Floor Statements

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I come to the floor as we are at a moment of truth and a moment of incredible importance, and I wish to start off by acknowledging the distinguished Republican ranking member on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Corker, for the spirit in which we have worked together to marshal forces to bring critical legislation to the floor at a critical time in history. This is the type of relationship we have had for the last 15 months, during which time we have often seen such partisanship, where on every major piece of legislation that has passed out of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, it has passed on a strong bipartisan vote, and I appreciate his leadership and his working with us.

Let me reiterate what I have said on the Senate floor. President Putin is watching. He is waiting to see what we will do, waiting to see if we have the resolve to act, waiting to see if he has a green light to take the next step. I believe we need to act now and pass this legislation, and I welcome the flexibility the House has shown in its resolve to move this quickly upon receipt.

Although I believe our response to Russia's annexation of Crimea should have included IMF reforms to strengthen the U.S. role in the international community, that will not be the case, but we still need to act on this issue today. So I hope, in short order, we can have the IMF reform legislation on the floor and take a responsible vote on an important issue.

But let us be clear where we are at this moment. Let us be clear about what happened in Ukraine over the last several years and what is happening now as Ukraine simply looks westward. Former Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych was elected on a platform that advocated closer ties to Europe. In fact, his first trip abroad was not to Moscow but to Brussels to meet with European Union officials. For 3 years Ukraine officials voted in good faith with their European counterparts. They believed they did so with their President's support. Ukrainian public opinion polls favored the conclusion of an agreement between the EU and the Ukraine that would increase trade and cooperation, allowing more people, goods, services, and ideas to cross the border from the West.

On November 21, Yanukovych flipped 180 degrees. He announced an end to talks with the European Union, and Ukrainians felt bitterly betrayed. For 20 years, Ukraine has struggled to economically develop. They have struggled to establish representative government. They have struggled to achieve a stable way forward, a path of economic security and political democracy. The association agreement with the European Union had promised a path toward those goals. So people were furious, and they took to the streets. They knew from personal experience what the world now knows--that Yanukovych and his government and his family had stolen tens of billions of dollars from Ukrainian taxpayers, jeopardizing the solvency and independence of their country to support a lavish lifestyle while the public went without.

The people who took to the Maidan Square in the freezing cold were simply looking westward. They believed the European Union was their last best hope to break the cycle of corruption. They knew their future was being stolen. So they marched and they took beatings from Yanukovych's paramilitary forces, not for a treaty but for the hope of a better, more honest and free Ukraine that it promised.

Putin resorted to outright extortion to keep Ukraine in his sphere of influence, essentially offering to buy Ukraine by offering Yanukovych $15 billion, and it would have worked but for the uprising of the Ukrainian people who realized this was a Faustian bargain and that Putin was the devil, not their savior.

Hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians demonstrated for 3 months to call for the President's resignation. On February 22 of this year, President Yanukovych fled to Russia and an interim government was installed in Ukraine.

Almost immediately, Russian forces took control of the Crimean Peninsula, a clear violation of international law and Russia's own commitments under the Budapest agreement and the Helsinki Final Act. This demands a swift and coordinated and powerful response from the international community and from this Congress. It demands a message to Putin of our resolve and to the Ukrainian people of our support.

That message came, in part, on March 13, when the Senate Foreign Relations Committee passed, by a bipartisan vote of 14 to 3, the Support for the Sovereignty, Integrity, Democracy, and Economic Stability of Ukraine Act of 2014.

In addition to providing $1 billion in loan guarantees for Ukraine to provide crucial support to stabilize Ukraine's economy, this legislation authorizes assistance for democracy, governance, and civil society programs as well as for enhanced security cooperation. It provides support to the Ukrainian Government to help recover access linked to corruption by former President Yanukovych, his family, and other government officials.

It imposes sanctions against those who are responsible for violent human rights abuses against antigovernment protesters as well as those responsible for undermining the peace, security, stability, sovereignty or territorial integrity of the Ukraine. It imposes asset freezes and visa revocations on Russian officials and their associates who are complicit in or responsible for significant corruption in Ukraine and authorizes sanctions against any Russian official engaged in corruption in the Ukraine or in Russia. Putin's cronies should recognize that Putin may not be the right horse to be betting on any longer. Finally, it sends a powerful message to Russia that there are consequences for using force to annex sovereign territory against the established norms of the international community.

I will take one other moment to say that I have read some editorials suggesting that Ukraine is not that important to us; that it is more important to Europe than it is to us, so what could be our interest. Let me offer a few observations of what the interest of the United States is.

