[Congressional Record Volume 168, Number 9 (Thursday, January 13, 2022)]
[Senate]
[Pages S198-S213]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          LEGISLATIVE SESSION

                                 ______
                                 

         PROTECTING EUROPE'S ENERGY SECURITY IMPLEMENTATION ACT

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
proceed to consideration of S. 3436, which the clerk will report.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S.3436) to require the imposition of sanctions with 
     respect to entities responsible for the planning, 
     construction, or operation of the Nord Stream 2 pipeline and 
     their corporate officers and to apply congressional review 
     under the Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions 
     Act to the removal of sanctions relating to Nord Stream 2, 
     and for other purposes.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.


                                S. 3436

  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Madam President, I come to the floor today to speak in 
opposition to S. 3436, which is the Nord Stream 2's sanctions bill 
sponsored by Senator Cruz.
  I certainly share the concerns that have been expressed just a few 
minutes ago by Senator McConnell about the threat that Russia poses to 
Ukraine and to Eastern Europe and the role that Nord Stream 2 plays in 
that critical issue.
  I have been a strong and longstanding opponent of Nord Stream 2. I 
believe now what I believed at the time that I originally cosponsored 
the Nord Stream 2 sanctions bill with Senator Cruz; that the Nord 
Stream 2 Pipeline is a long-term threat to the energy security of 
Europe.
  But right now we are in a different place on this, and while Senator 
Cruz and I worked together on sanctions legislation to stop this 
pipeline, my disagreement now with Senator Cruz is in his approach to 
what we need to do to address what is right now a much more serious 
threat to Europe, to NATO, to the transatlantic alliance, and that is 
Russia's threat against Ukraine.
  And what Senator Cruz's bill would do is not stop Nord Stream 2; it 
would undermine the current diplomatic situation that is absolutely 
critical if we are going to respond to the Russian threat.
  His bill is a vote--supporting his bill would be a vote to compromise 
the transatlantic community. It is a vote that breaks the message of 
bipartisan support in the face of Russian aggression and, furthermore, 
not just bipartisan support but allied support with the United States 
and Germany and Western Europe against the threat that Russia poses to 
Ukraine and really to Eastern Germany if they take this action.
  The dynamics on Nord Stream 2 have changed since Senator Cruz and I 
fought for the passage of legislation to prevent the completion of that 
pipeline. At the time, we worked together to provide the Trump 
administration with critical tools to sanction this pipeline, and we 
did that because there were some members of the Trump administration 
who came to us and said: We need this legislation because the 
administration has not acted.
  And the fact is, 95 percent of the construction of the Nord Stream 2 
Pipeline was completed during the Trump years. Unfortunately, the Trump 
administration, even after we passed that sanctions legislation, sat on 
those sanctions.
  They waited until literally the last day of the Trump administration 
to sanction just one entity, just one entity in 4 years. And so what we 
saw is what I just said; that 95 percent of that pipeline was completed 
during the Trump years.
  Now, we are in a very different situation right now, unfortunately, 
because we are in a situation where Russia is threatening Ukraine, and 
we need to work closely with our European allies to present a united 
front against Russia.
  We have strengthened our relationship with our German allies. The 
Biden administration has restored a diplomacy-first foreign policy, 
which seeks

[[Page S199]]

to advance American policy interests through dialogue and not through 
threats.
  There is a new German coalition government in place that we are now 
engaging with. It is a government that appears to be more skeptical 
about the Nord Stream 2 Pipeline. They have paused certification of the 
pipeline and stalled its operation until at least later this year, and 
the new government has indicated that this pipeline is not just an 
economic project.
  So it is very clear that the dynamics have changed, and when the 
dynamics change on the ground, then our approach and our foreign policy 
should reflect those changes. We can't look at this legislation in 
isolation.
  This legislation that Senator Cruz is proposing that we are going to 
be voting on today is coming at a time when the administration is 
exhausting every single diplomatic avenue to deter Putin from further 
violating Ukraine's territorial integrity.
  Russia has amassed over 100,000 troops on Ukraine's border, and, of 
course, the next month or so is really going to be critical in changing 
Putin's calculation that any invasion would come with a hefty price.
  Nord Stream 2 right now presents a potential incentive for Putin to 
use against our European partners, but it is also leverage. It is 
leverage that the West can use at a pivotal moment as Russia is 
thinking about--Vladimir Putin is thinking about what he is going to do 
in Ukraine.
  So I believe we need to stop this pipeline long term, and there may 
be a time in the future when another change in our approach on the 
pipeline may be necessary. As we know, that happens with foreign 
policy. We don't live in a static world; it is dynamic, and it demands 
that we adopt our responses.
  I have joined Senator Menendez and 38 Democrats in introducing the 
Defending Ukraine Sovereignty Act of 2022, legislation that does 
reflect the reality on the ground, that would impose swift and 
crippling sanctions on Russia's economy if Putin decides to invade. It 
would provide critical additional military support to our Ukrainian 
allies, and it would strengthen support to our Eastern European allies 
in the face of Putin's attempt to look backward, not forward.
  We are not going to give Vladimir Putin and Russia the ability to 
veto who joins NATO. We saw that very clearly at the session yesterday 
with Russian and NATO officials. Russia didn't like it because they 
didn't get the answer they wanted, which was a veto over who should be 
able to join NATO.
  We are going to continue to take a strong stand with our allies in 
opposition to what Russia is doing, but we can't use yesterday's 
solutions to help us solve today's problems. The immediate threat that 
we are facing right now is the threat of a Russian invasion of Ukraine, 
and we need to do everything possible, work as closely as possible, 
show no daylight with our allies in standing up to that threat. 
Unfortunately, what Senator Cruz is proposing with the Nord Stream 2 
sanctions legislation would do exactly that. It would drive a wedge 
between us and our allies, particularly between the United States and 
Germany, at a time that we cannot afford it.
  So I intend to vote against this legislation and support Senator 
Menendez's legislation that will give us the tools we need to continue 
to address potential Russian aggression.
  I yield the floor and look forward to hearing Senator Murphy's 
comments because I know he shares the same concerns that I am 
expressing.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. MURPHY. Madam President, first and foremost, let me thank Senator 
Shaheen. She has been a leader in the Senate and in our caucus on 
raising alarms about the danger of Nord Stream 2 to European security 
and Ukrainian security. I have been so glad to work with her over these 
past several years, and I am here on the floor to join her in our 
strong opposition to the legislation that is pending on the floor as we 
speak.
  If this bill passes, it won't make the Nord Stream Pipeline any less 
likely. It won't stop Russia from invading Ukraine. In fact, it will do 
the exact opposite. It will make the completion of Nord Stream more 
likely, and it will be a gift to Russia, dividing us from our European 
allies right at the moment when we need to be in solidarity with them 
in order to deter Russian aggression.
  I will try not to repeat too much of what Senator Shaheen has said, 
but let me just underscore the points she has made.
  First, the sanctions in this bill are, unfortunately, pretty 
feckless. They are feckless because they can be undone easily, within 
30 to 60 days, by the Russian Government.
  The reality is, if we don't convince our European partners to stop 
moving forward with this project, there is no amount of U.S. sanction 
that can be effective here. What we know is that even if you were to 
sanction this German-Swiss company, the German board of directors, in a 
matter of days, weeks, maybe a few months, the Russians could 
reengineer the financing and the administration of the project to keep 
it going.
  Even more interesting to me is what Senator McConnell just said. 
Senator McConnell just came to floor and said that while he supports 
Senator Cruz's proposal, he expects that the Biden administration will 
waive the sanctions. So then why are we engaging in this in the first 
place if Republicans are going to support the waiving of the sanctions? 
Because the sanctions would interrupt our negotiations with Germany, 
why pass the bill in the first place?
  So, apparently, many Republicans are supporting the Cruz bill but 
then are going to be asking the Biden administration to not implement 
it. That doesn't seem to make a lot of sense.
  The primary impact of this bill, as Senator Shaheen explained, is to 
divide us from Germany. Why is that? Because we know that the only way 
to stop Nord Stream 2 is by convincing the Germans and other Europeans 
to stop the project.
  Now, we have, for the first time since we began talking to the 
Germans about this, convinced them to press pause--the first time the 
German Government has decided to press pause through their regulatory 
agencies. They have stopped the certification of the pipeline, which, 
by the way, is built. It was 95 percent built when President Trump left 
office. He let it be constructed--95 percent built. It is now 100 
percent built.
  But the Germans have, because of American diplomacy and because of 
the threat of invasion of Ukraine from Russia, pressed pause on this 
project. It can't start until the summer or the fall, and, frankly, 
that time allows us to continue to engage with the Germans and others 
to try to convince them that this project is not in their interest.
  So think about this from the German perspective. They finally said 
yes to the United States, and the minute they say yes is the minute the 
U.S. Senate decides to sanction German citizens. That is bad diplomacy. 
It is just bad diplomacy. It is a moment at which we have to be in 
lockstep with our European partners. We need to be sending a message to 
Vladimir Putin that the United States and Europe are together and that 
we are going to deliver a crushing package of sanctions if you enter 
Ukraine any further.
  This would be a gift to Vladimir Putin because it is a signal of 
division at a moment when we need to be standing together.
  Senator Menendez has the right approach. Senator Menendez has 
proposed a bill which I think can draw support from 90 percent of this 
body that enacts a set of sanctions on Russia if Russia moves any 
farther into Ukraine beyond where they are already in eastern Ukraine 
and Crimea. That sends the right signal. That is an effective message 
of consequence rather than this proposal, which apparently is a set of 
sanctions Republicans are going to ask to be waived and divides us from 
our partners at a moment when we need to be together.

  Lastly, I want to address one particular point that I have heard 
Senator Cruz make over and over and over again in defense of his 
proposal.
  Senator Cruz says that the construction of the pipeline stopped when 
Congress passed the Nord Stream sanctions and didn't begin again until 
Joe Biden became President. I have seen that repeated in the press, and 
it just isn't true.

[[Page S200]]

