Bob Corker

Mr. CORKER

Mr. CORKER. The Senator is exactly right. I was in the region this year, and there is tremendous concern about, obviously, Iran breaking out in this regard. Candidly, there are many conversations about ways for them to compensate for that because they obviously want a counter to Iran's being a nuclear-armed country. As you know, with some of the proliferation that takes place, there are ways of buying those capabilities without even developing them yourself. So, yes, that is a major concern. Our friend, Senator Menendez, on the other side of the aisle--with whom you work so closely--I certainly don't want to speak for him, but I use a frame of reference that he has used on so many occasions; that is, it is one thing to dismantle their ability to enrich and produce a nuclear weapon and it is a whole different thing to just mothball. What I fear is that we are creating a situation where, again, we have these countries that come together, we have the sanctions that are in place, and we let those sanctions dissipate. Then all of a sudden--and I think the Senator knows already--the economy in Iran is picking up and inflation has dropped if you allow those to dissipate. It took a lot of effort to put these sanctions in place. Again, there are a lot of differing interests today that didn't exist when these were put in place. Then all of a sudden we have a situation where they break out again because they have those capabilities. They have mothballed; they have not been dismantled. Not to speak of the fact that we don't know what is going on in Parchin--we don't know what may happen with the Arak facility. Again, I hope the administration will be very clear about the gaps that exist today. My sense is they are going to extend and, again, I have grave concerns about what that is going to mean relative to getting to a good end.

Mr. CORKER. I thank the Senator again for his tremendous contributions to this body and every foreign policy debate that we have. The President did seek congressional approval on the authorization of the use of military force in Syria. It was not something he had to do, but he sought it, and I am pleased that he did. I was proud to be a part of writing that agreement with our chairman and other members of the committee to give him the power to do that. And actually, to be candid, I regret that things took the course they took, but the President elected to do that. As the Senator mentioned, a nuclear-armed Iran is a whole different scale. What I hope will happen is that the President will agree there will be no more extensions if they ask for one in the next few days, and I am almost certain that is what is going to happen. No. 2, I hope you will commit to letting Congress weigh in on the final decision. I actually think that will be useful for them in the negotiation. I really do think that having a backstop would be useful to them, but if the President doesn't agree to that, I hope we, on our own, will pass legislation which ensures that is the case. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORKER. I think, based on past behavior, that would be one's expectation. Again, we know there are facilities that are operating, and we haven't been able to get into those facilities. When you look at the facts, one of the things that is not even being addressed is the whole delivery system--their ability to deliver the weaponry. None of this discussion thus far, to my knowledge, has anything to do with their developing capabilities to actually deliver a nuclear weapon. What I am concerned about--the Senator focused on the centrifuges and it is the central issue--no question. I think the Senator has wisely pointed out how the Supreme Leader has tried to move the goalpost so far down the field that just getting to the 30- or 40-yard line looks good to us. But we also did the same on the front end of the deal by acknowledging in the preamble or the four-page agreement that enrichment certainly could occur. But here is what is happening, I fear. On every other single portion--not just the centrifuge--the goal posts are being moved. In other words, the things that we thought were going to take place on the front end--whether it was the Arak facility and what was going to occur there or what was going to happen in other pieces of the deal--all of that adds up to very important elements or a final deal. I am afraid what is happening is the goalpost is moving on all of those as time goes on.

Mr. CORKER. One of the ways that Iran has destabilized the region has been through proxies that it funds. Let's face it. Until they became involved in Syria--as the Senator has talked about on the floor--through their proxy, Hezbollah, actually the moderate in the opposition was gaining ground. So their utilization of terrorist groups to achieve their end, obviously, is their normal mode of operation.

Mr. CORKER. So when you think about the possibilities of their being able to create, as the Senator mentioned, a dirty bomb--which would create tremendous terror wherever it might have been implemented--that is something I think is frightening--more than frightening. It would be something that would be not quite as destabilizing as, obviously, having a full-blown nuclear weapon, but something that would be very damaging to world security.