For some time we have been working to see Ukraine move to a democratic, stable government, looking westward, and in doing so strengthening a big part of Eastern Europe at the end of the day in a way that strengthens the security of that region and the fiscal opportunities of that region.

We look at the Ukraine and we say to ourselves, well, they are not a NATO member. But other NATO allies--some of which I met with when I was in Brussels this past week--who are NATO members are watching and asking: What will Europe and the United States do in the face of Russian aggression? What is our ultimate security going to depend on? We are a NATO member. We are, under article 5 of NATO's treaty, ultimately supposed to be protected because we are committed to the protection of all our other neighbors under NATO. Some of those countries actually meet the full responsibility they have under NATO to pay their quota for the collective defense.

So Ukraine is not a NATO member, but they are looking at what the West's resolve is in the face of this aggression and the possibility of Russian forces moving further west, asking: Is NATO going to stand up for me? That agreement is one of the fundamental institutions that has created security on the European Continent and for which America twice--twice--sent its sons and daughters abroad to ultimately guarantee that security. We need to ensure that NATO continues to be a vibrant entity for the collective security of the United States and of Europe. This is another reason we are interested.

Thirdly, I would just simply say, as I have said on the Senate floor before, the world is watching. China is watching, and they are wondering what America and the West will do as they look at territories they dispute with our allies--Japan and South Korea in the South China Sea. They say: The West let Putin get away with this. Why should we not take those territories? There will be no consequence. Or as we are negotiating with Iran across the table to stop their nuclear weapons program, the Iranians look and ask: How much will the West punish Russia for this aggression, because if there isn't much consequence, then why should I not try to get the maximum of this deal or not accept the deal at all. Or North Korea, which wants to advance even further its missile program, which already possesses nuclear capability, what is their calculation?

I could go around the globe describing at this moment, beyond the Ukraine, how the European Union and the United States acts will send a very clear message to world actors, and that message hopefully will be one of strength, because in doing so we may avert the consequences of security challenges around the globe, avert the possibility we will have to send our sons and daughters into harm's way if we act decisively, if we act with strength.

That is the opportunity we have. The world is watching, and we must rise to the challenge. Passing this legislation goes a long way toward that goal, and that is both the opportunity and the responsibility before the Senate. I urge my colleagues to speak with one voice.

I hope we get as near to unanimity as possible, as we have done at other times; for example, on the question of sanctions on Iran. This is such a moment. If the Senate speaks with one voice, I think President Putin will understand the consequences of miscalculating further. I hope that is the opportunity of which we will avail ourselves and, in doing so, send a message beyond Putin to the rest of the world that we have the resolve necessary to rise to such challenges.

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

Madam President, I rise to express my strong support for Maria Contreras-Sweet--a woman eminently qualified to serve our country as the next administrator of the Small Business Administration.

Maria Contreras-Sweet is the right person to lead the SBA given her distinguished record of public service and her deep understanding of the challenges and needs facing small businesses today.

As the founder of ProAmerica Bank, the first Latino-owned business bank in California in over 30 years and a leading financial services provider and SBA lender, she successfully expanded access to capital for small- and medium-sized businesses that often lacked access to larger, traditional financial institutions.

Just yesterday, my colleagues in the Hispanic Task Force and I met with Latino business leaders from across the Nation, and the No. 1 issue that was raised by nearly everyone in the room was the need to assist minority entrepreneurs and small business owners with obtaining financing and access to capital--an essential function of the SBA, and one that Maria-Contreras Sweet understands first-hand.

Her commitment to supporting small businesses owners embodies the entrepreneurial spirit that makes our country great--and is exactly the kind of leadership the SBA needs.

Maria Contreras-Sweet also has a proven track record as a dedicated public servant. She previously served as secretary of the California Business, Transportation, and Housing Agency, where she was the driving force behind major job creation and public investments in infrastructure and housing.

As the first Latina to serve as a cabinet secretary in the state, she managed a budget of $14 billion and oversaw more than 40,000 employees. This is truly a remarkable nominee who brings a wealth of knowledge and leadership to the Small Business Administration, as well as a compelling personal story.

Maria Contreras-Sweet, like me, has humble beginnings. As a young child, she immigrated to the United States from Guadalajara, Mexico. She settled in California, where her mother worked long hours at a chicken packaging plant to support her and her five siblings. Her family did not speak any English when they arrived, and Maria has said that it was precisely hearing no' so many times and seeing so many doors close for them that prompted her to speak up for others, to fight to level the playing field for all, and to find a way to say yes' to people with good ideas who can drive innovation who are all too often overlooked for the wrong reasons.