  One company that was laying the pipeline backed out of the project 
when the 2019 sanctions bill was passed, but then guess what happened. 
Russia started retrofitting other ships to finish the job, and the 
minute they were permitted, construction began again--not when Joe 
Biden was President; when Donald Trump was President. The ships were 
ready in May of 2020, before Joe Biden was even nominated, and they 
started work a few months later, as soon as the Danish Government 
permitted them.
  Now, Senator Shaheen and Senator Cruz had passed a sanctions bill 
with all of our support at the end of 2019. During all of 2020, while 
the Russians were retrofitting these ships, while they were sending 
them back to Danish waters, while the permitting process was happening, 
Donald Trump didn't enact one sanction that was permitted by Congress.
  Congress passed a law at the end of 2019. In all of 2020, Donald 
Trump didn't enact a single sanction. This was the critical moment. 
This was the time in which the meat of the pipeline was being built. 
President Trump did nothing, and he paid no consequence for it. Do you 
know why? Because in 2020, Senator Cruz didn't hold up any of Donald 
Trump's State Department nominees when Trump was refusing to implement 
sanctions, when the Russians sent ships that started showing up to 
restart construction, not even when construction restarted in the fall 
of 2020--nope. During this time, all of Trump's State Department 
nominees sailed through without a single Republican objection or 
blockade.
  On Trump's last day in office, his last day, literally as he was 
packing up the Oval Office, January 19, he sanctioned one ship and the 
company that owned the ship--essentially a signal of how little he 
cared. On the day he was leaving, he sanctioned one ship and the 
company that owned the ship, but by this time, 95 percent of the 
pipeline was complete. It was too late. Then he begrudgingly hands over 
the keys to the Oval Office to Joe Biden and leaves the incoming 
President with a mess--a pipeline 95 percent built that Donald Trump 
could have stopped if he had used the sanctions he was given.
  So you can understand why some of us wonder what the motivation is 
behind Senator Cruz's extraordinary tactics now when the pipeline is 
already built. It seems that the difference between 2020 and 2021 is 
essentially that now there is a Democrat in the White House.
  This bill isn't going to help Ukraine. It is designed to hurt the 
President of the United States. Unfortunately, some--not all--not all 
but some of our Republican colleagues here have consistently put their 
desire to politically harm President Biden ahead of their desire to 
protect the Nation, holding up the confirmation of President Biden's 
nominees. It doesn't help the security of the Nation; it just increases 
the chances that the United States won't have the personnel on hand to 
deal with a crisis somewhere around the world when it develops and that 
that failure may hurt Joe Biden's approval rating. Unfortunately, I 
think that is what is going on here. Unfortunately, I think that is 
what is going on here, and I hope that my colleagues see it.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Booker). The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Would my colleague yield for a question?
  Mr. MURPHY. I would.
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Senator Murphy, I am really pleased--sadly pleased, but 
I think it is really appropriate that you brought up the issue about 
holding State Department nominees, because one of the things that have 
been unfortunate about Senator Cruz's approach to Nord Stream 2 in 
recent weeks has not just been his holding up of nominees but has been 
his suggestion that the change in response on my part and on others' 
who oppose Nord Stream 2 has been partisan.
  But, as you point out, during all of the Trump administration, 
Senator Cruz did not hold one nominee because of Nord Stream 2. Is that 
your understanding?
  Mr. MURPHY. That is my understanding. My understanding is that there 
may have been private advocacy or public speeches given but that there 
certainly wasn't the tactic used that had been used during 2020, which 
is extraordinary, the holding of all nominees.
  I think I would add to that that Democratic Senators have not used 
that tactic. We had huge disagreements with President Trump's policy, 
including his failure to use sanctions that were given to him by 
Congress to stop the pipeline at the moment when those sanctions would 
have been most effective, but we didn't block all of President Trump's 
Ambassadors and State Department personnel because we thought that it 
was better to have those people on hand, working to protect U.S. 
interests, than it was to have those positions vacant.
  That is the case we have been trying to make on this floor, that if 
you really care about helping Ukraine, why did Senator Cruz spend all 
of 2020 blocking the Ambassadors and State Department personnel whose 
job it would have been to help Ukraine?
  No one has been more engaged on this question and this fight than you 
have, Senator Shaheen.
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Well, I think the other important point that we both 
made is the fact that what stopped policies and the pipeline when the 
first sanctions bill was passed was the threat of sanctions; it wasn't 
actually implementing those sanctions. In fact, it was then Russia's 
ability to come back in, retrofit ships, and do the work themselves, 
Gazprom and Russia. Russian ships did the work themselves, and 
throughout the last year of the Trump administration, they refused to 
take any action to address that. In fact, I remember being in a 
meeting--I can't remember if you were in that meeting or not--with 
Senator Cruz and some of our Republican colleagues and a member of the 
administration urging us to pass another sanctions bill because the 
administration had not acted.
  So I think it is really important, as you say, to point out that 95 
percent of that pipeline was done under the previous administration 
when Senator Cruz and our colleagues who would like to stop the 
pipeline had the opportunity to hold up his nominees to raise those 
concerns, and that did not happen. That puts us at a disadvantage today 
as we look at the threat of Nord Stream. Would you agree with that?
  Mr. MURPHY. I would.
  If you don't mind, Senator Shaheen, I will just go through the 
timeline once again because I think it is important.
  In December of 2019, Congress passed the sanctions bill that you and 
Senator Cruz championed. That stops Allseas, the private company, from 
constructing the pipeline.
  They pull back, but immediately Russia starts retrofitting their own 
ships, and we knew it. We saw it. This wasn't secret. That happens from 
the beginning of 2020, and by May of 2020, those ships are on their 
way.
  From May until October, they are caught up in permitting, but it is 
just a matter of time. Everybody knows those ships are eventually going 
to start laying down pipe.
  By October of 2020, before Joe Biden is elected President, those 
ships are back doing construction.
  In October, November, December, all throughout the end of 2020, those 
ships are back rebuilding the pipeline, such that on January 19, the 
last day of Trump's Presidency, 95 percent of the pipeline--somewhere 
around 95 percent of the pipeline--is done.
  Then literally walking out the door, Donald Trump lays down a 
sanction on one company and one ship that the company owns.
  All through 2020, there was no blockade of State Department nominees, 
no grinding to a halt of Senate nominations business to try to prompt 
the President to change his mind. All of that magically starts 
happening when Joe Biden is President, when 95 percent of the pipeline 
is done.
  I hope, Senator Shaheen--and I will let you wrap up--I hope that we 
can find a way to get on the same page here because we have been for 
much of the last several years, and you have led that effort.
  I think Senator Menendez's legislation, which is all about the right 
set of incentives and disincentives for Russian behavior, is perhaps 
the means that we can sort of elevate this above the question of who is 
President and get back to fighting for the interests of our Nation and 
the interests of our partners in Ukraine.

[[Page S201]]

  

  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Thank you, Senator Murphy. I couldn't have said 
anything better.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, just a quick observation or two about what 
my colleagues from New Hampshire and Connecticut were just speaking to, 
and that is the issue of the Nord Stream 2 Pipeline. I intend to talk 
about another subject, but as I was listening to their dialogue on that 
subject, there were a couple of things that I thought were important to 
respond to.
  They had indicated that there is a bill offered by Senator Menendez 
on their side of the aisle that they thought would get 90-plus votes 
here in the U.S. Senate. I would say to my colleagues on the Democratic 
side that Senator Cruz, as he was advocating for a vote on his 
amendment, offered that up. He offered up a vote on Menendez and a vote 
on his amendment to Menendez, and that was turned down by the Democrat 
leadership. So that was put forward as an offer by the Senator from 
Texas, Senator Cruz.
  Just to also make the point--this isn't something that is a new issue 
for him. He has been advocating on the Nord Stream 2 Pipeline for 
years. In fact, there were sanctions put in place under the previous 
administration, which I think had been quite effective.
  With respect to holding State Department nominees, sometimes around 
here, you have to get people's attention in order to get a vote on 
something. I mean, he didn't have to hold nominees in the last 
administration because they allowed for a vote. In this administration, 
that has not been the case. He has been trying for literally weeks and 
months. I happened to be here in the wee hours of the morning a few 
weeks ago on a Friday evening when this was being discussed, and we 
were waiting for some agreement between him and the Democrat leadership 
about giving him a vote on this amendment. Ultimately, when he got the 
vote on his amendment, he turned loose 40-some State Department 
nominees.
  So I think he has in this case played fairly, played by the rules in 
the Senate, and exercised the leverage he has as a U.S. Senator to 
ensure that he got a vote on an issue that is critically important, not 
only to him and I would say to this entire body but to our country and 
certainly to our allies in that region.
  There is one final point I will make. Everybody, as they were talking 
about this, was saying: Wow, you know, this is--all of a sudden, this 
issue has become a relevant one.
  Well, it has always been a relevant one. Defending and supporting 
people in Ukraine and making sure they have a democratic government 
that allows for self-rule is something that I think all of us in this 
country want to see happen.
  But I think one of the reasons it has come to a head is because last 
year--not last year but 2 years ago, the previous administration--the 
Senators from New Hampshire and Connecticut were going after Senator 
Cruz and other Republicans for not paying attention to this issue a 
long time ago.
  We have been paying attention to it for a long time, but one thing 
that has intensified that attention is the fact that the Russians now 
have tens of thousands of troops on Ukraine's border. That is a new 
issue and an issue that I think demands the attention of this body, our 
country, our government, our State Department, and the American 
military, in conjunction with our allies in that region.

  This is a critical time. It is very important that a strong message 
be sent. I am not sure why you would wait until after the Russians 
cross the border and occupy Ukraine before you do something that might 
deter that kind of bad behavior.
  I think the reason they have amassed the troops they have on the 
Ukraine border is because they perceive the change of administration, 
perhaps a different view, and, in fact, I think that buildup started in 
the spring of 2021 under this administration.
  So just to make the point that the vote we will have this afternoon 
on Senator Cruz's proposal on Nord Stream 2 has been a long time in the 
making--he has, I think, consistently worked this issue, advocated for 
this issue in a way that any Senator who is trying to get a vote around 
here would.
  I think with respect to why this issue is now particularly relevant 
in light of our national security interests is the fact that the 
Russians do have literally tens of thousands of troops sitting on 
Ukraine's border at a time when the world is a very dangerous place, 
and that region in particular faces considerable peril because of the 
neighborhood in which they live.
  So I would hope that this afternoon when this Nord Stream 2 vote 
comes up, that it will enjoy broad bipartisan support recognizing the 
value and importance of the message it sends.
  Also, I might add, because it was also pointed out by the two 
Senators who were just here, that this is something that the Ukrainian 
Government is asking us to do. They suggested this was something that 
isn't desired or wanted, and it, in fact, is. Many of us participated 
in a conference call on Christmas Eve with President Zelensky in which 
he voiced support for this. I think he and his country, his government, 
and his people realize how important it is that a message be sent to 
their neighbors and that the American Government, in concert with our 
allies in this region, send a very strong statement with respect to 
that particular issue.
  So I hope that we get a good, strong vote this afternoon and that it 
won't be a party-line vote. It is at 60, meaning it will take some 
Democrats to vote with Republicans. But I can't think of a time when 
the stakes have been higher for the people of Ukraine or, frankly, for 
that matter, for that region in its entirety.


                               Inflation

  Mr. President, I want to shift gears now, if I might. Yesterday, we 
learned that in December, inflation hit its highest level in 40 years--
40 years. Inflation reached 7 percent in December, the seventh straight 
month that inflation has been over 5 percent. Today, we discovered that 
year-over-year inflation for domestically produced goods increased even 
more, by a massive 9.7 percent.
  Americans are struggling under steep increases in grocery prices, 
fuel prices, utility prices, and the list goes on. Despite wage 
increases in 2021, American families experienced a de facto pay cut, 
with their purchasing power shrinking thanks to inflation, and there is 
apparently no end in sight.
  Given the real economic harm that American families are suffering as 
a result of this crisis, you would think the issue would be front and 
center here in Washington for Democrats, but you would be wrong. In 
fact, a lot of the time, inflation doesn't even seem to exist on 
Democrats' radar. Democrats can't be bothered to pay attention to a 
real crisis with real economic consequences for American families 
because they are too focused on their manufactured voting rights 
crisis.
  Earlier this week, President Biden traveled to Georgia, which has 
become the Democrats' poster child for the supposed assault on voting 
rights, to deliver a speech to gin up support for the Democrats' 
partisan election bill, and what a speech it was.
  In the course of his overwrought and bombastic remarks, the 
President, who once vowed to bring Americans together, managed to imply 
that half the country is racist. Never one to let the truth get in the 
way of a good story, he continued his bizarre habit of falsely claiming 
that he had been arrested in various situations. He laid out, perhaps, 
the weakest case for a voting rights crisis that you can imagine.

  The President, of course, used Georgia's thoroughly mainstream 2021 
election law as his main example. Here is what he had to say. Here is 
what the voting rights crisis amounts to:
  First, according to the President, Georgia is making it harder to 
vote by mail. Now, I am guessing he might be referring to the provision 
of the Georgia law that asks voters to write in their driver's license 
numbers on their absentee ballots. Given that almost every American in 
this country has a driver's license or some form of photo

[[Page S202]]

ID, I have got to say that it doesn't seem like an unduly burdensome 
requirement. After all, New York City and Washington, DC, are now 
requiring you to present a photo ID and proof that you have been 
vaccinated before you can enter any restaurant or public place, and 
liberals seem OK with that, but, apparently, to the President, 
Georgia's measure is Jim Crow 2.0.
  The President continues by accusing Georgia of limiting drop boxes. 
Ballot drop boxes have become a bizarre fixation of Democrats engaged 
in trying to persuade Americans that the right to vote is under attack. 
The truth is that Georgia didn't even use drop boxes until the 2020 
election and that Georgia's new election law now requires at least one 
drop box in each county is hardly a criminal attempt to restrict drop 
boxes. But let's be honest here. Even if Georgia decided to eliminate 
drop boxes entirely and return to its pre-2020 status quo, Georgians 
would still have ample opportunities to vote.
  Georgia's new law mandates a minimum of 17 days of early voting--17 
days--and Georgia provides for no-excuse absentee voting, which means 
any Georgia citizen can request an absentee ballot for any reason 
whatsoever. That, of course, is a far more generous voting policy than 
those offered by the President or the Senate Democrat leader's home 
States. The President's home State of Delaware doesn't offer no-excuse 
absentee voting, and it is just starting to offer early voting this 
year--remember, Georgia with 17 days early voting, no-excuse absentee 
voting. Similarly, the Democrat leader's home State, Senator Schumer's 
home State of New York, offers just 9 days of early voting in contrast 
to Georgia's 17, and New York--the State of New York--on their ballot, 
recently rejected a ballot measure to allow no-excuse absentee voting.
  So no-excuse absentee voting is not allowed in New York, but it is 
allowed in Georgia, with 9 days early voting in New York and 17 in 
Georgia. Yet, somehow, the President hasn't yet visited Delaware or New 
York to accuse them of making it difficult for citizens to vote. I will 
believe in Democrats' supposed commitment to protecting the vote when I 
see the Senate majority leader come to the floor and excoriate New 
Yorkers for attacking voting rights.
  Continuing on with President Biden's speech, we come to, perhaps, the 
most ridiculous example the President and Democrats have used in their 
attempt to convince Americans that voting rights are under assault, and 
here I am going to quote directly from the President's speech:

       [T]he new Georgia law actually makes it illegal--think of 
     this--I mean, it's 2020, and now '22, going into that 
     election--it makes it illegal to bring your neighbors, your 
     fellow voters food or water while they wait in line to vote. 
     . . . I mean, think about it. That's not America. That's what 
     it looks like when they suppress the right to vote.