Mr. CORKER

Mr. CORKER. I would like to join our distinguished leader Mitch McConnell in seconding the comments about the presentation the senior Senator from Tennessee made at the Howard Baker funeral. It is a great privilege for us to serve in this body. While times are tough relative to our ability or willingness to solve some of the major problems, many of the major problems of our Nation today--and sometimes there are comments made about serving in the Senate--what I say to people back home is that if any of us ever forget what a privilege it is to serve, we should go home. That privilege allows us to meet people and to be in conversation with people like Howard Baker who affect us and cause us to be better people. It also allows us to witness what took place last week. I have to say I have seen Senator Alexander on many occasions say and do things that I thought were impressive. I don't think I have ever seen anything that measures up to what was said in that small Presbyterian church last week. I think all of us were touched. The Senator had a lot of good material to work with and was describing a man who probably has had more effect in a positive way on Tennessee politics--in many ways, national politics--like Howard Baker. He was an inspiration to all of us. When we were around him, his graciousness and humility caused all of us to be much better people. His encouragement, especially when dealing with tough issues, I think caused all of us to want to strive even harder to be better Senators and better people. I certainly cannot give the comments with the eloquence the Senator gave last week and certainly the ones just given. I know you and he were very close, and he impacted you more than any other person outside your immediate family, but he had an impact on all of us. He had an impact on this Nation. It is a great honor and privilege to stand with the Senator today to acknowledge Senator Baker's greatness as a person, his greatness as a Senator. Many times we see presentations as people talk about someone's life, and a lot of times that is embellished. I will say in this case none of it was. It was all about the man serving here in the Senate but also serving in that small church in Huntsville, TN, to which he was so loyal. I thank the Senator for the opportunity to serve with him. I know each of us strives to carry out those characteristics Howard Baker so wisely showed us, and I do agree that the Senate would be a much better place if all of us could embody those characteristics most of the time. I thank the senior Senator for his leadership and for his comments. I thank our distinguished minority leader, during a time of great busy-ness in his own personal life, for taking the time to be a part of something that I think is meaningful to him also. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORKER

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I want to say that I appreciate so much the point of view the Senator from Kentucky brings to the committee and his focus on foreign aid. No doubt there are issues relative to aid to many countries around the world that we need to be looking at. This is an issue, though, that I really believe the committee itself should deal with first. While I appreciate his desire to deal with this and bring it directly to the floor, on behalf of myself and the chairman of the committee, I am going to object, but I am going to object because I really would like for this issue to be heard in an appropriate way--this issue and many others the great Senator has brought forth on the floor today. I thank him for his concern. I thank him for the issues he has brought up. I hope the committee itself will deal with this important issue, as it should, through regular order. For that reason, I object to this particular unanimous consent request.

Mr. CORKER

Mr. CORKER. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. CORKER. I yield back all time.

Mr. CORKER

Mr. CORKER. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. CORKER

Mr. CORKER. I too rise to talk about our friend and former colleague to many in this body, Senator Harlan Mathews. It was touching yesterday to be at a funeral service where so many people he had mentored stood and talked in conversation around the gathering we attended about the great mentorship he provided. There is no greater legacy any of us can provide than to set an example for other people and to create opportunities for other people coming along. I want to join the senior Senator, who I know served with him while he was Governor. I had the great opportunity to get to know him as a new and young commissioner of finance in our State, an appointed job, and no one--no one--was kinder to me than former Senator Harlan Mathews, who has been involved in so many great things that have happened in our State. His wife Pat complimented him in an extraordinary way, saying I think one of his greatest attributes was his constantly saying: You know, so much can happen in this world if no one cares who takes the credit. I think he was a quiet force for good in our State and a quiet force for good in our country. So many of the things that caused him to be the kind of person he was are things that many of us could emulate and cause the Senate and our country to function much better than it does now. I join the senior Senator, for whom I have so much respect, in making sure the Senate record records the great work of Harlan Mathews-- Senator, Deputy Governor, treasury leader in our State but also commissioner of finance. He is someone who provided years of great public service, years of great mentorship, and someone who has a legacy of people who served with him and under him who have gone on to do wonderful work for our State and country. I yield the floor with great gratitude toward a wonderful public servant, Harlan Mathews.