Maria Contreras-Sweet represents the promise of America, the fulfillment of the American Dream, and the expansion of this dream to millions more entrepreneurs and small business owners across the Nation. She is building wealth for American families and communities, and building pathways to growth and prosperity that extend far beyond the business sector.

Maria Contreras-Sweet is the right nominee for the job. I applaud President Obama for selecting her to be our nation's next SBA administrator, and I thank Leader Reid for moving quickly to confirm her nomination without delay. I'm very pleased the time has finally come for good people like Maria Contreras-Sweet to get the up-or-down vote they deserve.

I urge my colleagues to vote to confirm this qualified, competent nominee without hesitation.

With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 27, 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 27, 2014, at 9:45 a.m., in room SD- 366 of the Dirksen Senate Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Environment and Public Works be authorized to meet, during the session of the Senate, on March 27, 2014, at 9:45 a.m., in room SD- 406 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``MAP-21 Reauthorization: State and Local Perspectives on Transportation Priorities and Funding.''

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 27, 2014, at 10 a.m., in room SD-430 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Strengthening the Federal Student Loan Program for Borrowers.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 27, 2014, at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, on March 27, 2014, at 10 a.m, in SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct an executive business meeting.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, on March 27, 2014, at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, on March 27, 2014, at 10:30 a.m., to hold an African Affairs subcommittee hearing entitled, ``Powering Africa's Future: Examining the Power African Initiative.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Oversight, Federal Rights, and Agency Action, be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, on March 27, 2014, at 3 p.m., in room SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Access to Justice for Those Who Serve.''

I ask for the yeas and nays.

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

Mr. President, I rise to express my robust concern about Russia's actions and the continuing escalation of tensions in Central and Eastern Europe. Even with Ukrainian troops leaving Crimea, Russia continues to extort Ukraine, disavowing an agreement on gas prices that was part of a bilateral agreement

allowing Russia to lease the Black Sea port in Crimea for its fleet. Russia is now arguing it no longer has to provide the discounted gas-- because it illegally seized the port--but that it also must be paid back $11 billion for prior discounts.

At the same time Russia has amassed more than 100,000 troops at Ukraine's border, in addition to 23,000 troops that are in Crimea, making clear the threat of an outright invasion of Ukraine and possibly a portion of Moldova. Putin is watching to see what we will do, to see if we have the resolve to act or if he, in essence, gets the green light to take the next step.

I believe we need to act now. Although I also believe our response to Russia's annexation of Crimea should include the International Monetary Fund reforms that passed in a bipartisan way out of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and that obviously received a rather strong procedural vote yesterday in the Senate--and these are critical to strengthening the assistance package for Ukraine and to strengthen U.S. global leadership--I recognize our ability to move this package with those reforms in it at this point is unlikely.

The House Republican leadership has proven itself intransigent on IMF reform, and we all know why. Trying to link support for IMF reforms to C-4 political committees that may have violated campaign finance laws and may involve individuals who illegally used them to influence Federal elections is pretty outrageous. I cannot believe the House leadership will not put national security interests above their partisan political interest but, obviously, politics clearly don't stop at the water's edge on this issue.

So while I am not happy about it, I believe we need to move forward on a bill today that sends the necessary message of support to Ukraine and resolve to Russia. But as we take that step, let us realize it is the IMF that is leading the effort to stabilize Ukraine's fragile economy. Congressional ratification of the 2010 IMF reforms would increase IMF emergency funding to Ukraine by up to 60 percent and provide an additional $6 billion for longer term support, setting an important marker for other donors, such as the EU and the World Bank.

Let us be clear about what keeping the IMF provisions would have done. The IMF is strengthened at no cost to U.S. finances or influence. The United States retains its executive board seat and the sole veto power at no net cost because the $63 billion increase in the U.S. quota is totally offset by an equivalent decrease to a separate emergency facility. However, other countries would put in new money, increasing the IMF's lending power.

The fact is this would be a pure win for the United States. We would fully have paid for the $315 million budget impact of the bill with real cuts and from funds that were underperforming or no longer needed. Given that the IMF helps to stabilize countries, often an ingredient precluding future need for military action, the minor cost would have been paid back many times over. And we will have another crisis in the future, in which the IMF will be critical to whether that crisis can be diffused and solved.