  That is what it looks like when they suppress the right to vote? 
Really?
  I mean, I have to give President Biden credit for delivering that 
line with a straight face because that is pretty much the most absurd 
claim Democrats have made in the course of this debate. The President, 
of course, is referring to the provision of Georgia's election law that 
prohibits individuals or organizations from giving food or drinks to 
voters within 150 feet of a polling place.
  Now, just for purposes, again, of comparing and contrasting, the 
Democrat leader's home State of New York--Senator Schumer's home State 
of New York--has a similar provision preventing voters in line from 
being given anything, including food and water, whose retail value is 
in excess of $1. This is the State of New York--the State of New York. 
But people are blowing a gasket over this provision in Georgia law--the 
very provision the State of New York has in law today. I would argue, 
in most States, you can't go within a certain number of feet of a 
voting place if you are a political operative or a political 
organization. I mean, that is true in our State, and I am sure it is 
true in a lot of States around the country. The aim of those laws, of 
course, is to prevent partisan political organizations or candidates 
from exerting improper pressure on voters in line.
  Now, nothing in Georgia's law prevents partisan political 
organizations from setting up food trucks or lunch stations outside of 
the 150-foot radius and feeding voters to their hearts content--150 
feet. That is 50 yards. Of course, Georgia's law explicitly allows 
nonpartisan poll workers to make water available to voters. An election 
worker, somebody who is involved with the actual vote itself, can 
deliver water to voters if they are waiting in line. It just prevents 
political operatives and political organizations from doing that--a law 
that, again, is consistent with laws throughout the country, 
including--including--the State of New York. Yet I suppose it is 
typical of nanny-state Democrats to think Americans are incapable of 
packing themselves a snack.
  I am pretty sure--pretty sure--I have never seen a weaker case for a 
crisis. Take a look at Democrats' supposed evidence, and their case 
crumbles to dust, which, of course, raises the question of what is 
behind Democrats' manufactured crisis. Unfortunately, I think we know 
the answer. The Democrats have manufactured the supposed voting rights 
crisis in the hopes of forcing through election legislation that they 
hope will give them an advantage in future elections. More than one 
Democrat has openly admitted that Democrats want to pass a Federal 
election takeover because they think it will help their party win 
elections.
  I don't blame Democrats for running scared. Between their inflation 
crisis, their border crisis, the President's humiliating, disastrous 
retreat from Afghanistan, the November election results in Virginia, 
and the fact that just one-third of the American people approve of the 
job the President is doing, the Democrats have reason to be scared 
about their 2022 electoral prospects.


                               Filibuster

  Mr. President, instead of addressing the inflation crisis they helped 
to create or, perhaps, moving their agenda from the far left and closer 
to the center, the Democrat leaders have decided that the solution to 
improving their electoral chances is to pass a partisan Federal 
takeover of election law and to break the Senate rules to do it. 
Apparently, they don't care what damage they do to the Senate and the 
country in the process. If Democrat leaders have their way, the 
longstanding protections for the minority in the Senate and the 
millions upon millions of Americans the Senate minority represents will 
be swept away in the name of, perhaps, improving Democrats' electoral 
prospects.
  Although, I have to say, in the Washington Post Fact Checker about 
the Georgia law, which, by the way, gave the President four 
Pinocchios--four Pinocchios, which is pretty much the biggest whopper 
you can get--for his statements last year about this Georgia election 
law, they went on to say that the analysts who have looked at this--a 
lot of the analysis has been done by so-called election experts--think 
that it will expand--expand--the opportunity for people in Georgia to 
vote.
  All of this is disheartening, to say the least, because I think we 
all know that, in the end, if you are going to blow up the Senate 
rules, that that has consequences that go on for a very, very long 
time.
  There are Democrats in this Chamber today who still express, I think, 
regret for what happened in 2013, with respect to the executive 
calendar--which deals with executive branch nominees and judicial 
branch nominees, judges--because it led, in 2017, to the Republicans 
retaliating, following suit, with Supreme Court Justices.
  I don't think you can--assume for a minute that, at some point, this 
flips. If Democrats blow up the rules to do this and create, I have to 
say, a manufactured crisis in order to do it, then you are not going to 
be able to blame Republicans, because once the rules are gone, the 
rules are gone. Then we become the House of Representatives, a total 
majoritarian body with longer terms.

  That is not what the Founders intended. This place is here for a 
reason. It is here to represent the rights of the minority, the people 
who didn't win the vote, the people who might be in the minority party, 
who ought to have some say and some voice in the laws that are made 
here and the policies that are made here that are going to affect them 
and their families. I am hopeful that there are still some Democrats 
with doubts about this course of action, enough, perhaps, to block 
their leadership's partisan push.

[[Page S203]]

  In his inaugural address, the President of the United States vowed to 
be a President for all Americans. On Tuesday, he made it clear that he 
is becoming nothing more than a President for the far-left wing of the 
Democratic Party. In less than a year, he has gone from promising unity 
to sowing division. It is a sad epitaph to a Presidency that has barely 
begun.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                                S. 3436

  Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, the eyes of history are upon us today. Each 
of us will be faced with a momentous question: Can we put petty 
differences aside, and can we come together to defend our friend and 
our ally Ukraine against imminent Russian aggression?
  This isn't theoretical. Russian tanks and troops are, right now, 
massed on the Ukrainian border, and they are preparing for invasion. 
The Senate, in just a few hours, will vote on a bill that represents 
the best way to deter Putin from invading Ukraine by sanctioning the 
company that is racing to finish and make operational the Nord Stream 2 
Pipeline, which Putin desperately wants completed so that he can use it 
as a cudgel against our European allies. If we don't come together 
today, Ukraine risks getting wiped off the map altogether.
  Putin didn't just wake up one day and decide he wanted to invade 
Ukraine. He has wanted to invade Ukraine for years. He did so already 
in 2014, but he stopped short of a full invasion because he couldn't 
endanger Ukraine's energy infrastructure, which he needs to get 
Russia's natural gas to Europe. That stopped Putin from marching all 
the way to Kiev. The next year, in 2015, Putin began the Nord Stream 2 
project--to build a pipeline to go around Ukraine so that he could get 
his gas to Europe and invade Ukraine with no risk to the billions he 
relies on every year.
  Nord Stream 2, as we know and as we have heard from Republicans and 
from Democrats--literally hundreds of times over the past years on this 
floor, in committees, in briefings--Nord Stream 2 was designed to 
circumvent Ukraine. It is why the Senate has worked together for years, 
in a bipartisan manner, to stop Nord Stream 2 from coming online.

  In 2017, Congress came together and passed the Countering America's 
Adversaries Through Sanctions Act, or CAATSA, which sanctioned 
investments in Russian energy export pipelines.
  In 2019, Congress passed Protecting Europe's Energy Security Act, or 
PEESA, which sanctions Nord Stream 2 directly. I authored that bill, 
along with Democratic Senator Jeanne Shaheen.
  And, in 2021, Congress expanded those sanctions in the Protecting 
Europe's Energy Security Clarification Act. Again, I authored that 
bill, along with Democratic Senator Jeanne Shaheen.
  For the next several hours, this body will revisit and debate this 
issue once again. We will revisit our successes from 2019 to 2021 in 
using targeted sanctions to end construction of the pipeline.
  When President Trump signed our bipartisan sanctions into law, Putin 
stopped construction of the pipeline literally 15 minutes before the 
law became effective. Sanctions worked. They succeeded. Together, we 
won a bipartisan foreign policy and national security victory.
  But we will also revisit in this debate the catastrophic decision 
President Biden made in May of this year to waive those sanctions. The 
sanctions that had worked, the sanctions that were successful, 
President Biden waived them nonetheless.
  When this debate is over, each of us will have to decide whether he 
or she will vote to finally and definitively put an end to this 
pipeline through mandatory sanctions.
  Our Ukrainian allies are crying out for us to do so. Ukraine's 
President and Prime Minister and Speaker of the Parliament have all 
explicitly and passionately done so in recent days. Ukraine's Prime 
Minister said last week that Nord Stream 2 is ``no less an existential 
threat to [Ukraine's] security & democracy than Russian troops on our 
border.'' That is the Prime Minister of Ukraine begging this body, the 
U.S. Senate, to help him.
  Just this week, a public letter from leaders in Ukrainian civil 
society said--and I want to quote this at length. They said:

       Since late October 2021, Russia has amassed more than 
     120,000 troops close to the Ukrainian border along with the 
     logistical support for a major new offensive. This menacing 
     build-up had been accompanied by increasing belligerent 
     rhetoric from senior Russian officials. We believe the green 
     light given to the Nord Stream 2 pipeline in May 2021 served 
     as one of the key triggers for the current crisis and must be 
     urgently revised.

  In ordinary times, that open letter from Ukrainian civil society 
would resonate with both Democrats and Republicans. This is a plea for 
help.
  Opponents of our legislation are clutching at pretexts to avoid doing 
what we have done many times before, and I want to address those 
pretexts one at a time.
  One argument we have heard again and again is that imposing sanctions 
on Nord Stream 2 AG, the Gazprom-owned cutout that runs Nord Stream 2, 
would shatter European unity. That is an argument that is being 
repeated by the White House repeatedly--that this is all about 
transatlantic unity; we should give Putin its pipeline because of 
transatlantic unity.
  I urge every Senator to ask a simple question: What unity and with 
whom?
  In January, the European Parliament voted to condemn and stop the 
Nord Stream 2 Pipeline. The vote was 581 to 50--581 to 50. If you care 
about transatlantic unity, let me suggest that we side with the 581 and 
not the 50. The Biden White House's argument is literally: Go with the 
50 in the name of transatlantic unity.
  I don't know how you stand up and make that argument with a straight 
face--581 to 50.
  In August of 2021, the chairs of the Foreign Affairs Committees in 
nine countries opposed explicitly the Nord Stream 2 U.S.-German 
agreement--the Biden agreement--to allow the completion of Nord Stream 
2. Among those countries that explicitly opposed that agreement: 
Estonia, the Czech Republic, Ireland, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, 
Ukraine, and the United Kingdom. Are those countries Europe? Do we care 
about transatlantic unity with those countries that are begging us to 
find the courage to stand up to Vladimir Putin?
  When President Biden made his deal to allow the pipeline to go 
through anyway, the Foreign Ministers of Ukraine and Poland issued a 
remarkable joint statement declaring that the decision President Biden 
made to surrender to Putin, that it created an immediate ``security 
crisis'' for Europe. They told us then--Ukraine and Poland both told us 
then--that, as a result of waiving sanctions, we are going to see 
Russian troops. They were right. It is almost as if they understand 
their neighbor. It is almost as if they understand Putin's desire to 
reassemble the Soviet Union. It is almost as if they believe Vladimir 
Putin when he said that he believed the greatest geopolitical disaster 
of the 20th century was the dissolution of the Soviet Union, and he 
wants to bring it back together by force, which I would note would be a 
grave national security threat to the United States.

  Now, some will say, when they say European unity, they really mean 
unity with Germany. Indeed, I have heard Members on this floor say: 
Listen, I am just not prepared to sanction Germany.
  This bill doesn't sanction Germany. It doesn't sanction the German 
Government. It doesn't sanction the German company. It sanctions Nord 
Stream 2 AG, which is wholly owned and controlled by Gazprom. This is 
sanctioning a Russian cutout because this pipeline is a tool for 
Putin's aggression in Europe.
  And even when it comes to unity in Germany, what they really mean is 
unity with Angela Merkel, and I will concede that. Angela Merkel wants 
this pipeline. I don't fully understand why, but she does. But Angela 
Merkel is no longer the Chancellor of Germany. Indeed, the German 
people went

[[Page S204]]