Mr. CORKER

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I rise today out of a genuine concern that the foreign policy that our administration is conducting is creating danger for the U.S. citizenry and creating danger throughout the world. Let me speak a little bit about that. I think all of us have seen what happened in Syria when the administration had an opportunity on the front end of a conflict to put its thumb on the scale to change the dynamic of what was happening inside the country and stated that it would do so. It did not. This weekend I was at a security conference and people on both sides of the aisle expressed dismay at the way the administration had conducted its operations--or actually had not conducted it operations in Syria, and yet had stated so many times what it was going to do. Today we find ourselves in a situation where I am absolutely certain that one of the policies we will end up carrying out in Syria will be a counterterrorism policy because of our concern about the fact that because we did not act when we could--not with American boots on the ground; that is not what anybody has proposed--but when the administration could have done something to prevent the disaster that has occurred there, to prevent 60,000 more Syrians from being killed indiscriminately--in many cases by helicopters from the administration dropping barrel bombs on innocent civilians there--when the administration could have acted to keep those types of atrocities from occurring, to keep Al Qaeda and other extremists from coming into the country--when it said it was going to act and did not, when it could have done that--now we are going to find ourselves, very quickly, in a situation, in my opinion, where we realize this is a threat to our homeland, and we are going to be engaged in counterterrorism activities. I say that as a predicate to the issue I am going to discuss, which is Ukraine. So many Members of our body have recently been to Ukraine. As a matter of fact, I count 12 Members--Members on both sides of the aisle--who have spent time visiting Ukraine and going to Maidan and seeing what the people there did. They rose up to hope for a free world, to hope for human rights, to hope for democracy, and to rid the country of corruption. Today, we have a prime minister who is young, who is taking on the issues of the day, and doing everything he can to usher this country into a new era--a country that is destined to join the West on its current path. At the same time, we see a country whose greatest threat to that occurring is Russia--a country that, as we know, illegally went into Crimea and annexed it, a country that today has 40,000 troops on the border, a country that has black ops operators inside eastern Ukraine, the industrial part of Ukraine that it hopes over time will, in a sense, become a part of what they are doing in Russia. We see every day the destabilization occurring. We know the most important next step in Ukraine is for them to go to this May 25 election and have an election that the world community believes was a valid election. Yet we know that daily Putin and Russia do everything they can to destabilize Ukraine and to delegitimize this process of elections and moving forward. So a number of us, out of grave concern for what is happening--out of concern about where this is going to lead America, where this is going to lead Europe--have come together to write a piece of legislation because what we have seen from the administration is a lot of rhetoric. Unfortunately, what we see is an administration that cannot help itself but to try to be in every 24-hour news circle, talking about what it is going to do, but then when it actually comes to the time of actually doing it, that is not what has occurred. This week I was very disappointed when the administration unveiled its next round of sanctions. We had all hoped the administration would put in place sectoral sanctions, sanctions that would have an impact on the Russian economy, so that Putin and all those around him who are carrying out these activities would understand they would pay a price for what they are doing illegally in this part of the world, which, by the way, goes against the agreements we all came to around the Budapest Memorandum, where we said we would honor the sovereignty of this country. For that reason, a number of us have come together to write a piece of legislation. It is legislation that is intended to try to drive an outcome. It is a piece of legislation that moves away from the way the administration has been dealing with this, where they are always a day late and a dollar short. They are always responding to what Russia does. They are always doing something that, in essence, deals with the situation after something bad has already occurred. This legislation is designed to, again, drive an outcome, to show the administration there is a strategic way to deal with this issue. Let me tell you what this does not do. I was very disappointed to pick up the Wall Street Journal this morning and read on the front page that those of us who are concerned--which, by the way, is strongly bipartisan, strongly bipartisan in this Senate: concern about what is happening in Ukraine and concern about the fact that the administration has not done those things with economic sanctions in a stronger way to cause Russia to pay a price for what it is doing--but I was very disappointed to pick up the paper and read where the President said those people who want to see military action by the United States in Ukraine--that is not what this bill does. As a matter of fact, what the bill does is it lays out a strategy to try to keep that from happening, which I think numbers of us on both sides of the aisle are concerned