner: This tenant space is efficient. It meets the Tenant Star requirements. That is why this provision is so strongly supported by the commercial real estate industry, organizations such as the Real Estate Roundtable, the International Council of Shopping Centers.

By the way, the industry considers this provision as an important alternative to onerous regulations. They like this because this is voluntary. As consumers, we should all like it, because it is something that gives us more information to be able to make a good decision.

The third provision we are talking about tonight has to do with the Federal Government. Let me make this very clear. The Federal Government is the biggest user of energy in the world, and one of the most inefficient, unfortunately. So the Federal Government said: Everybody needs to be more focused on energy efficiency.

As I looked at this, we ought to get the Federal Government to practice what it preaches. That is what this provision does. It does it with regard to information technology. We hear constantly from outside groups that this is one area that is ripe for savings. In other words, there are lots of energy savings that could be accomplished in the energy area through information technology being used more efficiently.

We have had hearings on this, had testimony on this. We know this is an area where we can have a lot of savings. This would require the Federal Government, again, to coordinate with the Office of Management and Budget, with the Department of Energy, with EPA, to develop an implementation strategy that includes best practices, measurements, verification techniques for the maintenance of IT, the purchase of IT, the use of energy-efficient information technology.

There is so much more we can do here with regard to IT. We know that. That is why it passed the House unanimously in committee and overwhelmingly on the floor, because we know this is an area where the Federal Government--your tax dollars being spent can be much more efficient, good for the environment, good for taxpayers, less energy, and overall good for our energy policy in this country.

Finally, the fourth provision. Remember, four simple provisions have to do with an existing requirement that commercial buildings leased by the Federal Government have to disclose their energy usage. This modifies that provision. It says you have got to provide more information with regard to what the actual energy usage is in these buildings.

Again, the Federal Government--recall, largest energy user in the world--to make them more efficient with regard to their buildings makes all the sense in the world. These are commercial buildings leased by the Federal Government. So, again, this is not a mandate on the private sector. This does not cost anything. It does say that we need to modify the requirements of commercial buildings leased by the Federal Government to disclose their energy usage data.

This would help all of us. These are commonsense proposals. They are bipartisan. They are long overdue. They can go to the President after a vote tonight for his signature. They could become law.

I want to thank everyone who has been involved in this small bill, getting it to the floor, including Senator Murkowski, whom we heard from earlier, who is the ranking member, soon to be Chair of the energy committee; also Senator Landrieu, the current Chair of that committee. Also Senator Ayotte we heard from, Senator Shaheen, Senator Hoeven, Senator Bennet were on the floor earlier to speak on this issue.

I want to thank the many industry groups, the businesses, the energy efficiency organizations out there that have helped us to craft legislation with such broad support.

The least expensive energy is energy we don't use. Yes, we should produce more energy. I am for that. We should also use the energy we have more efficiently. It helps create jobs. It helps make our country safer because it is a national security issue to make America energy independent.

It ensures that we will have a better environment, and it ensures that every dollar a small business or manufacturer is spending on energy is used most efficiently. It makes us more competitive in this global economy we find ourselves in. That leads to more jobs, higher wages, all the things we should be doing in this Congress.

I thank the Presiding Officer for listening tonight. I thank the American people for listening, and I hope they

will strongly support the legislation we are putting forward tonight and the broader bill that will come to the floor we hope after the first of the year, because after the first of the year we will have a chance to take up this issue, not only these four provisions if they aren't passed over the next couple of days but a broader bill that will be broadly supported by Republicans and Democrats alike that will help our country become more energy efficient.

I yield back the remainder of my time and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I wish to offer a tribute to my uncle, Rufus

Jones, who died last week at age 88. He was a dear friend, a devoted husband and father of six, and a WW II veteran who was a member of the ``greatest generation.'' In fact, he signed up for the Navy straight out of high school. He went back to school at Purdue after the war and got a degree in mechanical engineering and went on to a career in business. He also served his community in many ways, including being a member of the vestry at his church and a member of the Worthington, OH School Board.

I remember him as an uncle who always had a smile on his face and never had an unpleasant word for anyone, as a friend later in life, and as a stalwart supporter of mine.

Today, I was home in Ohio to attend the visitation and funeral of my uncle. I regret that I was absent from procedural votes, but had I not given him a proper farewell, I would have regretted that more. He will be missed.