I repeat what I have said before. This should not be a partisan issue. Presidents Reagan, Clinton, and both Presidents Bush backed legislation to increase IMF resources. Ronald Reagan called the International Monetary Fund ``the linchpin of the international financial system.''

In a letter to the House and Senate leadership last week, members of the Bretton Woods Committee, the original entity that created some of the international organizations that have created global stability, such as the IMF, wrote that ``Implementing the IMF quota reforms . . . bolsters our leadership in the fund'' . . . and provides the United States with ``leverage to continue to preserve our national security and economic interests abroad.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the letter I am referring to.

Let me cite the names of some of the folks who signed that letter: Madeleine Albright, former Secretary James Baker, Zbigniew Brzezinski, William Cohen, Stephen Hadley, Henry Kissinger, Tom Ridge, Condoleezza Rice, Clayton Yeutter, Robert Zoellick, Lee Hamilton, Brent Scowcroft, Frank Carlucci, Robert Rubin, Larry Summers, John Snow, and Henry Paulson. This is a bipartisan list of ``Who's Who'' in foreign policy, all saying this is critical to do.

Let me be very clear. Opponents have argued that IMF reforms provide no added relief to Ukraine, so it is superfluous to this bill. That argument is patently false. The 2010 IMF reforms strengthen the IMF. That is why they were done. And as it relates to Ukraine, by increasing Ukraine's quota, the reforms increase available short-term lending from $1 billion to $1.6 billion, and longer term resources the IMF can leverage for Ukraine by up to $6 billion. It also strengthens our ability to shape an IMF support package for Ukraine.

Critics say IMF reforms undermine U.S. influence and increase Russia's influence in the IMF. They are dead

wrong again. We remain the largest IMF shareholder even after reform, we are guaranteed our executive board seat, and we will continue as the only country--the only country--with veto power over major IMF decisions.

Meanwhile, the reforms rationalize the voting structure of the IMF to increase buy-in of dynamic emerging economies in a way that ensures continued U.S. leadership in a more relevant international institution. On the other side, the reforms matter little to Russia, which already has a board seat.

Opponents say IMF reforms cost American taxpayers billions and put taxpayer money at risk. Again, wrong. There is no cost to American taxpayers. The reforms included in the Senate Ukraine bill preserve U.S. leadership, the veto position in the IMF, without increasing-- without increasing--our financial commitment to the IMF. The IMF is the most solvent financial institution in the world, and the risk of IMF default is de minimis.

We would have paid for all of this budget impact through real cuts, as my colleague and ranking member on the committee Bob Corker asked. We came together and we figured it out. The appropriators helped us determine underperforming funds, programs from which we could take these funds, and we ultimately came to a very successful conclusion.

I regret the failure to strengthen the IMF to support Ukraine and other unforeseen crises around the world will endanger the system we have so painstakingly built. And it shouldn't need arguing that fragmentation of global economic governance is not in our national interest. The fact is IMF reform, combined with the aid package for Ukraine, would send a clear and unambiguous message to the world that the annexation of Crimea will not stand.

But I understand this institution and our political realities, so I have come to the floor to ask that we come together to at least send our message of support to Ukraine and another message to Putin. We should act today. We cannot and should not stand for the violations of international norms perpetrated on Crimea by Russia. The world is watching, and the world's superpower cannot be seen as incapable of rising to Russia's challenge. That is the responsibility before the Senate today.

So for those who have criticized the IMF reforms--and because the House leadership doesn't want to pursue it because of extraneous matters having to deal with politics and not policy, willing to risk national security issues--they are going to get their way today. I would hope, therefore, the rest of this package, which provides a loan guarantee to Ukraine of $1 billion, that provides sanctions against the Russian regime and others who corrupted Ukraine, the previous Ukrainian Government, and who have violated its territorial integrity, that provides assistance to ensure democratic elections can be held this May in Ukraine, that provides for greater defense cooperation with Ukraine, all other elements of this legislation, should have universal support. We should do it today in order to ensure that we send a clear, unambiguous message, as 100,000 Russian troops are on the eastern front of the Ukraine. I believe this is a critical moment for us to answer affirmatively.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I will be happy to yield to the distinguished Senator.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. President, I rise to urge a ``yes'' vote for final passage of the Homeowner Flood Insurance Affordability Act, the legislation we are here to consider. I will say the Senate went through a considerate, deliberate process where amendments were openly considered. I believe at the end of the process there was a 67-to-32 vote. We don't normally get two-thirds of the Senate agreeing on major issues, but we did at that time in a bipartisan effort.