that under the current policy of saying what we are going to do and not doing it, of basically continuing to allow Russia to do what it is doing inside eastern Ukraine, that this is actually the very policy that could lead to significant problems down the road. We all understand these are how major conflicts unfold, and we all understand we are talking about two countries that are armed with nuclear weapons. So today at noon a number of us will gather around and introduce a piece of legislation that does three things. No. 1, it strengthens NATO. I think everyone would agree that the commitment of NATO to its allies, our commitment to NATO, our partners' commitment to NATO, has waned over the last period of time. By the way, this is not something that has just occurred under this administration. It has been going on for some time. We have only three countries, as a matter of fact--three countries--within the NATO alliance that are actually honoring their commitments relative to the support of NATO. So the first piece of this is to strengthen NATO. It is to expedite, by the way, this administration's own plan relative to missile defense--the plan they have laid out. It does not change that technology. The second piece of this legislation is intended to deter Russia from what it is doing. If my colleagues remember, the Geneva accords said Putin would move the Russian troops who are intimidating people inside Eastern Ukraine away from the border. But I think what we have seen now is that ``red line'' has changed. Now what the administration is focused on is them actually not going inside the country, but all of us understand that Russia is actually accomplishing what it wishes to accomplish inside Ukraine without even sending troops in because they are able to do it again with black ops. So this piece of legislation that my friend from Wyoming and so many others were involved in developing lays down clear sanctions first-- beginning today, or after passage, beginning with sanctions--sanctions that hit several important entities in the banking sector and in the energy sector, so we actually do something that affects the Russian economy until such time that they pull those troops away from the border and they remove those black ops operators inside the country who are fomenting the problems. Secondly, in the event Russia does actually cross the border with military troops, this bill again imposes much deeper sanctions on Russia and certainly signifies to them what kind of price they would pay. Again, earlier this week when the administration put forth its sanctions, it was a marvel to see that the stock market in Russia, several days in a row, continued to go up. It had no affect on Russia, none. Editorial writers and people on both sides of the aisle understand this was nothing more than a slap on the wrist. Putin understands that. Russia understands that. They understand that we as a nation so far have not signified that we are willing to use these economic sanctions in a way--through the President's own Executive order, I might add--to change behavior. So we are very concerned about the direction this is taking. The third thing this bill will do is harden our non-NATO allies. I think my colleagues know that in the country of Moldavia, from where I just recently returned--and Senator Barrasso on another trip just recently returned as well--and in Georgia and in Ukraine, there are a number of things we need to do as a nation to help them harden their country and this bill lays objective things out. Let me give one example. In the Russian-speaking area of Eastern Ukraine, the only information the people who are Russian-speaking in that part of the world are receiving is coming from Russia. It is propaganda about actions the United States is taking, which we aren't, and the great lives they will have if Russia is able to annex that part of the world. So at a minimum we need to make sure the information those people are receiving is very different. There are so many actions that we as a nation can be taking to ensure that Ukraine is not destabilized, that Moldavia is not destabilized, that Georgia is not destabilized. Let me say this in closing because I see my friend is ready to speak on another topic. This bill we are introducing today is a serious piece of legislation. As a matter of fact, I am gratified by the work so many Members have put into making this legislation as it is. It is strategic. It is serious. It tries to accomplish a good outcome. I hope the introduction of this legislation will cause the administration to step away from the microphones and the cameras and to step away from the empty rhetoric that has been shared all across this world, to step back and say wouldn't it be good if we laid out a strategic approach to Europe. It is time we realized Russia is destabilizing Europe, and that affects our citizens. Our citizens are 4\1/2\ percent of the world in population. We benefit from 22 percent of the world's gross domestic product. So the fact of the world being secure is not only important to us because of human rights and democracy and freedom, but it is important to the very livelihoods of the people of our country. So I thank those involved. I look forward to discussing this more fully at noon today when we unveil this. Again, I hope the White House and those involved in setting foreign policy will step back, they will sit down, and they will begin to do take actions that strengthen NATO more fully. I hope they will take those actions that will certainly cause Russia to understand exactly what will happen if they continue on the path they are on, as well as strengthen our non-NATO allies which, because of the policies we have not put in place, are continually being destabilized.