I will be brief as well and say that I am going to miss my colleague, and I told him that personally. I want to share a couple of reasons. One, as a new Member on the other side of the aisle, when I first got here, Carl--whom I had gotten to know a little bit through his brother, who I see is on the floor today, who has fought many fights with him on the squash court, but they remain dear friends. He came to me and said: You ought to join the Auto Caucus. I am not a big caucus guy. Most caucuses don't do much in this place, and then I saw what he was doing with the Auto Caucus and he agreed to allow me come on as cochair. We had an than opportunity to help fight for the autoworkers in Michigan and Ohio and around the country make sure that the renaissance of the auto industry is sustained. As I am sure has been said by many here today, he went out of his way to make it not just by bipartisan but nonpartisan. He does his homework.

We share some committee assignments. We don't always agree. Sometimes we disagree on fundamental issues. He is always prepared and does his homework and has the best of intentions. That says a lot for him and the reason he is viewed as such a leader of the Senate. When I got here, I was honored to serve on the Armed Services Committee. There we were able to work together on a number of projects, including ones that frankly he may not have normally thought were priorities but because I was a new Member and interested in helping my State and on specific projects, he stood up for me. I will not forget that. We have done legislation together and had the opportunity to work together on important projects that have to do with the Great Lakes, including Great Lakes restoration, where he has been a nonpartisan partner. I join my colleagues on both sides of the aisle and say this is one of those giants of the Senate who will be missed.

Although I have only been here for 4 of his many years of service, I was privileged to serve with him.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I wish to talk about a friend, a mentor, a public servant, a husband, father, and son of Ohio, Bob Bennett, who passed away at his home in Cleveland last Saturday. I was sorry to miss the funeral service in Ohio today for Bob because we are still in session, but I did want to pay tribute to him in a lasting way through the Congressional Record.

Bob was a lawyer and a CPA, a man who loved sailing and giving back to the people of Ohio through his many charitable works such as his time serving on the Board of University Hospitals in Cleveland. He was a legend in Ohio and a giant of Ohio politics. He became chairman of the Ohio Republican Party in 1988 and remained actively involved in politics until his death last week. He was one of the longest serving State chairs of either party, was viewed as a true professional, and gained the respect of political leaders in both parties.

He was certainly successful in the world of politics. When he was first elected chairman, there were no statewide Republican office holders in Ohio. He went to work with the passion, the dedication, the commitment that would become his trademark. He was a happy warrior, beloved by those in his party and respected by his political rivals. He had a vision not only for what the Republican Party could become but for what it could accomplish for the people of Ohio.

Within a decade, under his leadership, Republicans controlled all three

branches of State government, from the Governor's mansion, to the statehouse, to the supreme court.

He never stopped working. The day before he died, he was on the phone with me, talking about 2016, giving me advice. He never let his illness hold him back, and he never stopped accomplishing things for the Ohio GOP. No one was more responsible for bringing the 2016 Republican National Convention to Cleveland than Bob Bennett. Like so many times before, he had a vision, and he made it happen. It will be his lasting legacy, and I only wish he could be there to see yet another of his dreams become reality.

That is the public story of Bob Bennett's life, and what a story it is. But those of us who knew him, who worked with him, who were inspired by him, we know that what made Bob Bennett great goes far beyond what he accomplished on the political stage. The number of people who he helped with advice, with guidance, or even just a kind word--the number of people who loved Bob Bennett as a close friend-- could fill this Chamber.

It has been said that we can measure a man's life by the friends he makes, by the other lives he touches, by the people whose own journey on this Earth is made better because of him. By that measure, the measure that he would have cared about the most, Bob Bennett was a great man, indeed.

He will be missed, but he won't be forgotten.

Madam President, I wish to congratulate Keith Deters on his retirement and to recognize his impressive career.

Keith has been with General Dynamics for 32 years and has served as plant manager of the Joint Systems Manufacturing Center, JSMC, previously known as the Lima Army Tank Plant, for the past 11 years.

Keith grew up in Ohio and received his bachelor's degree in organizational management from Bluffton College and earned his MBA from the University of Findlay. He now resides in Lima with his wife Donna. They have two sons and five grandsons

During Keith's tenure as plant manager at JSMC, the plant addressed a number of service programs, including the future combats systems, expeditionary fighting vehicle, ground combat vehicle, Mk46 Navy turret, Abrams SEP, Abrams TUSK armor, MRAP Cougar, Abrams heavy assault bridge, joint light tactical vehicle prototypes, Stryker family of vehicles, Stryker armor upgrade programs, Stryker slat armor kit, tank urban survivability kit, Merkava Namer APC, Abrams Egyptian FMS, Australian Abrams AIM FMS, KSA Abrams FMS, and the Iraq Abrams FMS.