to the polls, and they voted her party out of office. So one would 
think from the United States, to the extent we are concerned about 
standing with an ally, we should be concerned about the current 
Government of Germany, not the former government, and we should respect 
the views of the German people.
  Now, the current Government of Germany is hopelessly fractured on 
Nord Stream 2. The Greens, who are part of this coalition government, 
passionately oppose Nord Stream 2. Vocally, repeatedly they have 
condemned Nord Stream 2, and they are an integral part of this German 
Government. But just a few hours ago, the German Defense Minister, on 
the other side, said Nord Stream 2 is off the table. They are not 
willing to do anything to stop Nord Stream 2. And the German Chancellor 
has said the same, declaring that he seeks a positive reset with Putin. 
This is the same Putin who has tanks on the border of Ukraine, and he 
is preparing to invade.
  Another argument that we will hear is that sanctions should be kept 
in our pockets. We should reserve them for use later in the case of a 
Russian invasion. I would note, this is not what our Ukrainian allies 
advocate, and I have trouble believing anyone in this Chamber actually 
takes this argument seriously, nor should they. Putin doesn't.
  Putin believes that once he brings Nord Stream 2 online, and once he 
has changed the region through invasion, that no one will have the will 
to impose sanctions. And I would note, he is not crazy to believe that.
  When the Biden administration first capitulated to Russia on Nord 
Stream 2, the Biden administration and the German Government made a 
promise. They said if--if, if--Russia uses energy for energy blackmail, 
then we will stop the pipeline. They beat their chest with that 
promise. They were quite bold about it. I have had some Members of the 
Senate say: Well, we have got really strong promises from Germany now.
  Well, what has happened since then? Russia has nakedly and 
unequivocally used energy for energy blackmail. Energy prices have 
skyrocketed in Europe, and Putin is openly boasting, he is laughing and 
saying: Well, turn Nord Stream 2 on and your energy prices will go 
down.
  He is not hiding it. He is not pretending. He did exactly what the 
Biden White House and the German Government said: If you do x, we will 
stop it.
  He did it openly, brazenly, laughingly, and absolutely nothing 
happened--zero, crickets.
  Mr. President, I ask you, as a reasonable man, if the German 
Government and the Biden White House were unwilling to impose sanctions 
when Putin immediately triggered what they said was their redline, in 
what universe would the Biden White House or the German Government have 
greater resolve once millions of Germans are dependent on Russian 
natural gas from Nord Stream 2 to heat their homes when it is literally 
stopping the Germans from freezing to death? Because that, if the 
Ukrainian pipeline is shut down, becomes the only viable source of 
heat. Do we really think they are going to have greater courage then 
than they have had so far? Nobody does. Putin doesn't.
  It is important to understand that the debate before this Chamber is, 
Do we impose sanctions before an invasion in order to stop the invasion 
or do we threaten sanctions after an invasion is done?
  The bill that my colleague Senator Menendez is pushing would do the 
latter. It would impose sanctions after an invasion is completed. I 
don't think Putin believes those sanctions would ever be imposed. But I 
can tell you, Ukrainian President Zelensky has very expressly addressed 
this issue. Here is what he said: ``Only if the sanctions are applied 
prior to the armed conflict would they become a prevention mechanism 
for any possible escalation.'' That is the President of Ukraine begging 
the Members of this Senate to vote in favor of the bill on the floor 
today.
  Today will be one of our very last chances to stop Nord Stream 2 and 
to stop an imminent Russian invasion of Ukraine.
  Just a few minutes ago, two of my colleagues, Senator Murphy and 
Senator Shaheen, had a colloquy in which they explained why they have 
flipped their positions. They and every other Democrat in this Chamber 
have voted for sanctions on Nord Stream 2 not once but twice. Every 
Democrat voted in support of my bipartisan sanctions on Nord Stream 2. 
Only two things have changed since all of the Democrats voted in favor 
of these sanctions: No. 1, the occupant of the White House, who now has 
a ``D'' behind his name instead of an ``R.''
  The White House is furiously lobbying Democrats, asking Democrats to 
stand with their party--sadly, at the expense of our allies, at the 
expense of Europe, and at the expense of U.S. national security.
  On the merits, this should be a very easy vote. And I would suggest, 
if Joe Biden were not President, if Donald Trump were sitting in the 
Oval Office today, every single Democrat in this Chamber would vote for 
these sanctions--all of them--as they did twice when Donald Trump was 
sitting in the Oval Office.
  The other thing that has changed, by the way, is the Russian troops 
on the border of Ukraine, which is exactly what the Ukrainians and the 
Poles told us would happen when Biden waived these sanctions.
  Those are the two things that have changed.
  I have to say, my colleagues Senators Murphy and Shaheen had a very 
odd colloquy because they decided to go after me personally instead of 
focusing on the merits of the issue. In particular, they said: You 
know, when Trump was President, Senator Cruz didn't hold his State 
Department nominees over Nord Stream 2, and Trump didn't impose 
sanctions over Nord Stream 2.
  Now, I recognize in politics sometimes, in the heat of the moment, 
you say things; you don't entirely think through them. But even in the 
annals of bad arguments, that is a singularly absurd argument. It is 
true I didn't hold the State Department nominees over Nord Stream 2. It 
is true Trump didn't impose sanctions. Why? Because we stopped Nord 
Stream 2, because we were successful.
  When I authored the bipartisan sanctions, there were significant 
elements of the Trump administration that resisted it. The Department 
of the Treasury fought mightily against it. And I was more than happy 
to battle my own party on this because this was the right thing to do 
for U.S. national security. Is there even one Democrat with the courage 
to do that against his own party now that it is the other side?
  The argument I didn't hold any nominees--why would I hold nominees? 
President Trump signed the bill. I have said from the beginning: If 
Biden imposes the sanctions, I will lift all the holds. I lifted 32 
holds in December to get this vote.
  My focus is on stopping this pipeline and stopping Putin and Russia. 
And their argument that, well, Trump didn't impose sanctions--that is 
correct, because Putin stopped building the pipeline.
  I remind you of the timing. President Trump signed the bill, if my 
memory serves correctly, at 7 p.m. on a Thursday night. Putin stopped 
building the pipeline at 6:45 p.m., 15 minutes beforehand. There was 
nothing to sanction because they didn't commit the sanctionable 
conduct; they stopped. They only returned to building the pipeline--
does the Presiding Officer know what date Putin began building the 
deep-sea pipeline once again? January 24, 2021, 4 days after Joe Biden 
was sworn into office. Putin knew that Biden was going to do what he 
did: waive the sanctions and surrender. The sanctions worked. We had a 
bipartisan victory that, inexplicably, this White House gave away.
  I want to take a minute to speak to my Democratic colleagues.
  Listen, there are lots of issues we are going to disagree with one 
another on a partisan matter. That is fine. We will talk about tax 
rates, whether they should be high or low. We can have good, vigorous 
arguments about that. That is a part of our democracy. But in this 
instance, the Biden White House is carrying out a policy that makes no 
sense, that abandons our allies, that is harmful to American national 
security, that strengthens and encourages the aggression of Vladimir 
Putin, a bully and a tyrant, and that makes war much more likely.
  Most, if not all, of my Democratic colleagues know all of this. I am 
going

[[Page S205]]

to ask my Democratic colleagues to do something hard, which is to have 
the courage to stand up and take some partisan grief for voting against 
the White House on this one. Save the White House from the mistake they 
are making. That is one of the roles of the Senate. We keep hearing the 
analogy the Framers used of a saucer to cool the tempers of the moment. 
The Senate did that with President Trump. The Senate should do so with 
President Biden as well.
  In my 10 years in the U.S. Senate, I have taken a lot of votes. The 
Presiding Officer has taken a lot of votes. There are very few votes 
that I think are as consequential as the vote we are getting ready to 
take.
  If Senate Democrats put partisan loyalty above national security, if 
they vote simply by party line, it will dramatically increase the 
chances of a violent Russian invasion of Ukraine. Days or weeks or 
months from now, if we turn on the television set and see Russian tanks 
in the streets of Kiev, the reason will be that the U.S. Senate heard 
the pleas of our Ukrainian allies and we turned a deaf ear to them. I 
pray that we don't do so. The eyes of history are upon us, and this 
body, Republicans and Democrats, should rise to the occasion.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.


                             Voting Rights

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, earlier today, the Republican Senate 
leader came to the floor and noted the fact that when the American 
people were asked about the issues of the moment, they didn't mention 
their right to vote. I think most Americans would be surprised that we 
are even debating that issue at this moment in American history.
  We know the right to vote has been contentious, divisive, deadly when 
it comes to the policies of this Nation and particularly the policies 
of individual States. It was one of the critical reasons, in addition 
to the hideous institution of slavery, that we went to war among 
ourselves and 600,000-plus Americans gave their lives. It really was at 
the heart of what happened after that when the North prevailed, the 
Union was saved, and the President of the United States, a man from 
Illinois, not only created an Emancipation Proclamation but set the 
stage for constitutional amendments which guaranteed that right to 
vote.
  So I imagine some people would be excused if they didn't list it as 
the highest priority. They probably assume it is really not an issue 
for debate, but it is. You see, in this last Presidential election, we 
had two or three historic things occur.
  First, the turnout of American voters was unprecedented. That is a 
good thing. In a democracy, it is to be applauded, and each year, we 
should try to improve on that outcome.
  The second thing, though, we would have to put in the liability 
column, and that is a petulant former President who refused to even 
acknowledge that he lost the election and instead claims that he was 
abused and that it was stolen from him. That fanciful lie is now making 
its way across America back and forth as former President Trump peddles 
it in every quarter. Unfortunately, some people are listening. Some 30 
percent of American people agree with the former President that the 
election was stolen from him.
  He couldn't win that argument in any courtroom. He couldn't even 
convince his handpicked Attorney General to back him up. So he resorted 
to sending a mob of his followers on January 6, 2021, to storm this 
Capitol. For the first time since 1812, we were invaded by people who 
did not subscribe to the basic tenets of our Constitution. It was a 
grim day. I will never forget it. Those who were here, I am sure, say 
the same. But it set the stage for a campaign that has followed for 
more than a year.
  This morning, we read in the paper that some eight Republican 
attorneys general are going to close ranks in a Trump-inspired alliance 
to change election laws across America to his liking. Shame on them, 
and shame on anyone who thinks that is what America is all about.
  We should encourage more and more of those legally eligible to vote. 
We should make it an easy exercise and not a hardship and burden. But 
the States--almost 20 of them now--are in the process of changing the 
laws in their States on voting and, with each change in the law, making 
it more difficult. Oh, it doesn't sound too reprehensible on its face, 
until you add it all together: the notion that people would have less 
time to apply for absentee ballots; the fact that they would have to 
come up with a good reason; that their applications for those ballots 
would have to contain certain information, which is new and sometimes 
challenging to individuals; limiting the periods of time that people 
can vote; limiting the opportunity to register to vote in special 
elections, as in the State of Georgia. Each one of those is an additive 
factor to reducing the likelihood that people will turn up and vote--
even this notion in Georgia that you can't provide food and drink to 
voters waiting in line.
  Well, in my hometown of Springfield, IL, we vote in the Park 
District. There is seldom a wait of more than 5 minutes. That is about 
the average across America, but we know there are exceptions. We have 
seen people waiting in line much longer. In fact, one State found that 
African Americans waited in line an average of 50 minutes--not 5; 50 
minutes. The idea of perhaps giving someone a drink of water under 
those circumstances is now against the law in Georgia. It is hard to 
imagine. That is just one of the things they wanted to add to the 
burdens of voting in America.
  So when we come to the floor and discuss voting, and the Republican 
leader tells us people don't care--I bet they will when they come to 
realize what is happening.
  It is interesting that he notes that what they do care about--they 
care about the coronavirus. I do too.
  I didn't have to check the voting records to know what I am about to 
say is true. That Senator from Kentucky and every other Senator on that 
side of the aisle voted against Joe Biden's American Rescue Plan.
  In the beginning of his administration, he had a bold, policy-driven 
piece of legislation called the American Rescue Plan, which set out to 
do something that had to be done. Yes, we had found the vaccines, but 
in order to produce them and to administer them, we needed a program 
that cost money.
  Joe Biden stepped up and said: This is what we are going to do. We 
are going to get this jab, this shot, available to Americans across the 
board, and we are going to spend the money to do it. It does no good to 
have a formula that can save your life, and yet you can't access it or 
pay for it.
  So he put it in the American Rescue Plan. It just made common sense, 
didn't it? With so many people dying and sick, that we have an 
ambitious, unprecedented, historic administration of that vaccine 
across America? It was an easy vote for me and for every Democrat and 
obviously easy on the other side for Republicans because not a single 
one, including the Republican leader from Kentucky, would support 
President Biden in that effort.
  There was money in there as well to keep businesses open so that they 
could hire back their people, go back in business. I don't know about 
the Presiding Officer's State. I am sure New Jersey is similar to 
Illinois. But I have talked to a lot of restauranteurs who walked up to 
me and said: Senator, we never met before, but if you hadn't voted to 
give me a chance to reopen this business, I wouldn't be here today.
  That is the reality of the bill that the Republicans all, every 
single one, voted against. So it is no surprise that they come to the 
floor critical of Joe Biden and his Presidency and saying he just 
doesn't understand the real issues. Well, the coronavirus is a real 
issue. The President's response was a real response. Sadly, the 
unanimous opposition to the President by the Republican side of the 
aisle was also a real response.
  I can remember, coming out of college and hearing about the Voting 
Rights Act being debated right here on the floor of the U.S. Senate, 
and as I have said before on the floor--and I won't belabor it--I have 
taken the time over the years to understand what led up to it--
Reconstruction, Jim Crow, the great migration, and all that followed 
from that.
  And my friend--and she is my friend--Carol Anderson, a professor at 
Emory University in Atlanta, GA, has written a book called ``One 
Person, No Vote.'' She flattered me and asked me