Mr. CORKER. I yield the floor and I thank the Chair for the time.

Mr. CORKER

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I wish to honor John T. Watts. Tommy, as he is known to his friends and colleagues, is a friend of mine. I know he is so proud of his three children, six grandchildren, and five great-grandchildren. It is notable that his daughter Kimberly is married to former U.S. Congressman Zach Wamp. A native of Old Hickory, TN, Tommy moved to my hometown of Chattanooga, TN, at the age of 10. After graduating from Red Bank High School, he attended Tennessee Tech University. He returned to Chattanooga and began working for Southern Champion Tray in 1976. During his 38 years of service to Southern Champion Tray, Tommy served in a variety of capacities, including as a plant supervisor and most recently, as structural design manager. Winning numerous design awards in the paper and box industry, his designs can be found in local companies such as Chattanooga Bakery and Top Flight. He distinguished himself within the company by being the only employee to work in all three company locations--two in Chattanooga and one in Mansfield, TX. I wish him and his family all the best as he finishes his impressive career at the end of this month.

Mr. CORKER

Mr. CORKER. I rise today to speak about the bill we are going to vote on at 12:15 p.m. relative to Ukraine. First, I wish to say it speaks to the best of the Senate, where by working together we are going to end with a bill that sends a very strong signal to Russia but also to Ukraine in support and to the world. I believe it will be done in an overwhelming fashion in the Senate today and hopefully later today or tomorrow in the House. It is exactly what we should be doing at this time. First, I thank Senator Menendez for the way he marshaled this through the committee. I was pleased to work with him as ranking member. I know our original piece of legislation had in it the IMF reforms that I strongly support. It was evident that the IMF reforms were not going to make it through the House and actually become law. We all felt it was incredibly important that all of us speak in a united voice to push back on Russia's illegal actions in Crimea and potentially in Ukraine but also to do what we really need to do to support our friends in Ukraine and in the region. This bill does that. It passed out of committee with strong bipartisan support. My sense is today it will pass out of the Senate with incredibly strong bipartisan support. It will become law soon and will tremendously reinforce the way our Nation feels about what Russia is doing in such an illegal fashion--that was outmoded centuries ago--and support the people of Ukraine. All of us know this bill provides economic support for Ukraine. We all know they are entering into an agreement with the IMF. The IMF is going to be providing some loans to help move them through the problems they have had. They have tremendous corruption in their country. They use far too much energy. They have massive deficits. Through working with the IMF and signing on to agreements, ultimately they will be forced as a nation to move ahead and to orient themselves toward stronger countries or toward the West and operate in a more democratically free manner and certainly in a way that would allow them to economically sustain themselves over time. In this bill we also provide additional loan guarantee support, which they will need. They are facing extreme difficulties. I believe people know that recently they have agreed to charge their citizens twice as much for natural gas usage there to try to get their budgets back in balance. But it is very important that we send this signal and this strength of economic health through this $1 billion loan guarantee, which is a part of this bill today. Another important part is sending a strong signal to Putin and to Russia. If they feel they have no price to pay for the activities they have already undertaken, they will continue to do more. What this bill allows us to do is show strong support for what the administration has already done but, in addition to that, to make these sanctions mandatory and actually add additional elements should Russia continue to do the things they are doing in such a terrible way. I do want to say relative to the sanctions--I appreciate the Executive order the President signed the other day that gave them the ability to put sectoral sanctions in place. The energy sector, the banking sector, and other sectors of the economy can now be targeted with sanctions. I understand the balance that has to be put in place with sanctions where if we throw in everything but the kitchen sink on the front end, then Russia really has nothing to lose by going on into Ukraine. So we want