In addition, Keith has been at the forefront of developing next- generation combat vehicle capabilities, and under his supervision while plant manager innovative prototype structures built at JSMC included the joint assault bridge, heavy assault bridge, joint light tactical vehicle, ground combat vehicle, amphibious combat vehicle, expeditionary fighting vehicle, future combat vehicle, Stryker slat armor kit, common ballistic shield, hull protection kit, Stryker reactive armor kit, tank urban survivability kit, mine roller kit, commanders remote operation weapon system, hull system demonstrator, and Scout vehicle.

Outside of work, Keith has been actively involved in the Lima community. He has served on numerous boards including the United Way of Greater Lima, the Ohio State University at Lima, the Ohio Energy & Advanced Manufacturing Center, Allen-Lima Leadership, and the Allen Economic Development Group. Keith is also a member of the Lima Rotary Club and Task Force Lima.

Keith is a supporter of his local Make A Wish Foundation and has been involved with Operation Christmas Tank, Family Day at JSMC for Lima employees and their families, the West Central Ohio Manufacturing Consortium with Rhodes College, and Lima Senior High School's Moonbuggy Project.

I would like to congratulate Keith on the many contributions he has made to JSMC and to the Lima community.

The junior Senator from Ohio.

Look. I am so proud to be here to say a couple of words about my friend Saxby. As you have heard from my colleagues, he is beloved. By the way, two of those who spoke are Senators who are also choosing to leave us. Tom Coburn talked about leadership. I will tell you, they are leaving a huge void.

I got to know Saxby when he came to the House of Representatives. I was there in the early 1990s, and we became friends. Although I am from Ohio and he is a son of the South, he and Julianne embraced me and Jane, and I got to know his son Bo--such a great family.

But I didn't truly get to know him until I was the U.S. Trade Representative and my job was to try to open markets for U.S. agricultural products around the world. That required looking at something called subsidies--agriculture subsidies. This is a dangerous area in terms of politics, and Mike Johanns is very well aware of this as an ex-Secretary of Agriculture, having been at my side during some of these negotiations.

My job was to come to the Senate ag committee and talk about what we were up to and try to find out how much flexibility there was for us to get these markets open that were so important for our farmers and ranchers but entailed considerable political risk. I learned a new Saxby Chambliss there. That is when I saw the leadership that was talked about earlier.

Saxby was willing to not just be constructive but to take that risk and to be totally discreet and confidential in dealing with very sensitive issues. I came away with a whole new level of understanding about Saxby and therefore a new respect for him, his character, and his willingness to do what was right.

More recently, of course, we have seen his leadership on other issues: standing up for our men and women in uniform. My colleagues, to me, he has been the guardian at the gate, giving us all comfort as ranking member of the Intelligence Committee. We live in a dangerous, volatile world, and knowing Saxby was there, clear-eyed, disciplined, discreet, and able to tell it like it was and tell it like it is today, I think has given not just us but our families and all Americans considerable comfort. So I appreciate his service there.

Finally, I admire his willingness to step up on this issue of our national debt. This is again not an easy issue, and he joined with some colleagues to promote some proposals. Again, my colleagues who are leaving know this, Tom Coburn, in particular; Mike Johanns, whom I will always have a great deal of respect for the way he has handled that issue as well.

Despite everything we have heard about him today though, perhaps his greatest accomplishment has yet to be mentioned; that is, the fact that he played golf with the President of the United States and managed to get a hole in one. The press report from that day says two things that are very interesting. First, it says he hit the hole in one on the south course. The son of the South chose to use the south course, of course, for his hole in one, but, second, it says ``he was choking up on a 5-iron.''

Taking nothing away from his hole in one--and it sounds like it wasn't as long a shot as he explained to me it might have been--but choking up on a 5-iron makes no sense to me. There is nobody more poised, more smooth. I have never seen him choke on anything.

Saxby, we are sad to see you leave but happy to see you spend more time with Julianne, the kids, and the beloved Bulldogs. Godspeed, my friend.

I yield back.