[[Page S206]]

to write the forward to the book, which I gladly did, and then read it 
and thought: What an incredible story it tells us about America and the 
battle to win the vote.
  I remember--as I mentioned, I was young and fresh out of college and 
law school--when Dr. Martin Luther King came to the city of Chicago. I 
remember it well because I was in the midst of working as a young man 
on a political campaign. And it made all the headlines when Dr. Martin 
Luther King, Jr., decided to walk through Marquette Park. That 
particular parade--that protest--drew violence from people dressed in 
Nazi uniforms, throwing rocks at him, and jeering at those who 
supported his effort.
  I remember that because, nowadays, when you talk about Dr. Martin 
Luther King's day of observance, which is coming up next week, people 
have a tendency to think of that in gentle and positive terms--and it 
should be. But let's not forget the price he paid--ultimately, his 
life--to deliver that message to a divided America. And so when we talk 
about why he did it and what it meant to us, one of the guiding factors 
was the right to vote and his belief that, from Reconstruction forward 
to his day, we were still finding ways to deny the right to vote to 
African Americans and others in this country. It was that fundamental 
an issue--an issue he was willing to give his life for.
  For some of us, Martin Luther King Day will be a day of reflection, a 
chance to envision in America what it truly means to be ``free at 
last.'' But it is also a day of action. Let's hope we have some action 
here on the floor of the U.S. Senate.
  Each day we open the session in the Senate by pledging allegiance to 
the flag. That is a good thing. I do it out of respect and gladly so. 
But we don't stand here and pledge allegiance to the filibuster. The 
filibuster is a Senate rule, not that long in its history, that is an 
interpretation of what the Senate is about. It has changed over the 
years over and over again. It is not sacred. It is not constitutional 
dictum. It is, in fact, the best efforts of politicians in this 
Chamber, in their day, to write a rule that establishes a minimum vote.
  What does it mean to us? Well, it means a lot. In a Senate that is 
divided 50-50--50 Republicans and 50 Democrats--it means that there are 
measures which require 60 votes. It used to be a rare occurrence in 
this body that someone would invoke a filibuster, and yet now it has 
become virtually commonplace.
  If you just look at the last 5 or 10 years, you can see a change in 
the Senate, a dramatic orchestrated change in the Senate. What was 
uncommon, requiring 60 votes for a measure, has now become the 
standard, and, of course, what that means is very few things come to 
the floor of the Senate.
  When the Republicans were in control, just a few years ago, during 
the course of an entire calendar year, on the Senate floor we voted for 
26 amendments--26. In the normal history of the Senate, hundreds of 
amendments are voted in the course of a year. But because of the 
filibuster and the design of many to slow down and stop the business of 
the Senate, in 1 year we voted for 26 amendments--26.
  And that is what happens when you shut down debate. That is what 
happens when you shut down opportunity for amendments. And that is what 
happens when you pledge allegiance to the filibuster.
  We have to be honest about this. There should be an exception written 
in for the filibuster when it comes to voting rights. Something as 
fundamental as our constitutional authority to vote should be given the 
day for argument on the floor of the Senate and should be subject to a 
majority vote, up or down. That is not too much to ask.
  I would rather pledge allegiance to the flag and to the voting 
authority in America that it represents than to the filibuster, a rule 
which has been misused as much as it has been properly used in its 
history.
  There are many enduring victories we can attribute to Dr. King and 
the civil rights movement. But the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the 
Voting Rights Act of 1965 are certainly high on the list. These laws 
put a stake in the heart of Jim Crow, expanding voting rights to 
generations of Black Americans.
  Prior to the passage of these laws, State legislators throughout the 
Deep South had disenfranchised voters of color through a whirlwind of 
discriminatory legislation. These laws didn't explicitly ban Black 
Americans from voting. The 15th Amendment, ratified during 
Reconstruction, prevented them from doing that. But soon enough, these 
lawmakers discovered new ways to discriminate against voters of color. 
And in decades after Reconstruction, they erected barriers to the 
ballot box, like poll taxes, property ownership requirements, literacy 
tests.
  When it comes to Jim Crow laws, it is easy to get caught up in 
abstractions and generic descriptions. You hear the phrase ``literacy 
test,'' that was used even into the 1960s in America, and you think: 
Well, that just means I have to read at grade-school level, right?
  Wrong. A poll test from a Louisiana parish had questions on it which 
I struggle to answer even today. And they were designed to make sure 
that voters wouldn't be able to answer. ``Draw a line around a number 
or letter of this sentence.'' What the heck does that mean? And on and 
on.
  I share this example to demonstrate what voter suppression looked 
like in the days of Dr. King. In the words of historian Carol Anderson, 
whom I mentioned earlier, tactics like literacy tests were 
``legislative evil genius.'' They didn't disenfranchise voters on the 
basis of their skin color outright. But they were only administered to 
some voters, and you can imagine which ones.
  Thank God the Members of the Senate on a bipartisan basis decided in 
the 1960s to outlaw this legislative sleight of hand. Our predecessors 
didn't cave in to the disingenuous cries of ``States' rights,'' which 
we hear to this day on the Republican side of the aisle. Our 
predecessors understood that voting is a fundamental liberty. It should 
be treated differently. It is the reason we pledge allegiance to that 
flag, because we make the decision, under that flag, of who governs us.
  Right now, millions of American voters are facing a new wave of voter 
suppression laws, and much like the proponents of Jim Crow laws did in 
their day, Republicans State lawmakers today are erecting new barriers 
to the ballot box, latching onto the myth of ``widespread voter 
fraud.'' That is what the State legislative leaders are saying. Where 
could they have come up with that idea? Is it possible that it is a 
disgruntled former President with a bruised ego because he lost his 
effort for reelection in 2020?
  The reality is, the laws they are passing in these States are not 
about preventing voter fraud. They are about preventing eligible 
Americans from voting. The nurse working back-to-back shifts on 
election day, the single parent who doesn't own a car or can't afford a 
babysitter, or a person living with a disability--should we be 
concerned as to whether they have an opportunity to vote? We certainly 
should.
  The new laws enacted in nearly 20 States will prevent our most 
vulnerable neighbors from exercising their right to vote. That is why 
we ought to look at the Senate rules. It isn't just a matter of some 
theoretical academic debate on the rules. These are real-life decisions 
in States across the Nation.
  And the most troubling of these laws take the assault of democracy 
even further. They give partisan actors more power to meddle and 
interfere in election administration. Some of the proposals we have 
seen can potentially allow partisans to overrule the valid votes of the 
American people and anoint a victor of their own choosing.
  Over the next few days, I expect many of us will quote excerpts of 
Dr. King's most famous speeches. My hope is that we will take heed of 
the words he wrote in that letter from the Birmingham jail. In it, he 
responded to a group of White religious leaders who had pleaded with 
him and his fellow civil rights advocates to slow down, wait a little 
longer, racial equality is going to follow soon.
  In response, Dr. King wrote: ``For years now, I've heard the word 
`Wait!'. . . . This `Wait' has almost meant `Never'. . . . We must come 
to see, with one of our distinguished jurists, of yesterday that 
`justice too long delayed is justice denied.'''
  He continued, ``We've waited for more than 340 years for our God-
given and constitutional rights. . . . I hope,

[[Page S207]]

sirs, you can understand our legitimate and unavoidable impatience.''
  The issue that we are debating on voting rights and the issue of our 
rules is not just a casual conversation about a rule book no one hardly 
knows of. It is an issue that does go to the heart of our democracy, to 
our pledge of allegiance to the flag, not to the filibuster.
  The issue is our Republican colleagues are afraid of this debate. 
Traditionally, they played a key role in the passage of the Voting 
Rights Act in the 1960s. In fact, percentagewise, there were more 
Republican Senators voting for that than Democratic Senators. And I say 
that acknowledging that my Democratic Party, in those days, was not 
altogether on the right side.

  We have been told that we are breaking the Senate if we change this 
rule to protect people's right to vote. At the heart of what the Senate 
is and what it stands for and the reason it exists is the right of 
Americans to vote.
  Is it worth a carve-out? Is it worth a change? Is it worth a 
modification of the Senate rules to protect the right to vote? Can 
anything be more sacred?
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Ms. SINEMA. Mr. President, I rise at a challenging, divisive time for 
our Nation. For years, America's politics have spiraled steadily 
downward into increasingly bitter, tribal partisanship, and our 
democracy has been strained.
  While that may sound abstract, it is a problem that hurts Americans 
in real, tangible ways. These deepening divisions hurt our ability to 
work together, to create new job opportunities, to protect the health 
and safety of our communities and country, and to ensure everyday 
families get ahead. Americans across the country know this. They see it 
every day, not only on social media and cable news but at their jobs 
and around their dinner tables. We are divided.
  It is more likely today that we look at other Americans who have 
different views and see the other or even see them as enemies instead 
of as fellow country men and women who share our core values. It is 
more common today to demonize someone who thinks differently than us, 
rather than to seek to understand their views.
  Our politics reflect and exacerbate these divisions, making it more 
and more difficult to find lasting, broadly supported solutions to 
safeguard our freedoms, keep our country safe, and expand opportunity 
for all our citizens.
  So two questions face us as a nation: Where does this descending 
spiral of division lead, and how can we stop it?
  Our country's divisions have now fueled efforts in several States 
that will make it more difficult for Americans to vote and undermine 
faith that all Americans should have in our elections and our 
democracy. These State laws have no place in a nation whose government 
is formed by free, fair, and open elections.
  We must also acknowledge a painful fact:
  The State laws we seek to address are symptoms of a larger, more 
deeply rooted problem facing our democracy--the divisions themselves, 
which have hardened in recent years and have combined with rampant 
disinformation to push too many Americans away from our basic 
constitutional values.
  In the spring of 2017, after Trump took office, I wrote an opinion 
piece in the Arizona Republic highlighting my concerns about the 
strains on our constitutional boundaries and the shrinking respect for 
our founding constitutional principles. In the years that followed, my 
colleagues and I in this body were called upon to participate in two 
separate impeachment trials for crimes against our Constitution.
  And on January 6, last year, I was standing in this very spot, 
speaking in this very Chamber, defending Arizona's fair and valid 
election against disinformation, when violent insurrectionists halted 
the Presidential certification.
  Threats to American democracy are real.
  I share the concerns of civil right advocates and others I have heard 
from in recent months about these State laws. I strongly support those 
efforts to contest these laws in court and to invest significant 
resources into these States to better organize and stop efforts to 
restrict access at the ballot box.
  And I strongly support and will continue to vote for legislative 
responses to address these State laws--including the Freedom to Vote 
Act and the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act that the Senate is 
currently considering.
  I support these bills because they strengthen Americans' access to 
the ballot box, and they better ensure that Americans' votes are 
counted fairly. It is through elections that Americans make their 
voices heard, select their representatives, and guide the future of our 
country and our communities.
  These bills help treat the symptoms of the disease, but they do not 
fully address the disease itself. And while I continue to support these 
bills, I will not support separate actions that worsen the underlying 
disease of division infecting our country.
  The debate over the Senate's 60-vote threshold shines a light on our 
broader challenges. There is no need for me to restate my longstanding 
support for the 60-vote threshold to pass legislation.
  There is no need for me to restate its role: protecting our country 
from wild reversals in Federal policy. It is a view I have held during 
my years serving in both the U.S. House and the Senate, and it is the 
view I continue to hold. It is the belief that I have shared many times 
in public settings and in private settings.
  Senators of both parties have offered ideas, including some that 
would earn my support to make this body more productive, more 
deliberative, more responsive to Americans' needs, and a place of 
genuine debate about our country's pressing issues.
  And while this week's harried discussions about Senate rules are but 
a poor substitute for what I believe could have--and should have--been 
a thoughtful public debate at any time over the past year, such a 
discussion is still a worthy goal.
  But a discussion of rules falls short of what is required. American 
politics are cyclical, and the granting of power in Washington, DC, is 
exchanged regularly by the voters from one party to another.
  This shift of power back and forth means the Senate 60-vote threshold 
has proved maddening to Members of both political parties in recent 
years--viewed either as a weapon of obstruction or a safety net to save 
the country from radical policies, depending on whether you serve in 
the majority or the minority.
  But what is the legislative filibuster other than a tool that 
requires new Federal policy to be broadly supported by Senators 
representing a broader cross section of Americans--a guardrail 
inevitably viewed as an obstacle by whoever holds the Senate majority 
but which, in reality, ensures that millions of Americans, represented 
by the minority party, have a voice in the process?
  Demands to eliminate this threshold--from whichever party holds the 
fleeting majority--amount to a group of people separated on two sides 
of a canyon, shouting that solution to their colleagues, and that makes 
the rift both wider and deeper.
  Consider this: In recent years, nearly every party-line response to 
the problems we face in this body, every partisan action taken to 
protect a cherished value has led us to more division, not less.
  The impact is clear for all to see: the steady escalation of tit for 
tat, in which each new majority weakens the guardrails of the Senate 
and excludes input from the other party, furthering resentment and 
anger amongst this body and our constituents at home.
  Democrats' increased use of requiring cloture for traditional 
nominees under President George W. Bush led to similar tactics by 
Republicans under President Barack Obama. The 2013 decision by 
Senate Democrats to eliminate the 60-vote threshold for most judicial 
and Presidential nominations led directly to a response in 2017 by 
Senate Republicans who eliminated the threshold for Supreme Court 
nominees.