My understanding is the legislation that ultimately we are considering today, which is basically foundationally what we agreed to here with some changes in the House, for which there was vigorous back- and-forth negotiation, passed by over 300 votes of the House of Representatives. So it seems to me it has a broad bipartisan support and was vigorously debated in that Chamber.

We have an opportunity to once again, after the bill we just passed, show this body can work. We had a respectable debate on good-faith amendments that were germane to the bill, lived up to the ideals of the Senate when it was before us. We were able to have bipartisan negotiations to improve the House-passed version of our bill so it would provide the levels of relief that are necessary. As a result, we are now poised to pass some critical legislation with overwhelmingly bipartisan support which provides real relief to millions of American families.

Just very briefly, because I hope to basically not use all the time so we can come to a vote and get our Members on their way, this new legislation is first of all budget neutral. It does not add a dime to the deficit, nor does it hurt the solvency of the National Flood Insurance Program. It prevents skyrocketing rate increases by implementing the following measures: One, it creates a firewall on annual rate increases. It repeals the property sales trigger that was depressing the values of homes. It repeals the new policy sales trigger. It reinstates grandfathering. It refunds homeowners who overpaid. It has something that I thought was critically important, that I thought was so important when we passed Biggert-Waters that I included it by amendment in the banking committee--an affordability goal.

Let us have the ability to ensure the solvency of the National Flood Insurance Program, but let us have an affordability mechanism which FEMA was, under the law that exists today, required to report to the Congress so we could ultimately come up with an affordability mechanism that would ensure that we have a solvent program and that we have an affordable program.

At the end of the day, insurance is about spreading risk over a wide pool and in doing so keeping rates affordable. With rates that I heard from homeowners in New Jersey that went from $1,000 to $10,000 or $15,000, not only is that not affordable but you are going to ultimately reduce the size of the risk pool in the National Flood Insurance Program. That means that is going to continue to drive up the cost, and we have a self-fulfilling cycle that ultimately does not provide for solvency.

So we have kept some of the most important reforms under Biggert- Waters, but we created a window of opportunity to make sure we get to affordability, that we help the real estate market, at a time when it desperately needs help, to be able to continue to prosper. The people's most significant asset in their life was built over a lifetime to buy a home, and that is where they ultimately have their greatest asset. It is where they leverage for their kid's education or emergency in health care and a whole host of plans for retirement.

So for millions of people in my State and across the country who ultimately did the right thing, followed rules, paid their premiums, met the higher standards, now to be told that in addition to--in New Jersey's case the consequences of Hurricane Sandy, and throughout the Northeast, flooding in Colorado or the Mississippi or a whole host of other places--but despite the fact they did everything right, through no fault of their own and having paid their fees, they are now in rate shock, an inability to keep flood insurance, which sometimes triggers a default on the mortgage, if they have a mortgage, or makes it impossible to sell their home.

That is what we are rectifying. It is our collective purpose. I urge a strong ``yes'' vote.

Finally, I wish to thank my colleagues who have worked with me on a bipartisan basis: My lead cosponsor Senator Isakson. I don't believe there is anybody in the Senate who has a greater depth of knowledge in the real estate industry and how this legislation affects that but also understands the consequences of individual families and is working in an incredibly strong way so we can get to this bipartisan moment. I appreciate all of his work.

Also, I have to say the tenaciousness and the ability to bring us to this point is that of Senator Landrieu, who has become an expert out of necessity from what happens in her State with Hurricane Katrina. The people of Louisiana are extraordinarily fortunate to have her as one of their Senators. She has been a guiding light throughout this process, tremendously helpful in getting us to today.

Lastly, I appreciate the leadership on both sides to get us to this moment so we could have this vote.

With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I understand we are going to be able to act on the Lee bill with a voice vote. As a result, I ask consent that the order with respect to a 60-affirmative-vote threshold with respect to S. 2137 be vitiated with all of the provisions of the previous order remaining in effect.

Mr. President, in the interest of getting this bill to the President's desk and giving relief to flood victims across the country, and many other homeowners, we yield back the remainder of our time and ask for the yeas and nays.

Madam President, reserving the right to object--and it is not my ultimate intention to object but hopefully to persuade my colleagues not to object.

I have been watching my colleagues on television, in committee, and on the Senate floor rail about what is happening in Ukraine and about the lack of action from their perspective. We are at a moment--that after a very considered process in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, which I am privileged to chair, working alongside the ranking member Senator Corker and with Senator McCain, another distinguished member of the committee--with a very strong bipartisan vote on a major piece of legislation, that, in fact, when it comes time to act, we have those who say no, even though they go on TV and bemoan the lack of action.