Madam President, this is a bittersweet time for all of us. As you have heard, as we close the book on one term of Congress and look forward to the next, we are here to say goodbye to one of our esteemed colleagues who is finishing his service in the Senate. It is always tough, but it is especially hard for me with regard to Senator Mike Johanns--a guy I consider a fine Senator, also a good friend, and sort of the perfect example of the statesman. Through his impressive career as mayor, Governor, Cabinet member, and Senator, as his colleague has just said, he has displayed that.

I first met Senator Johanns when he was Secretary Johanns. He was Secretary of Agriculture in the George W. Bush Cabinet, and that meant we got to spend a lot of time together. I was the U.S. Trade Representative, and I truly believe I have traveled around the world more with Mike than I have with my family. We went all over, from Asia to Europe to South America and Africa. We fought for farmers and ranchers. Our ideal was that we could expand exports, and we were able to do that and make some progress with his hard work.

We went to far-flung corners of the world, such as Burkina Faso, to deal with cotton issues important to U.S. farmers. We spent countless-- and I mean countless--hours on something called the green room negotiating sessions, trying to reach a deal in the Doha round of talks with the World Trade Organization.

I remember one time Mike and I had the opportunity to brief reporters as we were going across Africa. We were racing across the Sahara desert to make our way to an airport. Because the airport had no lights, the pilots insisted we get there while there was still light so they could see where they were landing.

He taught me a lot, not just about arcane agricultural issues, such as what is a green box or an amber box subsidy in agriculture--fun issues such as that--but he also taught me a lot about negotiating and about how, as we said earlier, to be a statesman.

We had some tough negotiating sessions, but Mike was always a proud and relentless representative and champion for the interests of our great country and the interests of the farmers and ranchers he knew so well. He always did his job on the global stage with honor and with dignity. If there has ever been a more forceful advocate for American farmers, whether it was there or here in the Senate, I don't know who it is.

In 2007, he told me he was going to leave the administration and go home to Nebraska, and that he was considering running for the Senate. I never thought I would be able to serve with him, because I didn't know I was going to follow him, but I knew when he told me that, he would be in the Senate and that he would put in the same level of dedication to this body as he had as Secretary of Agriculture, and that has been true.

He is not flashy. His colleague from Nebraska has just called him a workhorse. I hope he takes that as a compliment. I would. He has never sought out the cameras or, for that matter, sought out recognition for his good work. He just does the right thing. A true statesman.

So, Mike Johanns, we are going to miss you. We are going to miss Stephanie. And we wish you Godspeed.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to call this body's attention to a crisis that grows more alarming every day, and that is the continued Russian encroachment into Ukraine. It has been over 2 months since the Ukrainian Government entered into a ceasefire agreement with Russian-backed separatists in southeastern Ukraine. It is an agreement that the separatists have repeatedly violated, and since it came into effect hundreds--hundreds--of Ukrainian soldiers have died in battle against these same separatist forces.

The Ukrainian people want peace, but these insurgents and their patrons in Moscow are not interested. Every day they grow more aggressive and bolder in their violations of the Ukrainian territory and their willingness to subvert the international order.

I know there are some in this body who would say this is not our problem, it is thousands of miles away, and not our concern. Some people may think it doesn't matter which flag flies over the territory. I have a different view. To me, what happens in Ukraine is very much in our interests. It is in the interests of all who value liberty and the right to choose one's own future. The stakes are very high, and the consequences of inaction are devastating. To those who ask why is this important, let me bring up several points.

First, it is in America's interest to uphold our traditional commitment to supporting democracy around the world and the right of a people to choose their own destiny. When the Soviet Union fell and the people of Eastern Europe took back the liberty that had been stolen from them decades before, the United States made a solemn promise: Embrace democracy, freedom, transparency, and the rule of law, and we will embrace you.

The Ukrainian people made their choice. They did so on the 24th of August, 1991, when an independent Ukraine ceased to be a dream and became a reality. They reaffirmed that commitment over a decade later when the Orange Revolution swept a corrupt government from office. And earlier this year in the face of Russian threats, intimidation, and aggression, they did so again. I saw that commitment firsthand earlier this year when I had the honor of leading a Congressional delegation with my colleague from Maryland, Senator Cardin, to monitor the Ukrainian Presidential election. Senator Cardin and I saw the spirit of the Ukrainian people and their determination to honor the memory of brave men and women who had given their lives in the fight for a free and independent Ukraine. That fight continues today.