to calibrate those in a way that deters their behavior but also gives them the ability to de-escalate. I will say that I do think the President's comments over the past several days in Europe have seemed cautious, have seemed timid. What I hope the administration will do very soon is turn up the volume dramatically and actually send some strong sanctions into some of these sectors--into the energy and banking sectors. We don't have to do all of the companies in those areas, but if we were to do that especially with three or four additional banks in Russia, it would send a strong signal to their economy, continue to weaken their economy and to show Putin there is a heavy price to pay for the activities he is engaged in and may engage in further relative to Ukraine itself. I encourage the administration to step ahead stronger. The European Union follows our lead, let's face it. If we act in a timid, cautious way, they are going to do the same. I think everybody in this body knows we do about $40 billion worth of trade annually with Russia, but the European Union community does $450 billion worth of trade. Generally, we are trying to work in unison, but if we as a nation act in a timid way, it encourages them as multiple countries to do the same. Again, I do hope we will turn up the volume, and I do hope we will go ahead and sanction some additional entities in Russia. There are many state-owned enterprises there. We all know that. That is one problem with the Russian economy right now. I think we all know they are really an autocratic petrostate. We know that they are not doing well, that their budget is based on the fact that oil sells at $110 per barrel, and that really that is mostly their economy. Again, what we need to do as a nation--we are supporting the administration in this bill. We are supporting Ukraine with this bill. We are also authorizing some assistance to some of our allies in the region. We are also authorizing some democracy assistance. The bill has no fiscal areas that are not paid for. This is a great piece of legislation. I do hope that over time Senator Reid will allow us to revisit the issue because, let's face it, we created this piece of legislation about 2 weeks ago. The events in Ukraine continue to unfold. So I hope we will come back again as changes occur. I know there are many people in this body who are actually trying to put additional pieces of legislation into place not only to sanction Russia even more fully, not only to assist Ukraine in other than economic ways, but also to use some of the strategic assets we have as a nation not only to benefit our economy but also to help our allies in the region so that they are not really subject to the economic extortion we have seen Russia try to carry out with our friends and also try to carry out with Ukraine, which this bill is all about. I close by thanking Senator Menendez. I thank Senator Reid for filing cloture on a bill that came out of the committee immediately so we would be in a place today to deal with this. I thank Senator McConnell, who was able to work with Senator Reid and the House to deal with this legislatively in a very creative way, using a vehicle that came from the House and sending something back to the House so that this can become law very quickly. I thank the House for cooperating with us on this bill because to have a piece of legislation go out of the Senate today and likely become law very soon is something that takes a lot of coordination. I thank the leadership in the House for helping us make this happen. I again thank the administration for their focus on this issue. I hope this bill will show strong support for some of the efforts that have already taken place, and I do hope the administration will not undercalculate. I think that right now Putin doesn't yet know what he is going to do relative to South and Eastern Ukraine. I don't think he knows, and I think he is watching us and he is calibrating what his steps are going to be based on the pain his own country will receive if they take the wrong steps. It is very important that the President send additional sanctions into Russia, send additional signals, and that we send shock waves into their economy now--not everything we have to throw at them but some of it--so they know that if they take additional steps, real pain is on the way. This bill supports those efforts of the administration, it supports Ukraine, it pushes back on Russia, and it shows support for allies in the region. It is a great piece of legislation. It is the first step. More should come. I am pleased we are at this point today. I thank all those involved, and I look forward to a very strong vote in the Senate at 12:15 p.m. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. CORKER