I find it incredibly difficult to suggest that what the House passed can be the only response to what is happening in Ukraine. Yes, it is a loan guarantee which we include in our legislation, but everything we do we pay for. So for those who are fiscally conservative and are concerned about it, we have paid for what we seek to do. That cannot be said about the House.

Secondly, we go beyond a loan guarantee. As important as that loan guarantee is to making an expression to the Ukrainian Government, to the Ukrainian people, to our partners in Europe and in NATO, we say there has to be responsibility taken for those who corrupted the Ukrainian Government, for those who undermined its sovereignty, for those who undermined its security.

We have provisions, both permissive and mandatory, to sanction individuals who have been found to have, in fact, corrupted the circumstances and/or affected the territorial integrity or sovereignty of Ukraine. One of them was sponsored by Senator McCain, which was adopted unanimously, a mandatory provision.

If we want to be doing something about Russia, we can't do it with the House bill, we can only do it with the Senate bill. Then, yes, the IMF. I respect people who for some reason have an ideological difference about international monetary institutions, but if we want to talk about security, we will not have security in Ukraine if we cannot stabilize it economically, and a $1 billion loan guarantee isn't enough to make that happen.

It is the IMF that is going to be the singular force to create the opportunity for economic stability inside of Ukraine, which is fundamental to meeting our security challenge as well.

To hold IMF reform hostage to the question of whether unlimited campaign money can go into our elections without deciding whether that is being done appropriately under the law as it exists is outrageous.

There is a reason we care about Ukraine. It is not simply because we want to do the right thing by a country that has been invaded in the Crimea and for which thousands of Russian troops and equipment are amassing along its border in Eastern Ukraine, it is because this has a global consequence.

If the West doesn't act what will China say when it is looking at its territorial desires in the South China Sea? What will Iran say as we are negotiating with them about nuclear weapons?

What will others in the world, in North Korea--whose march to nuclear weapons on a greater scale is in play--all of them will be looking at what we and the West do as it relates to Ukraine and making a decision: How far can I go? What can I get away with?

To be able to stabilize Ukraine, we need to ultimately have the International Monetary Fund. To hold that hostage because of investigations going on--wherever they may lead and however they may lead to the question of campaign finance moneys may be inappropriately, ultimately, being used in violation of law--is outrageous.

What is at play is our national interests, our national security, the sovereignty of the people of the Ukraine, the message that we will send across the world about what we stand ready to do. That should not be hostage to political interests that have nothing to do with those issues.

For all those who have been standing and making speeches, for all those who have been going on TV with plenty of criticism, this is your opportunity to act and act now. There is no reason we cannot do that at this moment.

I withdraw my reservation and I yield the floor.

Madam President, I return to the floor because I can't let some of what has been said go unchallenged.

First of all, as it relates to the majority leader, the issue of the connection that has been made between IMF reform and the C-4 investigation--the unlimited, undefined, not-known secret money that goes into these entities in elections--was not first raised by the majority leader. It was first raised by Senator Corker in an article. It was subsequently raised today on the floor by Senator McCain. So casting aspersions upon the majority leader and suggesting he is ultimately impugning the reputation of anyone is pretty outrageous when the Members of his own side of the aisle recognize that it was simply wrong to connect IMF reform and the ability to help Ukraine in the most powerful way now with some C-4 investigation.

Secondly, only in Washington could someone have you believe that IMF reforms we are promoting means more power for Russia. Yes, we are rushing in this Chamber--John McCain and Bob Corker are rushing into this Chamber to give more power to Russia. Only in Washington could anybody believe that.

Only in Washington could someone have you believe that our other colleagues on the committee who voted for the legislation to have IMF reform were actually voting--our Republican colleagues were voting--to give Russia more power so they could continue to oppress people. It stretches the incredulous nature of that argument.

On the contrary, why are we in the mess we are in? Because when Ukraine was having serious economic challenges, it was Putin and Russia that were coming with their money, not the IMF which--in a way--might have ultimately been important because the IMF needs the resources and the leveraging we create by virtue of this legislation.

You can't divorce it. If you really want to help Ukraine, you need to have the resources of the IMF that ultimately guarantees the full ability to bring Ukraine back into economic order, and from that, build on all the other elements of security as well.