But this fight is about more than just Ukraine. Failing to honor our commitment to the Ukrainians will have real consequences that extend to other national security priorities for the United States of America. When Ukraine emerged as an independent nation after the Cold War, it inherited the world's third largest stockpile of nuclear weapons. As a newly independent State

looking to ensure its sovereignty and territorial integrity, Ukraine could have relied on its nuclear arsenal to ward off would-be aggressors. They made a different decision. Instead of pursuing this dangerous path, they sought and received assurances from the international community that its borders would be respected if it gave up its nuclear weapons.

In 1994, the United States, the United Kingdom, Russia, and Ukraine signed the Budapest Memorandum in which all sides pledged to respect Ukraine's territorial integrity, refrain from using military force or economic pressure to limit Ukrainian sovereignty, and provide assistance to the Ukraine if it became the victim of aggression from another nation.

Clearly Russia has broken its part of that agreement. Now the question is whether we are breaking ours. If we do break our word, what will the impact be on American counter-proliferation efforts around the world? How can any nation we seek to prevent from developing nuclear weapons ever trust U.S. security assurances if they see the carnage and destruction in Ukraine, if they see this as being the result of trading nuclear weapons for American guarantees?

More than just the credibility of U.S. counter-proliferation efforts is at stake here. Events in the Ukraine are a direct challenge to the entire U.S.-led international order. U.S. economic and military power was the glue that kept the Western alliance together through the challenges of the Cold War and formed the foundation of an international order based on universal values and standards of conduct that has led to unprecedented global prosperity and stability. This in turn has produced a period of U.S. economic growth and security unrivaled in our Nation's history. Confidence in America's willingness to use our unmatched capabilities to uphold this system deters potential challengers and incentivizes other countries to play by the rules, which prevents us from actually having to use them.

America's commitment to uphold this system is incredibly important. If the credibility of this commitment is in doubt, then the stability and openness upon which U.S. economic prosperity and national security depend is jeopardized and the chance for violence, instability, and economic collapse increases.

By the way, the Russian Government knows all this. President Putin, who famously declared the collapse of the Soviet Union to be ``the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the 20th century,'' knows that his dream of building a new Russian empire out of the ashes of the Soviet Union requires establishing Russian dominance over its newly independent neighbors, many of whom--like Ukraine--want closer integration with the West, not Russia. To accomplish this goal, Moscow must shatter this political, economic, military, and ideological credibility of the Western system. Russian aggression against Ukraine today or Georgia back in 2008 is as much about demonstrating the emptiness of U.S. and Western guarantees as it is about control of these individual countries, in my view. The conflict in Ukraine is the latest escalation of this trend, one that will continue until the United States and its allies say firmly, ``This shall not continue.''

The President keeps saying that ``there is no military solution to this conflict.'' The President may think so, but Moscow certainly does not. The direct Russian military involvement in Ukraine has been on full display for the world to see for months. In previous times it may have been easier to keep these movements out of sight, even as President Putin does his best to suppress a free press. But we are fortunate to have reporters willing to document what they see for all the world to witness.

Here are a few examples in the media from recent days. This is a picture of a Russian-made T-90 main battle tank in the Luhansk Oblast of Ukraine recently. This T-90 tank, by the way, is a very sophisticated Russian tank.

Do you know who owns these T-90 tanks? Here are the countries: Algeria, Azerbaijan, India, Turkmenistan, and Russia. I think it is safe to say that these tanks didn't drive from South Asia or from North Africa. They came from Russia, and they are in Ukraine.

Here is a picture of a Sukhoi-24 attack fighter reportedly taken in Russia. You will see painted on the tail the flag of the pro-Russian separatists. Not many people are aware of reports that Russia is helping to create a separatist air force, but we must wake up and realize the extent to which Russia is determined to trample on Ukraine and the global order to achieve its ends. In the last couple of days there have also seen reports of significant movement of Russian aircraft to the Ukrainian border.

These are just a few examples of the Russian armored personnel carriers, artillery, tanks, air defense systems, electronic warfare units, and thousands of Russian troops that NATO reports say have moved into Ukraine over the last several weeks. According to the Ukrainian analysts, Russian and separatist forces have been organized into mobile strike groups and have completed reconnaissance of Ukrainian positions in preparation for an all-out assault. Barely a day has gone by since the signing of the so-called ceasefire in September where Ukrainian troops haven't come under attack, as separatists probe Ukrainian defenses looking for an opening. Since the beginning of the conflict, conservative estimates have put the number of Ukrainian soldiers killed or wounded at roughly 4,000.