  These shortsighted actions by both parties have led to our current 
American judiciary and Supreme Court which, as I stand here today, is 
considering questions regarding fundamental rights Americans have 
enjoyed for decades.
  Eliminating the 60-vote threshold--on a party line with the thinnest 
of possible majorities--to pass these bills

[[Page S208]]

that I support will not guarantee that we prevent demagogues from 
winning office.
  Indeed, some who undermine the principles of democracy have already 
been elected. Rather, eliminating the 60-vote threshold will simply 
guarantee that we lose a critical tool that we need to safeguard our 
democracy from threats in the years to come.
  It is clear that the two parties' strategies are not working--not for 
either side and especially not for the country.
  I know it is comfortable for Members of each party, particularly 
those who spent their career in party politics, to think that their 
respective party alone can move the country forward. Party control 
becomes a goal in and of itself, instead of prioritizing a healthy, 
appropriate balance in which Americans' diverse views and shared values 
are represented.
  But when one party needs only to negotiate with itself, policy will 
inextricably be pushed from the middle toward the extremes.
  And I understand, there are some on both sides of the aisle that 
prefer that outcome, but I do not. And I know that Arizonans do not 
either. Our country's first President, George Washington, a leader 
whose wisdom I borrowed at the conclusion of the 2020 impeachment 
trial--he warned against political factions more than 200 years ago, 
saying that extreme partisanship could lead to the ``ruins of public 
liberty.''
  ``I was no party man myself,'' Washington wrote, ``and the first wish 
of my heart was, if parties did exist, to reconcile them.''
  Today, we serve in an equally divided Senate, and today marks the 
longest time in history that the Senate has been equally divided. The 
House of Representatives is nearly equally divided as well.
  Our mandate? It seems evident to me: work together and get stuff done 
for America.
  And the past years have shown when a party in control pushes party-
line changes exceeding their electoral mandate, the bitterness within 
our politics is exacerbated, tensions are raised within the country, 
and traditionally nonpartisan issues are transformed into partisan 
wedges.
  We must address the disease itself--the disease of division--to 
protect our democracy. And it cannot be achieved by one party alone. It 
cannot be achieved solely by the Federal Government. The response 
requires something greater and, yes, more difficult, than what the 
Senate is discussing today.
  We need robust, sustained strategies that put aside party labels and 
focus on our democracy because these challenges are bigger than party 
affiliation.
  We must commit to a long-term approach as serious as the problems we 
seek to solve--one that prioritizes listening and understanding, one 
that embraces making progress on shared priorities and finding common 
ground on issues where we hold differing and diverse views.
  This work requires all Americans everywhere. Efforts to fix these 
problems on a bare-majority party line will only succeed in 
exacerbating the root causes that gave way to these State laws in the 
first place, extending our dissent into a more fragmented America.
  This work is our shared responsibility as Americans. I share the 
disappointment of many that we have not found more support on the other 
side of the aisle for legislative responses to State-level voting 
restrictions. I wish that were not the case, just as I wish there had 
been a more serious effort on the part of Democratic Party leaders to 
sit down with the other party and genuinely discuss how to reforge 
common ground on these issues.

  My Republican colleagues have a duty to meet their shared 
responsibility to protect access to voting and the integrity of our 
electoral process.
  We need a sustained, robust effort to defend American democracy, an 
effort on the part of Democrats, Republicans, Independents, and all 
Americans in communities across this country. So we ask, What must we 
do to protect our democracy?
  We should invest heavily in recruiting and supporting State and local 
candidates for office--in both parties--who represent the values 
enshrined in our Constitution.
  We should ensure we have a judiciary that is less lopsided in its 
political leanings and that we can all depend on to uphold the 
Constitution.
  We must confront and combat the rise of rampant disinformation and 
ensure that all Americans have the tools to see fact from fiction. This 
will be particularly difficult work since some in power have used 
disinformation to manipulate our differences and pull Americans apart, 
pressuring us to see our fellow Americans as enemies.
  The dangers facing our democracy took years to metastasize, and they 
will take years of sustained, focused effort to effectively reverse. 
There are steps that we can take today to fix our politics and better 
set the stage for repairing our democracy.
  Many of you know I began my career as a social worker. And in our 
social work training, our first necessary skill is the ability to 
listen to others--listening not to argue or rebut but listening to 
understand. I ran for the U.S. Senate rejecting partisanship, willing 
to work with anyone to help Arizonans build better and more secure 
lives.
  And throughout my time serving Arizona, I have listened to Arizonans 
expressing diverse views on inflation, economic competitiveness, 
climate, and social priorities, and the role of the Federal government 
itself.
  I find myself grateful, time and time again, to learn from Arizonans 
who share the same core values but differ in position on issues and 
policies. Their similarities and their differences are surely 
representative of the complexity of Americans nationwide.
  So I find this question answers itself: Can two Americans of sharp 
intellect and good faith reach different conclusions to the same 
question? Yes. Yes, of course they can.
  It is easy for elected officials to give speeches about what they 
believe. It is harder to listen and acknowledge that there are a whole 
lot of Americans with different ideas about what is important in our 
country and how to solve those problems.
  And yet it is important to recognize that disagreements are OK. They 
are normal. And honest disagreements matched with a willingness to 
listen and learn can help us forge sturdy and enduring solutions.
  You know, Congress was designed to bring together Americans of 
diverse views, representing different interests and, as a collective, 
to find compromise and common ground to serve our country as a whole.
  We face serious challenges, and meeting them must start with a 
willingness to be honest, to listen to one another, to lower the 
political temperature, and to seek lasting solutions.
  Some have given up on the goal of easing our divisions and uniting 
Americans; I have not.
  I have worked hard to demonstrate in my public service the value of 
working with unlikely allies to get results, helping others see our 
common humanity and finding our common ground, and I remain stubbornly 
optimistic because this is America. We have overcome every challenge we 
have ever faced.
  I am committed to doing my part to avoid toxic political rhetoric, to 
build bridges, to forge common ground, and to achieve lasting results 
for Arizona and this country. But we are in desperate need of more--
more people who are willing to listen, to seek understanding, to stitch 
together the fabric of our country that has been ripping around the 
edges; more people who are willing to put down the sticks sharpened for 
battle and instead pick up their neighbors to learn why they are angry 
or upset or left behind.
  So I call on each of us as Americans: Let us be those people. We are 
but one country. We have but one democracy. We can only survive, we can 
only keep her, if we do so together.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.


                                S. 3436

  Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, I rise today to speak against the 
sanctioning of German and Russian businesses over the transport of 
natural gas between their countries.
  Proponents of sanctions say: Sanction this, sanction that. The 
Department of the Treasury is currently administering dozens of 
sanctions programs designed to change the behavior of certain 
countries. Yet, no one seems to ask the important questions: Do 
sanctions promote peace and understanding, or do they escalate tension 
between nations? What behavior has China modified since the United 
States began sanctions? Has Russia changed

[[Page S209]]

her behavior? Has Russia given back Crimea? Sanctions, although lacking 
in proof of effectiveness, are very popular with both parties.
  Embargoes, sanctions' big brother, also garner bipartisan enthusiasm. 
The U.S. embargo of Cuba has now gone on for more than 60 years without 
any evidence of a change in regime or even a change in the regime's 
policy.
  Embargoes are often described, especially by the embargoed country, 
as an act of war. Many historians say that the U.S.'s embargo of 1807 
ultimately led to the War of 1812. President Jefferson's embargo was 
intended to punish France and England for their aggressions, but 
instead the embargo crippled American shipping exports. Exports 
declined by 75 percent.
  Some historians also blame the U.S. embargo of Japan for the ensuing 
war. Roosevelt seized many of Japan's assets, and Japan lost access to 
much of its international trade and over 80 percent of its imported 
oil. Effectively, at least from the perspective of Japan, the embargo 
was an act of war.
  Yet enthusiasts for embargoes and sanctions still clamor for more. 
Sanctionistas point to the international sanctions against Iran as the 
lever that brought about the Obama-era nuclear agreement with Iran. 
Perhaps, but an equally valid argument could be made that it was the 
extension of carrots rather than sticks that brought Iran to the table. 
It is funny how diplomacy seems to require give-and-take, not just 
take, take, take.
  Our interaction with Iran should illuminate today's debate over 
sanctions on the Nord Stream 2 Pipeline between Russia and Germany, but 
the shade of mercantilism is dimming the light of experience.
  Opponents of the pipeline, not surprisingly, are largely from States 
that compete in the sale of natural gas. This is more about 
protectionism than it is national security. Reports are that the 
pipeline will cause a significant reduction in U.S. exports of liquid 
natural gas; hence the keen interest by people representing States that 
sell natural gas. This is not so much about national security; it is 
about protectionism.
  Acknowledging that this debate is only superficially about national 
security and really more about provincial protectionism helps us better 
understand the dynamics.
  History demonstrates that trade and interconnectedness between 
nations is a barrier to war. Engaging in mutually beneficial commerce, 
coupled with a potent military deterrence, is the combination that best 
promises peace.
  Over the past decade, Congress and Presidents have heaped sanctions 
on Russia and China. When I have asked the State Department officials 
who come before our committee to reveal what behavioral changes have 
come about as a result of sanctions, I have often gotten blank stares.
  Now, the sanctionistas want to sanction an already completed 
pipeline. Last year, they said that if we put sanctions on, we will 
stop them. Well, the Senate and the House overwhelmingly passed 
sanctions. We got sanctions, and they still completed the pipeline.
  But what behavior are they now asking Russia to change? What 
specifically has Russia been asked to do? What Russian action is 
necessary for these sanctions to end?
  I have asked the sponsor of this bill: The sanctions that you want to 
do to Russia, what behavior--what do you want from Russia? The response 
is that they don't want any behavioral changes from Russia. The word-
for-word response from the sponsors of this bill is that they just want 
Russia not to ship oil to Germany. It is about trade. It is about trade 
that might compete with certain natural gas-producing States. It has 
nothing to do with national security.
  If Nord Stream 2 sanctions were really about changing Russian 
behavior or deterring aggression in Ukraine, then NATO, including 
Germany, could threaten sanctions if Russia invades Ukraine. Now, 
that--the threat of sanctions, with Germany as an ally--might actually 
have deterring value.
  In fact, last summer, the United States and Germany did just that. 
The United States and Germany announced an agreement in which they said 
jointly that any attempt to use energy as a weapon or commit further 
aggressive acts against Ukraine will be met with sanctions. This is 
Germany and the United States together. That has power. Our little 
pinprick sanctions saying ``We don't like you, and we are going to 
punish the companies that are involved'' will do nothing.
  If we actually work with Germany, we have deterring value. Germany 
could turn off the spigot to the natural gas like that. If it is a 
valid threat from Germany with us, together, we might be able to deter 
Russia. But simply turning the gas pipeline off now and sanctioning it 
is like being a hostage taker and saying ``We don't want you to do 
this, and we have your hostage'' and then going ahead and shooting the 
hostage before you get what you want.
  We should threaten sanctions. The threat of sanctions has power. Once 
you turn them on and you have no plan to turn them off, you have no 
leverage over Russia and you do nothing.
  The commitment or the agreement between Germany and the United 
States--the agreement says, ``This commitment is designed to ensure 
Russia will not misuse any pipeline, including Nord Stream 2, to 
achieve aggressive political ends'' or they will be met with sanctions. 
This could be a deterrence.
  The more countries that got together and said this--an international 
community of sanctions can have some effect. One-country sanctions, 
particularly against its ally, Germany, will have no effect.
  The rush to impose sanctions now undermines the threat of sanctions 
to deter Russian aggression against Ukraine. When you put sanctions on 
now and you offer them nothing and no way to remove the sanctions, how 
are you deterring anything? In fact, you might well make them angry 
enough that they actually do act in response to the sanctions in the 
opposite of what you have intended.
  As today's debate unfolds, I think you will find that sanctions 
against Nord Stream 2 are more about mercantilism and protectionism 
than national security.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, first, I would like to ask unanimous 
consent that I be able to speak for up to 5 minutes, followed by 
Senator Sullivan, who is on the floor, for up to 15 minutes and then 
Senator Sasse for up to 7 minutes before the scheduled recess.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I would hope that everyone in this body 
has listened to Senator Sinema's important speech on the filibuster 
just now. I really appreciated her clear-eyed rationale--her rationale 
to preserve the minority voices in this body and to find common ground 
in this Chamber. I thank her.
  Mr. President, I also come to the floor today to support the 
sanctions on Vladimir Putin's Nord Stream 2 Pipeline. Now, I urge all 
of my colleagues to vote in support of S. 3436, the Protecting Europe's 
Energy Security Implementation Act.
  You know, last week, the President of Ukraine and the Prime Minister 
of Ukraine endorsed this legislation. The Prime Minister said the 
following:

       Nord Stream 2 is no less an existential threat to our 
     security and democracy than Russian troops on our border. 
     Senators shouldn't vote to protect Russia and Nord Stream 2. 
     This is a security matter not only for Ukraine, but for the 
     entire region.

  I believe the Prime Minister of Ukraine is exactly right.
  The Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline is being built by Gazprom. For people 
who aren't familiar with that, Gazprom is the Russian state-owned 
natural gas company. Now, the pipeline would double the amount of 
Russian gas going to Germany via the Baltic Sea.
  This pipeline is an existential threat to our ally Ukraine. It is a 
threat to our allies in Europe as well.
  Right now, Vladimir Putin has mobilized 100,000 troops on the border 
of Ukraine. He can afford to do this because he is flush with cash. 
Rising energy prices and reduced American production mean Vladimir 
Putin has hit the energy economic jackpot. The world is now more 
dependent on Russian oil and energy. If gas starts to flow through this 
pipeline, Vladimir Putin will get even richer, more powerful, and the 
world will become even more dependent on him, the dictator.