Thirdly, the budget point of order: The ranking member on our committee made it very clear when he said, I want to be supportive, but we have to have this paid for, and we did. People can disagree with the pay-for, but it is paid for, which is something the House of Representatives didn't do. Let me tell you what else the House of Representatives didn't do. They didn't do anything about sanctions-- nothing, zero, nada.

The bottom line is, we would send a message that, yes, we want to partially help Ukraine, but not in the most significant way we can, which is with IMF reform and the leveraging of the resources and our voice that we would bring to them in determining their future and the next crisis in the world, which is unfortunately around the corner.

So for those who claim they are all for helping Ukraine and national security, they should have allowed us to have this vote tonight.

Lastly, with reference to my dear friend and colleague, for whom I have a great deal of respect, Senator Barrasso, who said I didn't permit his amendment on LNG to move forward, his amendment was ruled out of order because it was not within the jurisdiction of the committee. The reality is on the merits of it, it is not about helping Ukraine right now. Ukraine doesn't have the infrastructure for LNG. They obviously don't have the resources to build the infrastructure for

Madam President, I wish to pay tribute to the Girl Scouts as the organization celebrates Girl Scout Day. One hundred and two years ago, on March 12, 1912, Juliette ``Daisy'' Gordon Low founded the first chapter of the Girl Scouts of the United States of America in Savannah, GA. Today, the Girl Scouts count over 2 million girls as members, including nearly 100,000 in my home State of New Jersey.

We all know and enjoy their incredibly successful--and delicious-- Girl Scout Cookie program, but beyond the cookies, this program is the largest and most successful business run by girls in the world, earning nearly $800 million a year. By participating in this program, girls are taught five essential entrepreneurial skills, including goal-setting, decision-making, money management, people skills, and business ethics. This has helped the Girl Scouts teach their members financial literacy and business skills, and has inspired generations of women business owners and executives.

The mission of the Girl Scouts has been and continues to be building girls of courage, confidence, and character, who make the world a better place. In that respect, I commend the Girl Scouts for launching a program in 2012 known as Be a Friend First, or BFF, to tackle bullying among middle school girls. A recent study found that girls developed key relationship and leadership skills from this program, and that Hispanic girls experienced a particular benefit from the Girl Scouts' gender-specific program.

I would also like to applaud the Girl Scouts for their continuing efforts to encourage careers in the Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math, STEM, fields. Only 1 year after they were founded, in 1913, the Girl Scouts began awarding their first merit badges in STEM fields, the electrician badge and the flyer badge. Today, the Girl Scouts continue to encourage girls to consider pursuing careers in STEM fields. For the United States to be able to continue to remain the world's leading innovator, the participation of women in STEM fields is critical. Therefore I commend them for their efforts towards increasing the participation of women in STEM careers and education.

On this Girl Scout Day, for these reasons and for many others, I applaud the Girl Scouts for the outstanding work that they do in our communities and for girls across America.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I thank all of my friends who are speaking on the floor tonight for their continued commitment to not just bring attention to climate change, but to push for decisive action on the issue.

As experts from around the world show us beyond a reasonable doubt that we, as a global community, are contributing to rising temperatures, there are those that would deny that human actions can have any effect on our climate and environment. Too often, lawmakers try to legislate their own ``science'' rather than properly utilizing the conclusions and recommendations made by skilled experts--yet nature does not conform to our laws. That is why the United States must be an innovator in reducing our greenhouse gas emissions, and a leading light in the clean energy sector.

My own home State of New Jersey has shown strong leadership in moving our country towards a sustainable energy future. We have developed and implemented an aggressive Renewable Portfolio Standard that requires over

20 percent of New Jersey's electricity to come from renewable sources by 2021. We have put in place strong incentives for energy customers of all sizes, from single families to the many businesses that call New Jersey home, to become energy efficient and even clean energy producers, by installing solar panels on their homes and buildings. New Jersey is also beginning to realize some of its extraordinary potential to harness wind power off our coast, with multiple offshore wind projects currently in development. I am encouraged by some of the progress that I have seen in the renewable energy sector in New Jersey and other leading States, and hope that others will follow suit.

New Jersey's many exemplary institutions of higher learning have also been at the forefront of the vital research that has helped us to understand the causes and consequences of global climate change. Important work is being done at the Institute of Marine and Coastal Sciences at Rutgers University into how climatic changes in the Arctic impact weather in the U.S., and Princeton University's Cooperative Institute for Climate Science is at the forefront of climate change mitigation options and response strategies.