By the way, at least another approximately 5,000 civilians have been killed or wounded in the fighting.

We shouldn't be afraid to call this exactly what it is. This is part of a Russian invasion. We saw it in Crimea; we are now seeing it in other parts of Ukraine.

Two months ago the President of Ukraine, Petro Poroshenko, spoke here before a joint session of Congress. We were all there. It was a poignant speech, a powerful speech, and one from the heart. There is a line in that speech that I think stood out. In speaking about the aid we have sent to Ukraine and thanking us for that aid, President Poroshenko said, ``One cannot win the war with blankets. Even more, we cannot keep the peace with a blanket.''

And he was right. Blankets won't stop this tank we saw earlier. Blankets won't stop bullets. Blankets won't protect Ukrainian children from Russian artillery shells.

We don't know a whole lot about what the United States has provided to the Ukrainians, but I will get to that in a moment. We are having trouble getting that information from the administration. But we know a few things. We know we have given them blankets, sleeping mats, military rations, medical kits, and body armor. This is the majority of what we have been providing, as far as we know, to the Ukrainian military. I know the Ukrainians are grateful for these items. But when you compare this to the Russian involvement, the differences are startling. Here is what we provided to the Ukrainians. Here is the Russian support being provided to the separatists. I am proud of the hard-working Ohioans----

While I am proud of the hard-working Ohioans in Cincinnati and elsewhere who are making these rations, and the folks in Heath who produce these helmets, they know as well as I do that this equipment doesn't constitute deterrence, especially not when Ukrainians are facing advanced Russian equipment and troops.

May I ask unanimous consent for an additional 3 minutes?

Thank you.

I don't mean to downplay the importance of the economic, political, and humanitarian aid we have provided. Indeed, there are many economic and political reforms the Ukrainians will need to make in order to secure long-term peace and prosperity. But how can Ukrainians be expected to make these difficult but necessary reforms if it cannot control its own borders or maintain law and order? There is a military dimension to this crisis we simply cannot ignore any longer.

Moscow continues to believe that military force is a viable option to achieve its goals. Unless the United

States and its allies help the Ukrainians prove otherwise, we shouldn't expect any change in its behavior. Ukraine needs anti-tank weapons to defend against armored assaults; it needs modern air defense systems to defend against Russian air superiority; it needs unmanned aircraft to monitor its borders and to detect violations of its sovereignty and the ceasefire. It needs secure communications gear to prevent Russia from accessing Ukrainian plans and troop locations. It needs advanced counter-battery radar to target the artillery batteries responsible for so many of the casualties in the conflict. It needs elite rapid reaction forces capable of responding to Russian border provocations and the fast-moving asymmetric ``hybrid war'' tactics the Russians use to destabilize the country. Therefore, they also need training. The Ukrainians have asked for this support, and we should provide it.

Most importantly, Ukraine needs a sustained commitment from the United States and our NATO allies to provide both the quality and the quantity of equipment necessary to preserve its independence. This is not a partisan issue. Leading Democrats in the Senate, such as the Chairmen of the Armed Services and Foreign Relations Committees, Senators Levin and Menendez, as well as Senator Cardin and others, have joined in calling for increased assistance, including defensive weapons. Yet the President and some of his top advisers continue to stand in the way of meaningful action for fear of provoking Russia, as if the tanks streaming into Ukraine or the daily clashes aren't evidence enough that American restraint has not had the desired effect on Russian activity and policy.

It is well known by now that the President has refused to adopt policies that actually provide Ukraine with the capabilities needed to change the situation on the ground. What is less well known is whether the administration is even fully committed to fulfilling the objectives of its own already limited policies.

For all the talk we have heard about the President and his steadfast support for Ukraine and the $116 million in security assistance the United States has promised to deliver, we know almost nothing about how these policies are actually being implemented. This administration has been a black box when it comes to getting even the most basic information on our efforts to aid Ukraine. Despite multiple requests, including a letter to the President from Senator Cardin and me, we still can't seem to get answers on fundamental questions: What equipment has been delivered to Ukraine? How long will it take to deliver the equipment we have promised but not delivered? What is the process for determining what capabilities to provide? How does the equipment we have agreed to provide support the capabilities they have requested? How do our assistance efforts fit into a comprehensive strategy?