Mr. CORKER. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. CORKER. Madam President, I yield back all time.

Mr. CORKER

Mr. CORKER. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I rise to speak on the pending business before the Senate, which is the aid package and sanctions package and the IMF package relative to Ukraine. I wish to thank Senator Menendez for the way he conducted our hearings and markup relative to this bill. I think most people in this body understand this is a bill that came out of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on a 14-3 vote. We had one Member who was absent, dealing with some business in Florida. It is my understanding had that Member been there, this actually would have come out of committee on a 15-3 vote. So I emphasize, first of all, this bill has been through the committee process. On the other hand, events on the ground have changed since the bill came out of committee. Things have evolved since it came out of committee. I hope there is an open amendment process to make adjustments to the bill to take into account some of the things that have occurred on the ground since that time. Look, I know all of us want to strongly support Ukraine. I know all of us strongly condemn what Russia and Putin have done recently in Crimea, and I think all of us understand that what we want to do is to stop that aggression from moving on into the southern and eastern portions of Ukraine. So we are trying to respond in a way that sends a signal to Russia, sends a signal to those who have been involved in these illicit activities, that they should at least stop on the Crimean border and, hopefully, over time they will recede from Crimea. What we are trying to do is prevent further aggression in this area. I think everyone understands it has been our policy for 70 years as the United States to promote a democratic whole and free Europe. So what is happening with Russia and Crimea--and hopefully not in Ukraine, although there is no doubt they have fomented many of the problems that have occurred there--what we are attempting to do is to ensure that Europe remains free, democratic, and whole. I know everybody here remembers the fact that Ukraine was a place of numbers of nuclear weapons from Russia. When the Soviet Union broke apart in 1991, there was a huge arsenal of nuclear weapons and warheads in Ukraine. We signed an agreement called the Budapest Memorandum with the United Kingdom, Russia, and Ukraine relative to Ukraine's sovereignty if they were willing to give up these nuclear weapons. So it is very much in our national interests that we prevent Russia from breaking up and dealing nefariously with the sovereignty of Ukraine. We have crafted a bill which does three things. No. 1, it provides economic aid. I think everyone in this body understands the tremendous economic problems Ukraine is experiencing. I think we all understand the first thing that has to happen in Ukraine is it has to be stabilized economically. Therefore, the administration has pledged $1 billion in aid. This bill backs that up in a way that allows that to occur. Obviously, Congress has to approve spending, which is associated with loan guarantees. These loan guarantees, by the way, would not take effect until after Ukraine has signed an IMF agreement that makes sure they are going to go through the structural processes necessary to make sure they do what actually causes them to be a more successful country. The bill also deals with sanctions. I think everyone knows there have been numbers of people who have been involved nefariously in dealing internally in Ukraine with their sovereignty issues, but there also have been numbers of corrupt officials in Russia who have affected what is happening in Ukraine, and this bill sanctions both. We are sending a very strong message. Economic aid is important, but I also think sanctioning the bad behavior and Russia understanding there are going to be additional sanctions put in place is important. I wish to thank the administration for the sanctions that have been put in place. I thought it was a big step to put in place sectoral sanctions, or when they said they had the ability through Executive order to do that. What I hope will happen, and what we have pressed for out of our office, is they will implement some of those sectoral sanctions to send a shock wave through the Russian economy that in the event they do anything to come into Ukraine while they are amassing troops on the border--if they do anything in that regard--this is just the beginning. I think all of us understand Russia is in a place where their economy is weak and we know the ruble has depreciated greatly in value. We understand our best asset against them right now is sanctions that would hurt them economically and certainly affect those people who sit around Putin and affect him in big ways. The third piece of this bill is IMF reform. I join a number of people who believe the IMF reforms that have been laid out are important. They are important to the world. I talk to my friends on this side of the aisle who I think may have more of an isolationist bent, and I say that one of the things that is most important for us as a nation is to have an entity such as the IMF--it is not perfect, it makes mistakes, but it is the entity that everything in the world is looking to right now to help usher Ukraine from where they are to a place that is prosperous and has the ability to improve the standard of living of Ukrainians, which is very important from the standpoint of their stability. So we are all focused on the IMF. We have people on my side of the aisle who again have become more isolationist, less adventurous, if you would, relative to--which is where the country is, I understand. But what the IMF does is allow us to share the risk of stabilizing countries such as Ukraine with other countries around the world. I think all of us understand the threats to global stability are greater today than they have been in the past. So there was an agreed-to set of reforms that took place back in 2010. I strongly support--I strongly support--those reforms and, as a matter of fact, would say Ukraine is the poster child for why we need to have an IMF that is functioning at a much higher level. We account for a transfer from something called the NAB, if you will--it is a line of credit that we have; it is out there; it is a liability our Nation has--and we transfer $63 billion of that $100 billion over to something that is in a basket of currency. So we are not taking on any additional liabilities. Yet there is a pay-for aspect of this through the budgeting process that is fully accounted for in this bill. Again, I join Dr. Henry Kissinger, Dr. Condoleezza Rice, former Secretary Jim Baker in saying and knowing we should adopt these IMF reforms. These are the three big elements of this bill. We have some democracy assistance. We have some authorized sums to help us build stronger relationships with our allies. But I strongly support this piece of legislation. I think this piece of legislation is a full package. It is a package that deals with the three aspects that need to be dealt with at this time. Ukraine is, again, the poster child of why we want to have a fully functioning IMF. Look. I know there are going to be amendments offered. There actually have been some already. I hope we will have a full and open process, with amendments that are relevant to what we are dealing with on the floor. I think the bill can be improved. It is my hope, as we move through this week, that we will have the opportunity for those amendments to be heard and voted on but, at the same time, by the time the week ends and we head back to our respective States we will have, in a unified way, sent a message to Russia, sent a message to the people of Ukraine as to where this body stands relative to their support economically, relative to sanctions that we believe strongly should be put in place against Russia, and how we believe the IMF should be functioning as a stabilizing force in the world. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. CORKER