Some of my Senate colleagues from fossil fuel producing States have been hesitant to act, they say, because oil and coal production are home State issues for them. Well, for me, climate change is a home State issue. Not just because of the excellent work being done in New Jersey, but because my State has seen firsthand the devastating effects of a warmer climate that brings with it powerful storms, rising seas, and destructive flooding.

Not 18 months ago, New Jersey and much of the eastern seaboard was battered by an unprecedented superstorm that washed away much of the New Jersey coastline. Superstorm Sandy caused an estimated $65 billion in economic losses. 159 people lost their lives, 650,000 homes were damaged or destroyed, and 8.5 million households and businesses lost power, many of them for weeks. Power outages caused severe gas shortages, with traffic backed up for miles, and people waiting for hours to obtain fuel to feed the generators that were keeping their families warm and their food from spoiling.

Now, New Jersey has persevered. We worked together and helped each other rebuild lives, businesses, homes, and our famous beaches and boardwalks. Efforts have been undertaken to make our coastal communities and critical infrastructure more resilient to future storms of this magnitude. But unless we act to implement responsible energy policies that cut our greenhouse gas emissions and incentivize investment in renewable energy infrastructure, these damaging superstorms will only become more powerful and frequent. Those who deny the reality of climate change tend to emphasize the economic costs of regulating carbon emissions, but these costs pale next to the economic and social costs of doing nothing.

I am proud to join my colleagues tonight, and for the duration of my time serving the people of New Jersey in the Senate, to call for real solutions to our climate challenges. The decisions that we make in this body now will shape the future for our children and grandchildren. Years from now, I hope to humbly reflect on my time in the Senate, and be able to say I was a part of the Congress that finally reigned in big oil and coal, and put the United States on a path towards sustainability and environmental responsibility. Future generations of Americans deserve no less, and our planet demands it.

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

Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry. I understand the Republican side yielded back their time.

I yield back our time.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Madam President, I yield back all time.

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

I know we are shortly going to be voting on, among other issues, the nomination of Senator Max Baucus to be the next U.S. Ambassador to China. I would expect that he would have a unanimous, if not nearly unanimous, vote in the Senate.

I said in the Foreign Relations Committee this week that clearly one of the biggest challenges and the biggest opportunities before U.S. foreign policy today is getting the relationship between the United States and China--in the context of our rebalance to the Asia-Pacific-- right. I can think of few more able or qualified at this important moment in history than our friend and colleague, the Senator from Montana, to help provide advice and guidance to the President and to Congress about how to get that relationship right.

He is an expert on trade issues. He understands what we face in the coming years as China's economy continues to grow. He is fully aware of the facts that we have had U.S. exports to China that have increased by almost $40 billion in the past 4 years alone, creating and sustaining millions of sustaining U.S. jobs in sectors across the board-- automobiles, power generation, machinery, aircraft, and other vital industrial sectors. His trade missions to China, since he has been the chairman of the Finance Committee, have given him the perspective he needs to deal with the realities of our policy options.

From the hearing he clearly understands that through the rest of the 21st century and beyond, much of the strategic, political, and economic future of the world is likely to be shaped by decisions made by Washington, Beijing, and the capitals of Asia over the next 4 to 5 years. How we get that rebalance right is incredibly important, and the Ambassador to China is incredibly important in that regard.

Finally, trade is not the only issue as it relates to China. Our collective security, having China pursue a rules-based system, is incredibly important, as well as what happens in the South China Sea-- all of the issues Senator Baucus addressed in his nomination hearing with great ability, insight, and a willingness to take them on.

As the very final point, human rights is an incredibly important issue as it relates to China. I want to read briefly from the transcript where he was asked about the question of human rights. He described a moment as a Senator in which he raised the issue with then- President Jiang Zemin.

Senator Baucus said:

He said [the President of China] I did not know what I was

are talking about, basically. But then I went to Tibet, went

to Lhasa and raised the same point there. And sure enough,

within about 2 or 3 weeks, this person was released. . . .

Protection of human rights is the bedrock. It is the

underpinning of American and world society. . . . People look

to America, look to America to lead on so many issues,

including the protection of human rights, religious freedoms,

freedom of the press, all the rights that are enumerated in

the universal declaration. It is what most progress springs

from.

And the answer is yes, Senator [Cardin]. You have my

commitment [on human rights].

I think the totality of trade, currency manipulation, security, human rights, and the answers that he gave in his hearing, clearly show manifestly that he is very capable of being the next Ambassador.

I urge a unanimous vote in the Senate, and I yield the floor.