This complete lack of transparency on the day-to-day implementation of U.S. assistance raises questions about the underlying policy guidance driving it and whether the administration actually has far more modest goals than the President's public rhetoric would suggest. For example, a bipartisan assessment, conducted by GEN Wesley Clark, Retired, and former top Pentagon official Dr. Phillip Karber, and featured in the New York Times, the Washington Post, and other major newspapers, revealed that the Obama administration has issued extremely restrictive instructions on the type of nonlethal aid the United States could provide. The lack of this aid has created real problems for the Ukrainians.

The fact is that no one in Congress knows how these regulations will be applied. This is a huge problem and stands in the way of a coherent and effective policy.

Yesterday the President's Deputy National Security Adviser testified that strengthening the Ukrainian forces is ``something we should be looking at.'' While this is a welcome change of tone, we should be well beyond the point of just looking at it, in my view, because every day we delay, every day we dither, every day we match Russian action with half-measures and self-imposed limitations, Moscow is emboldened and the danger grows.

I am convinced that a piecemeal, reactionary response to intimidation from Moscow is a recipe for failure. Instead, we must have a comprehensive, proactive strategy that strengthens NATO, deters Russian aggression, and gives Ukraine the political, economic, and military support it needs to maintain its independence. We need a strategy that seeks to shape outcomes, not be shaped by them.

Much of that leadership must come from the White House, but this body also has a role to play. We should include funding for Ukrainian military assistance in upcoming spending bills. We should pass the Ukraine Freedom Support Act, which would authorize the assistance Ukraine needs today. We should pass legislation that will reduce Ukraine's--and all of Europe's--reliance on Russia for its energy resources. And we should pass legislation to ensure that the United States never recognizes Russia's illegal annexation of Crimea.

The need for action could not be more clear. Through his aggression in Ukraine, President Putin and Moscow are sending a message to Ukraine and to the world that America and the West are indecisive and weak and that their guarantees of support are meaningless. The Ukrainian people have rejected that message, choosing instead the path of democracy and openness--a path the United States has urged the Ukrainians and also the world to follow. We and our NATO allies must now stand with them.

When America is strong, when we stand unequivocally for freedom and justice, when we don't back down in the face of threats and intimidation, that is when we see a world that is more stable, less dangerous, and more free. That is because we stand with our allies.

More wars, more conflicts, more threats to our security--these do not arise from American strength; these arise from American weakness. Let's be strong again. Let's lead again. Let's help Ukraine. The world is watching.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I wish to honor the life of Robert S. ``Bob'' Edwards, Jr. Bob was an Army veteran, a successful businessman, a community leader, a friend, and an inspiration to us all.

Bob was an advisor with AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company and before that a successful textile executive.

Among his many business accomplishments, Bob received the Equitable's Centurion Award and several Legion of Honor President's Cabinet Awards. He also received recognition as Associate of the Year and as the agency's representative to the national agents. Bob was also honored with the Equitable's Community Leadership Award twice.

A compassionate community leader, Bob served as chairman of the Board of the Freestore Foodbank and founded its most popular fundraiser, the Rubber Duck Regatta. Proceeds from this fundraiser have provided millions of meals to Cincinnatians in need. This

past August, the Freestore Foodbank hosted the 20th Annual Rubber Duck Regatta. To celebrate this milestone, Bob set the ambitious goal of raising $1 million dollars, which equates to approximately 3 million meals for hungry children and families. With Bob's leadership, that goal was reached.

In 2002 Bob received the Bengals Community Quarterback Award, the NFL league-wide volunteer recognition program, and in 2006 he received the Volunteer of the Year Award from Feeding America. Bob also served as president of the Dan Beard Council, Boy Scouts of America and founded the Council's United Food and Clothing Drive, serving as its general chairman for 2 years. He was awarded the Silver Beaver from the Boy Scouts and the Outstanding Citizenship Award from the United Way of Greater Cincinnati.

In 2010, Bob received the Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis Jefferson Award, the Nobel Prize for public service honoring community and public volunteerism in America. Bob was a graduate of Marietta College, and in 2011 he was added to Marietta College's prestigious Hall of Honor. He was also an active member of the Armstrong Chapel United Methodist Church.

Bob Edwards was a source of inspiration and he touched the lives of so many people throughout southwest Ohio. His extraordinary legacy lives on, and the impact he made in and around Cincinnati will serve as an example to many. He will be missed, but he will not be forgotten.