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CORKER

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I wish to ask about my time, but before the Senator from Texas leaves, I wish to thank him for his comments and his involvement in this issue. I appreciate his coming to the floor. I think this is an important issue for us to be debating and I firmly support the open amendment process that has been alluded to. If I could, I wish to inquire as to how much time is remaining at this point.

Mr. CORKER. I was afraid that might be the case. I wonder if I could ask unanimous consent to speak for 8 minutes or so.

Mr. CORKER

Mr. CORKER. Madam President, if I could add to the comments of Senator McCain. Last night we all met with the Prime Minister. They don't even need this economic aid today. They have to sign an IMF agreement first. It is weeks before they even need what the Senator from Wyoming wished to pass. On the other hand, what we are trying to do is push Russia back. As the leader mentioned, this bill has tough sanctions. And, by the way, Europe is meeting on Monday to begin looking at the sanctions they want to put in place. So if we were to pass the sanctions which we have in this bill--which are tough sanctions, sanctions which we have never imposed before, sanctions on economic extortion, sanctions on corruption--what that would do is help boost the European community along to do the same thing, and our goal here is to isolate Russia to keep them from continuing to put pressure on Ukraine. So I couldn't agree more. Why would we pass a bill which does no good as it relates to trying to push Russia back and isolate them, when we have an opportunity right now to pass a bill which shows we are willing to isolate Russia and actually give strength to what the European community is getting ready to do hopefully this next week. So I agree. I wish we were taking up the bill which we all worked on together and passed by a huge bipartisan majority, and I wish we could send you all with the sanctions in hand, passed out of the Senate, to show the people of Ukraine that while militarily there may not be involvement, we stand together with them to do everything we can to isolate Russia, to isolate Putin, and to make sure economically they pay a huge price if they try to take any other actions in this area. So I agree with the Senator. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORKER. I will be brief. I wish to say first to the leader, we certainly have had some discussions regarding operations on the Senate floor and the speed with which we deal with things and the amount of debate, but I thank him for trying to bring this issue to a vote today. I thank him for what he is going to do in a moment; that is, to file cloture on this piece of legislation that passed out of our committee with strong bipartisan support, so that immediately when we get back we will take up the bill. I wish we could do it tonight. We have a group of seven or eight Senators on their way to Ukraine. Nothing would be better than for them to know we passed this strong piece of legislation this week, while there is going to be a referendum that is going to take place early next week in Crimea, while we have Russian troops on the border, while we have a Prime Minister who was here last night showing extreme courage, as a 39-year-old young man, in dealing with the issues he is facing today. I lament the fact that we are not going to have the opportunity as a body--the most deliberative body in the world, some say--to take action on this issue. I do wish to say that whenever we bring up the bill--it appears it will not be tonight; hopefully it will be as soon as we get back--this is a strong piece of legislation. It deals both with giving Ukraine a bridge to the future while they are dealing with economic issues internally; it deals with sanctions to isolate Russia, which is what we all know needs to happen to keep them from continuing this activity; and it puts in place reforms our country has already agreed to that Congress has not taken action on--and that makes the IMF more fully able to deal with this issue, which is a poster child for why we would want the IMF to operate in a responsible and strong manner. I strongly support this legislation. I thank the chairman for working with us the way he did. I thank Senator McCain for his leadership on these issues. Again, I thank the majority leader for placing this in an urgent manner before the Senate today. I lament the fact that we will not vote on it today, but hopefully we will pass it broadly when we return. I yield the floor.