[[Page S210]]

  Vladimir Putin uses energy as a geopolitical weapon. He uses energy 
to coerce our allies and our partners in Europe.
  Stopping this pipeline should be an area of bipartisan agreement. In 
fact, it was an area of bipartisan agreement in this very body until 
Joe Biden became President. Many Democrats in the body voted for 
sanctions the first time around. Even Joe Biden opposed the pipeline 
before he became President.
  Congress has overwhelmingly passed several pieces of bipartisan 
legislation imposing sanctions on this Russian pipeline. Yet the Biden 
administration refuses to implement these laws.
  The Biden administration has now been actively lobbying this body and 
actively lobbying Congress against this bill. Democrats must think it 
would give Putin what he wants. I don't get it. They think that if you 
give Putin what he wants, then he is going to play nice. That is not 
going to happen. Every American President must negotiate from a 
standpoint and a position of American strength. Vladimir Putin is 
cunning, opportunistic, and aggressive. He respects strength, not 
statements. When he sees an opportunity, he takes it. He can smell the 
weakness.
  The pipeline will mean an enormous transfer of wealth--wealth from 
our allies to our enemy. It will make our allies weaker, and it will 
make Putin stronger. If Putin gets stronger, we know he will get even 
more aggressive.
  It is time now for this body to stand up--stand up against Russia. It 
is time to sanction this pipeline.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I want to commend my colleague from 
Wyoming Senator Barrasso, who has been a leader on so many of these 
issues, and Senator Cruz on his bill, this important piece of 
legislation that we are going to be voting on here in a couple hours.
  This Nord Stream 2 sanctions bill is not just about the immediate 
crisis in Ukraine, but this would be a continuation of long-term 
bipartisan American strategy as it deals with Russia, energy security, 
and American security. So I want to provide a little broader context to 
that bipartisan strategy and put this debate and vote that we are 
having here today into that context.
  The U.S. commitment to European security, as we all know, is 
ironclad. We fought two world wars and a cold war to protect our 
interests in a free and open Europe. We expanded NATO to secure those 
gains and to prevent Russia from ever building a new empire that could 
threaten us or our allies.
  As we all know, Russian power is not just a function of military 
power; to the contrary, Vladimir Putin and the Russians for decades 
have been using energy in terms of power and energy as a weapon. As a 
matter of fact, it is their weapon of choice in many instances in 
Europe.
  Let me provide a few recent examples.
  If you look at this map, one pipeline that is actually not depicted 
is the so-called Brotherhood Pipeline from Russia into Ukraine, and it 
goes into Europe. The Russians have cut off supplies of natural gas on 
that and other pipelines going through Ukraine in 2006, in 2008, in 
2014, and in 2015.
  In Moldova, shortly after the defeat of a pro-Russian Government and 
the election of a pro-Western one, Russia did what they normally do. 
They cut off gas to that country.
  And it is not just impacting countries like Ukraine. When these gas 
supplies were cut off by Russia--because Vladimir Putin was angry about 
something--it impacted over 18 EU countries with regard to those 
cutoffs. And it is happening even today.
  Just yesterday, the head of the International Energy Agency in Paris 
said that Russia is already, right now, strategically limiting natural 
gas to Europe during this very cold winter to pressure European nations 
not to support Ukraine as the Russians amass tens of thousands of 
troops on their border as we speak.
  For these reasons, it has been the longstanding bipartisan American 
policy to do two things as it relates to energy security: First, we 
have sought, dating back to the 1980s, to block implementation of major 
pipelines from Russia--from the then-Soviet Union into Europe. The 
Reagan administration did this with sanctions in 1982, and we have 
continued to work this element of our policy. The other element of 
American bipartisan policy, as it relates to European energy security, 
has been to help countries--former Soviet Union countries, particularly 
in the Caspian and Central Asia area--to provide their own energy 
outlets, in terms of natural gas and oil, to Europe through the 
southern corridor--the BTC Pipeline.
  These are all areas that Democrats and Republicans have been involved 
with in terms of energy supplies to our European allies that don't go 
through Russia. Some of the diplomacy here on these pipelines started 
with the Clinton administration, which did a very good job on this. I 
had the opportunity, as an Assistant Secretary of State in charge of 
economic and energy issues in the Bush Administration, to lead efforts 
on these southern corridor pipelines, and they were successful. Right 
now, these pipelines are providing energy to our allies in Europe. They 
don't go through Russia. They start in countries like Azerbaijan, go 
through Georgia, go through Turkey. This has been very bipartisan, 
supported by the Senate, and the Russians hate this. They hate it.
  Why? Because it doesn't give them any control over energy into 
Europe.
  So, as I mentioned, today's vote is actually part of a long-term 
bipartisan American strategy for decades that we have been pursuing 
because we know the Russians use energy--particularly, natural gas, as 
a weapon.
  So how have we been doing on this? Well, at the end of the Trump 
administration, we were in a very good position on European energy 
security in two key areas. First, as Senator Barrasso mentioned, we had 
strong--very strong--bipartisan support with regard to Nord Stream 2 
sanctions, on its construction and operations. We had overwhelming 
Republican and Democrat support for the sanctions that we are going to 
be voting on today in the 2021 NDAA and in the 2020 NDAA--very big, 
very bipartisan.
  Another reason we were set up very well, in terms of Eurasian energy 
security, is at the end of the Trump administration we had achieved a 
longstanding bipartisan goal of American national security, economic 
security, and energy security. What was that? Energy independence. We, 
once again, had become the world's energy superpower.
  What do I mean by that--largest producer of oil, bigger than Saudi 
Arabia; largest producer of natural gas, bigger than Russia; one of the 
biggest producers of renewables in the world. This is a bipartisan 
goal.
  With regard to European security, why was that so important? Because 
it answered a huge question that the Europeans often said: If we are 
going to block Nord Stream 2, Russian gas into Germany and other places 
in Europe, where are we going to get the gas? Well, we had an answer: 
You are going to get your gas in America.
  Our exports in LNG, liquefied natural gas, surged to take care of 
this problem. This is a good thing.
  In terms of the environment and climate, U.S. LNG exports to Europe 
have a 41-percent lower emissions profile than Russian gas and 
pipelines to Europe. So it is good for the environment, climate, 
national security, energy security.
  And here is another area. This big production of American energy was 
something that the people who know Vladimir Putin best knew that it was 
one of the biggest things we could do.
  A couple of years ago, I was in a meeting with my colleague whom we 
miss very much here, Senator McCain, and a Russian dissident--a very 
famous Russian dissident. And at the very end of the meeting, I asked: 
What more can we do to undermine the Putin regime?
  Do you know what he said to me? He looked me in the eye, without 
hesitation, and said: Produce more American energy. That is the No. 1 
thing that you can do to undermine the Putin regime.
  And we did it. We did it.
  So these are all things, in addition to strengthening our own 
military, in addition to giving the Ukrainians Javelin missile 
systems--all of these things were putting us in a good position. Putin 
seemed very much in a box and certainly wasn't threatening Ukraine with 
tens of thousands of troops on the

[[Page S211]]

border. Where are we today on these key areas that I just mentioned?
  Well, we are not in such good shape.
  In terms of energy independence, this administration seems focused on 
actually destroying the production of American energy--oil and gas in 
particular. I guarantee you, the dictators in Moscow as well as in 
Beijing can hardly believe their luck. It seems like President Biden 
wants to undermine the very bipartisan goals we had for decades--
American energy independence and the United States as the world's 
energy superpower again.
  Just think about what he is seeing: canceled pipelines, the Keystone 
Pipeline, Canada and United States, and the President is green-lighting 
Nord Stream 2; killing energy production in great States like mine. 
Just Monday, there were more obstacles to produce energy in Alaska, and 
now we are importing two times as much oil from Russia as we were a 
year ago. That is helping Putin, hurting the United States.
  What about Nord Stream 2, where we looked so strong just in the past 
few years, with this body, in a strong bipartisan way, sanctioning that 
pipeline right there. President Biden has green-lighted it.
  But we don't have to. That is the point of this vote today. Again, 
this vote is not just about the current crisis in Ukraine; it is about 
continuing a long-term bipartisan approach to Eurasian energy security 
that would make our European allies less vulnerable to Russian energy 
blackmail, which has not only gone back decades, it is literally 
happening right now. Just listen, as I mentioned, to the International 
Energy Agency's report yesterday on this topic.
  To be honest, it is also about a more political question, this vote 
today. Many of my Democratic colleagues suddenly became very hawkish 
against Russia and Putin on these issues and other issues during the 
Trump years, and I welcomed their conversion to a more hard-line 
approach. But it always begged the question, was that more hawkish 
conversion a principled one because they realized being tough on Putin, 
in terms of energy and our military, was the best way to achieve 
American national interests or was this conversion more of a temporary 
one, depending on who occupied the White House? I hope it is not the 
latter, but today's vote will answer that for some of the Senators who 
are looking to change their recent votes.
  But, clearly, some of my colleagues just a few years ago, who were 
voting to sanction and stop the Nord Stream 2 Pipeline and were 
sounding very tough on Vladimir Putin and Russia, are now in a bit of a 
quandary if they vote differently today. So, not surprisingly, they are 
making arguments to rationalize this new position, and I would like to 
review, briefly, just a few of those.
  Senator Murphy has been down on the floor, the junior Senator from 
Connecticut, with a lot of these arguments. And I respect him, a 
thoughtful voice on foreign policy. I don't always agree with him, but 
he is a serious voice. But his arguments on this issue right now are 
not very persuasive or powerful. Here is the thing he is saying right 
now: This isn't about Russia. I am quoting Senator Murphy. This is 
about ``a Cruz-Trump agenda to break up the Atlantic alliance.'' A 
Cruz-Trump agenda to break up the Atlantic alliance.
  Now, look, he is clearly trying to make a boogeyman here, the so-
called Cruz-Trump agenda. But serious people who have been working on 
these issues for decades know that what we are doing today is a 
continuation of long-term bipartisan support for really important 
energy security policy for the United States and our European allies. 
This is continuing that longstanding approach.
  You know, in his quote on the Cruz-Trump agenda, he said: This is 
actually about keeping the Atlantic relationship going to ``save 
Ukraine from an invasion.'' To save Ukraine from an invasion.
  But where is the President of Ukraine on this issue? What does the 
President of Ukraine, who knows a little bit about power politics and 
Putin, think about what we are doing today? He supports sanctions. He 
supports sanctions on Nord Stream 2.
  That is where Senator Murphy is starting to dig a little deeper on 
his weak arguments and trying to provide cover for his colleagues who 
are going to change their vote. He had to respond on where President 
Zelensky of Ukraine was. Here is what Senator Murphy said about that:

       I'm a big supporter of President Zelenskyy. But often he 
     misreads American politics. And I think it would have been 
     better for him to have stayed out of this one.

  Wow.
  So, as to the leader of the country, right here, whom many of us 
think this is all about, who certainly knows what Russian energy power 
politics are about since he has been on the pointy end of that weapon 
many times, we now have a Senator saying: President Zelensky, sit down. 
Be quiet. Stay out of this one. We don't want to hear from you even 
though this is about ``saving'' your country--unless, of course, you 
support his position on Nord Stream 2.
  So these are very weak arguments by the Senator from Connecticut.
  The most legitimate argument I have heard some of my Democratic 
friends make on switching their vote on their previous Nord Stream 2 
sanctions is that the Germans--a very important ally; we all agree on 
that--don't want us to apply Nord Stream 2 sanctions. OK. That is an 
argument we should all consider, and this is what I have heard 
Secretary Blinken and National Security Advisor Sullivan have been 
telling Senators this week as they lobby against this vote we are going 
to take, although, early in the year, it was reported in the press that 
both of them actually supported Nord Stream 2 sanctions.
  Here is the thing on that argument. It is actually hard to tell what 
the Germans really want. In fact, what the Germans really want seems to 
be changing by the hour. There was a recent change in government in 
Germany, and the new Foreign Minister herself has said that the country 
should not grant Nord Stream 2 regulatory approval in order to resist 
``Russian blackmail'' on energy prices. This is the current Foreign 
Minister of Germany.
  It is also important to remember where the rest of the European Union 
is. There is broad opposition in Europe on Nord Stream 2. The European 
Parliament voted last year, on an overwhelming, cross-party basis--581 
to 50--in favor of canceling the entire project in the wake of the 
arrest of Alexei Navalny, a Russian democracy leader whom Putin first 
tried to kill before locking away in prison. The European Parliament 
has voted at least four further times on other resolutions to call on 
the EU to halt this very project, which is what we are looking to vote 
on today.
  Finally, outsourcing this very important foreign policy, national 
security, American issue to the Germans is simply not wise. The Germans 
have not always been so clean or levelheaded when it comes to Russian 
gas, Gazprom, and Nord Stream 2. What am I talking about? Well, of 
course, I am talking about the former Chancellor of Germany, Gerhard 
Schroder--one of the biggest betrayers of the West, certainly, in the 
last century. He left his chancellorship to become Putin's Gazprom 
lapdog. He is the main lobbyist who is pushing Russian gas all over 
Germany and Europe. He is an embarrassment to the Atlantic Alliance. He 
has been the chairman for many years of Gazprom. This is the former 
Chancellor of Germany. Of course, he has influenced Germans to say this 
is good. He has made millions doing it, by the way. He should be 
sanctioned with other Putin cronies.
  At the end of the day, this shouldn't be outsourced to Germany. What 
we need to do is to take a vote on what is right for American national 
security, and a vote that sanctions this pipeline would be consistent 
with long-term, very bipartisan, American-Eurasian energy security 
policy.
  Make no mistake, my colleagues: Nord Stream 2 is Putin's pipeline. 
Let's not make it his lifeline. I encourage all of my colleagues to do 
what they have done recently, in the last couple of years, which is to 
vote in an overwhelming, bipartisan manner to sanction the Nord Stream 
2 Pipeline.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.


                               Filibuster

  Mr. SASSE. Mr. President, first, I want to commend the senior Senator

[[Page S212]]

from Arizona for an extraordinary stand of courage and just a great 
speech on the floor a few minutes ago.
  I rise today to defend the filibuster again from the latest round of 
attacks. I did this repeatedly in the last administration, earning the 
ire and frustration of a President of my own party over and over again 
as I defended the Senate's purpose and the supermajority requirements 
that forge a consensus in a big, broad, diverse, continental nation. 
Today, I rise to defend the filibuster again when it is a President of 
the other party who has decided to go full demagogue.
  For his entire career in the Senate--basically, Joe Biden served in 
this body as long as I have been alive, plus or minus a few years--Joe 
Biden was a stalwart defender of the filibuster. He said that weakening 
the filibuster would ``eviscerate the Senate.'' But earlier this week, 
the President was pushed around by a bunch of rage-addicted 20-
somethings on his staff and agreed to go down to Georgia and just read 
whatever nonsense they loaded into his teleprompter. It was shameful. 
It was sad.
  The President of the United States called half of the country a bunch 
of racist bigots. Think about that--half the country a bunch of racist 
bigots. He doesn't believe that. This was a senile comment of a man who 
read whatever was loaded into his teleprompter.
  His speechwriters puppet-mastered him into saying that anyone who 
disagrees with him is George Wallace, Bull Connor, Jefferson Davis. If 
you disagree with Joe Biden, you are Jefferson Davis. It is pretty 
breathtaking. Equating millions of Americans to some of the ugliest 
racists in all of American history isn't just overheated rhetoric; it 
is a disgusting smear. Does President Biden really believe this in his 
heart of hearts? Based on the conversations I have had with him over 
the years, I don't think he believes this at all.
  So let's go back to last year. Candidate Joe Biden ran for office, 
promising that he would unify the country. That is why the man was 
elected--because he said that the crap we went through the last 4 years 
was wrong. He said he was going to try to unify the country, but now he 
has decided to surrender to a tiny, little far-left group in the 
mistaken belief that the loudest voices on Twitter actually represent 
America.
  It would be useful for us to pause and recognize that the 
overwhelming majority of all political tweets in America come from less 
than 1\1/2\ percent of Americans. Let's just say that again because 
there are a bunch of morons around this building who have decided to 
take their Twitter feed as reality. It is not reality.
  What the President said in Georgia was nonsense, and Joe Biden, with 
his decades in the U.S. Senate, knows that.
  The President will be coming to Capitol Hill in the next hour. If 
President Biden really believes that Jim Crow is the same thing as a 
lot of States that have decided to reconsider some of their COVID 
expansion policies around voting--that Jim Crow and redeliberating 
about COVID expansions are the same thing--he needs to make that 
argument in person.
  If Joe Manchin is really as big a racist as Joe Biden apparently 
thinks and if Kyrsten Sinema is really a racist--if that is what 
animates Kyrsten Sinema--in the eyes of Joe Biden, he should have the 
courage to say that to their faces. He is not going to say that to 
their faces because he doesn't believe it. Ron Klain has an army of 
Twitter trolls that he has decided are reality, and he has decided to 
have President Biden become something completely different than the 
person who ran for office last year or who served for decades in the 
U.S. Senate.
  In fact, if Joe Biden really believes that Joe Manchin and Kyrsten 
Sinema are bigots, why has he not called for them to be kicked out of 
his party? If they are as racist as Bull Connor and Jefferson Davis, 
why does Joe Biden want them in his party?
  The stuff he said in Georgia is nonsense, and you wouldn't say it to 
regular Americans in New Jersey or West Virginia or Arizona or Nebraska 
because it is not true.
  In fact, if Joe Biden really believes that Lisa Murkowski is George 
Wallace, if Tim Scott is Bull Connor, if Susan Collins and I are 
Jefferson Davis, I would hope he would have the guts to come and say it 
to our faces, but he will not because this is performative politics. It 
was nonsense, and everybody knows that it goes away after this weekend.
  But Chuck Schumer might have a primary from AOC, so it is really 
useful to shift the blame for his disastrous leadership of the Senate 
over the last 13 months from himself to Kyrsten Sinema and Joe Manchin. 
That is really what is happening right now.
  President Biden ought to have the courage to stand up to his own 
staff, and he ought to be enough of a man to apologize to the Senate 
and to the American people for the nonsense he said in Georgia. The 
vast majority of what he said in violating the Ninth Commandment and 
disparaging people was not what he really believes, and he wouldn't say 
it to me face-to-face. This fiasco was ugly, and it was entirely 
unnecessary.

  It makes no sense to federalize our elections right now. By the way, 
you can differ with me about that. You can believe that federalizing 
all elections is a good idea--it is in our constitutional system--but 
to demonize people as racist bigots because they are not in favor of 
federalizing the elections is a pretty bizarre leap.
  So let's just review a little bit of history. Last year, we had a 
President who disgraced his office by trying to steal an election. What 
stopped that? Our decentralized State-based systems of elections are 
what stopped last year's attempt to steal an election.
  It makes absolutely no sense to try to go into nuclear partisanship 
now when we should actually be talking about how you prevent another 
January 6 by doing the hard and actual bipartisan work--not the 
grandstanding for Twitter but the hard and bipartisan work of reforming 
the Electoral Count Act, which is 130 years old and obviously doesn't 
work that well. We should reform the Electoral Reform Act.
  This is about the subversion of an election, not the suppression. 
There are real problems in our electoral system, and we could be doing 
work to actually fix that and try to stop the institutional arsonists 
in Congress who want to build political brands on the wreckage of 
American institutions. We could do real work. The President decided to 
do something completely different this week.
  Here is the silver lining. President Biden, Leader Schumer, and 
everybody in this body know that the charade we have been going through 
for the last 3 days is great for the 1\1/2\ percent of people addicted 
to rage on Twitter. I get it. There are 1\1/2\ percent of people who 
get their jollies out of this. It is bad for America, and it is just as 
undermining of the public trust in elections as what Donald Trump did 
last year.
  But here is the thing: Everybody going through this charade knows 
that it dies this weekend. Why? Because Members of the Democrats' own 
conference know that there is no exception to the way the Senate rules 
work. Every single Senator knows that the filibuster is not going to 
die this weekend, and every Senator knows that, if it would, the 
nonsense rhetoric about one exception--it is like losing your virginity 
just once--is not really how it works. Once the filibuster goes for x, 
it goes for y, and it goes for z. Today, it is election centralization. 
Tomorrow, it is gun politics. The next day, it is climate debates. 
Every red-hot issue in American culture and American politics would be 
in the same exception because every issue would be just as urgent next 
week, next month, and next year.
  Fortunately, Senator Manchin knows this, Senator Sinema knows this, 
and by the way, a whole bunch more colleagues of mine in the Democratic 
Party also know this. They just don't have as much courage to say it in 
public as those two. A whole bunch of my colleagues--I tried to count 
this morning; it is between 15 and 18 of my colleagues in the 
Democratic Party--have privately told me they regret following Harry 
Reid over the tribalist cliff in the summer of 2013 for just the one 
exception of judicial confirmations to the DC Circuit Court of Appeals. 
I think 15 to 18 Democrats have privately told me they regret this. 
Why? Because that one-time exception is now how the entire Executive 
Calendar works. Everybody knew, when Harry Reid set this

[[Page S213]]

place on fire in 2013, that that was what it was going to produce and 
that the exact same thing would happen on the legislative calendar with 
the supposed one-time carve-out for the legislative filibuster.
  Let's remember what this institution is for. What the Senate is 
supposed to be about is we are supposed to be the one part of Congress 
and the one part of the American Government that thinks beyond a 24-
month window. It is the job of the people who serve in this body--only 
100 people right now and only, I think, 2,100 people across 230-some 
years of U.S. history. Only 2,000 people have had the honor of serving 
our States in this body. It is supposed to be our job to take the long-
term view, not just 24 hours of Twitter. We are supposed to think 
beyond the 24 months of the next election. That is what our job is 
supposed to be.
  There are a lot of people around this place who apparently can't 
think beyond 24 hours right now. That is their right, but they 
shouldn't be Senators because the purpose of this place is supposed to 
be to take a long-term view.
  Some of my colleagues are convinced that Americans are polarized 
because Congress doesn't act more or faster, and they think that the 
solution is, supposedly, to eliminate the filibuster. They are kidding 
themselves. That would not extinguish the fires of red-hot tribalism in 
this country. It would throw gasoline on them. Addressing the real 
tribal disease in America requires a Senate that becomes less tribal, 
not more tribal.
  Senator Sinema's speech should be commended to every Member of this 
body to go back and read. She said there are two fundamental questions 
before us today. One is, Where does the descent into tribalism in this 
institution ultimately land? And what can each of us do to stop that?
  Those are the two big questions that she said should be before us 
today.
  Getting rid of the filibuster means this: It means that you turn one 
razor-thin majority imposing its will on the American people and on 
legislation into a pendulum-swinging, another razor-thin majority, 24 
months later, that sweeps all of that aside and jerks the American 
people around to the opposite legislation of what was just passed 50-
50--51-50 in today's Senate. And all of it flips 11 months from now, 
and the legislation all gets undone, and new legislation gets put in 
place.
  Do you really think regular folks in New Jersey and Nebraska want 
that? Hardly any of them want that.
  Imagine what the current situation would look like if you have that 
federally imposed whiplash on our most sensitive issues inside every 24 
months. We think tribalism is bad now. I guarantee you can make it 
worse. And eliminating the filibuster accelerates that descent into 
tribalism.
  There is a place, of course, where simple majorities rule. It is 
right down that hallway. We have a House of Representatives already. 
Does anybody want to make the argument that that place is healthier 
than we are because it is a simple majoritarian body? No, it is plain 
to see, in an age of hyperpartisanship and social media grandstanding, 
that the House is being more and more ruled by demagogues and dolts. 
That is not what the Senate is called to do.
  The Senate is supposed to be a different place. The Senate is 
supposed to be the place where passions are tempered and refined by 
people who are responsible for thinking beyond our next election, which 
is why every election cycle in America only has one-third of Senators 
even up for reelection. That is the whole reason we have 6-year terms. 
If I had my will, I could be King for a day and write some 
constitutional amendments and pass them. I would have a single 12-year 
Senate term, and everybody would be out of here. It is a little bit 
longer than 6 years, but one term, no reelection, and get back to life, 
go back to serving in your community.
  If you get rid of the filibuster, you will turn the Senate into the 
House, and you will ensure that this body, too, ends up consumed by 
demagogues, conspiracists, and clowns. That is what will happen in this 
body. The American people don't have time for that crap. Nobody wants 
that.
  Americans don't want one-party rule, by the Democrats or by the 
Republicans. Both of these parties are really crappy. The American 
people are not fans of these political parties.
  Getting rid of the filibuster means you don't have to try to talk to 
people on the other side of the aisle and get to a 60-vote threshold 
for legislation or a 67-vote threshold for rules changes. It means that 
one of these two terrible parties gets to do a lot more stuff a lot 
faster that will inevitably be incredibly unpopular with the American 
people.
  The American people do not want revolution. They do not want 
fundamental change. What they want is competence. What they want is 
more honesty. What they want is less performative grandstanding.
  Institutions like the Senate provide frameworks and processes for 
competent, responsible self-government, for more honesty. We are not 
living up to it right now, but we could live down to something worse, 
and ending the filibuster would accelerate that. It would accelerate 
tribalism. It would accelerate people following Senators into 
bathrooms, screaming at them, trying to bully them. It will not lead to 
more productive, compromise legislation that tries to bring along a 
larger share of the American public.
  The rules and the norms of this place have been built up over a very 
long time, and they exist to discourage demagoguery. Putting cameras in 
every room we are in around here tries to undermine so much of what the 
Senate is about. I am for lots of transparency. I am for pen-and-pad 
reporters everywhere. But the cameras we have put in this place have 
encouraged so much demagoguery. That is so much of the problem of why 
we have so much tribalism here and tribalism more broadly in the 
country.
  And if you eliminate the filibuster, you accelerate all those most 
destructive, short-term performative trends. You encourage more rank 
partisanship, and you discourage consensus, compromise, and 
collaboration.
  Friends, please do not--like the President did in Georgia this week--
surrender to the angriest voices on social media in the mistaken belief 
that they reflect the majority of America. They don't. They reflect the 
majority of Twitter.
  Political Twitter is like the ninth most popular topic on Twitter. K-
pop music is exponentially more popular on Twitter than politics. The 
share of Americans paying attention to political Twitter bounces around 
between one-tenth and one-sixth. And something like 80 percent of all 
political tweets come from under 2 percent of the public. We should 
remind ourselves of that again, and again, and again, because there are 
people here who regularly mistake Twitter with reality and with the 
American public. We are called to serve the American public. We are not 
called to serve rage-addicted people on social media.
  Now, perhaps more than ever, it is our job to stop giving ear to 
political arsonists who would burn down our institutions and intensify 
our divisions. Now is the time for us to think together over the long-
term how we renew those institutions.
  The filibuster is a part of what can lead us to broader consensus, 
and eliminating the filibuster will accelerate the political arson 
around this place and across our land.
  Senate, we can do better.

                          ____________________