our new mobile video app. c-span now, access top highlights and listen to c-span radio and discover new podcasts free. download c-span now today. ♪♪ ♪♪ >> on this thursday morning we take you live now to the u.s. capitol where today senate lawmakers are expect today consider legislation that would tank businesses and people involved in the planning, building and operation of

russia's nord stream two gas line to europe and it's possible this week that senate could vote on changing rules to prevent voting rights legislation to be filibustered. live coverage of the senate here on c-span2. the president pro tempore: the senate will come to order. the chaplain, dr. barry black, will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. mighty god, our strong fortress, we worship you for your mercies are new each day. lord, you keep us safe, protecting us with the shield of your divine blessings. continue to bless our lawmakers. give them the wisdom to call for

your help and receive your deliverance from trouble. dispel the shadows that surround them with your define light. lord, take hold of their future, doing for them this day and always more than they can ask or imagine. we pray in your merciful name. amen. the president pro tempore: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

the president pro tempore: under the previous order, leadership time is reserved.

the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

and as we've all tried to explain why, it is important and what the role thead filibuster government. i think it's perhaps best described as a mechanism -- remarks, i see my dear friend, the president, sitting there, the senator from nevada. i'm thinking last night, a wes watched harry reid -- as we watched harry reid leave the senate for the final time, and

harry, we miss you, but we know you're still here to guide us. thank you. okay, on defending democracy. something -- excuse me. on defending democracy, something leader reid would have been passionate about, if he were still with us here, and he's telling us that now, over the next few days the united states senate will face a critical and unavoidable question -- are its members going to act to protect our democracy and protect voting rights, or will its members choose the path of obstruction, inaction, and side with the big lie overtaking our precious experiment in self-rule? we had two professors come to us two days ago, the authors of "how democracies die" and one of

the main ways that democracies die is when one political party refuses to accept the results of an election that was run freely and fairly. that's what's happening here. they showed how important this is and how there is unfortunate historical precedence -- precedent in doing what we did. and earlier this week president biden made that clear. he made clear to the nation and to all of us who serve in the senate that the time to answer the question about whether allowing the big lie, so ruinous to a democracy to overtake our precious experiment in self-rule, will prevail. as the senate has done many times in its history, it must soon act again to safeguard democracy from the dangers of the present day, the power of dark money, voter suppression, and efforts to subvert the democratic process from the bottom up. i commend president biden for offering a strong speech, and i look forward to having him join

senate democrats later today at our caucus meeting to discuss the path forward. yesterday, i shared with my democratic colleagues our plan for what the next few days are going to look like in this chamber and how i, as majority leader, will move to finally begin, at last, a floor debate on the voting rights legislation. later today, the house of representatives will pass a message that will include the language of the two bills republicans have filibustered for months, the freedom to vote act and the john lewis voting rights advancement act. as permitted under the existing rules, we will have the ability to proceed to the legislation and debate it on a simple majority basis, something that's been denied to us four times in the last several months because republicans didn't want to move forward. then the senate will finally hold a debate on the voting rights legislation for the first time in this congress, and every

senator will be faced with the choice of whether or not to pass this legislation to protect our democracy. there's been a lot of gaslighting here on the floor lately from the other side, about power grabs, about takeovers, but precious little in terms of substance. i've not heard the mention -- them mention what republican legislatures are doing. that's not the thrust of their speech. they say oh, it's a power grab, oh, it's a takeover. well, my friends, if there was ever a power grab it's what's happening in the state legislatures right now, where republican legislators are taking away people's sacred right to vote, and aiming it particularly at certain groups, people of color, young people, people in urban areas, older people, disabled people. so let me remind my colleagues what these bills actually do.

the freedom to vote act and the john lewis voting rights advancement act are balances, effective and common sense bills that build on the work that this chamber has done in the past to protect democracy, and it was often done with bipartisan votes, the transformation of the republican party in the era of donald trump is apparent and nasty, and most importantly real dangerous to our democracy. the basic standards, they set these laws, set basic standards for all american citizens to vote safely and vote securely while protecting leaxz from -- elections from attempts at subversion. what is wrong with that? how is that a power grab, to allow people to vote? it's the people who should have the power, not politicians in state legislative bodies to take it away. the bill also fights against the power of big money that has cascaded into our system, and so

much of it now being used to try and intimidate legislators, senators, congressmen, from preserving this right to vote. and the bill ends partisan gerrymandering. we've all seen situations, the legislature of wisconsin, the state assembly, where 53% of the people voted for democratic legislators in 2020, but only about a third of the seats are democratic due to the severe nature of this gerrymandering. and, so importantly, these bills restore the critical preclearance provisions that were once part of the voting rights act that many of my republican colleagues supported in the past, which a conservative majority on the supreme court shamefully gutted roughly a decade ago. democrats have tried for months, months, to convince our republican colleagues to join us on a bipartisan basis to begin

debate on these bills. to no avail. we presented these reasonable, common sense proposals, as i said, many of which had been voted upon, voted on by republicans in the past. we presented them on the floor in june, august, october, and november. each time i promised my republican colleagues they'd have the opportunity to voice their concerns and offer germane amendments. i wouldn't limit the amendments, the germane amendments that they wished to offer. we have lobbied republicans privately and tried to engage them in both the senate rules committee and the senate judiciary committee. every step of the way, every step of the way we have been met with near total resistance. to date none of our efforts have produced any meaningful engagements from the other side of the aisle. but, madam president, members of this chamber were elected to

debate and to vote, particularly on an issue as vital to the beating heart of our democracy as this. i have said for months that just because republicans have refused to work with us to protect voting rights does not mean democrats would stop working to move forward on our own. the matter is simply too important. it is the well spring of our democracy, the right by which all other rights are secured -- voting. i'm reading the biography of grant, by chernow. the number one thing the southern segregationists, who happened to be democrats at the time, wanted to take away from the newly freed slaves was the right to vote. they knew that if black people didn't have the right to vote in the south, they'd have no power, no power over our laws, no power over where resources go, no power to decide the directions of the country. and that was the number one

thing they wanted to prevent. so, it's so vital to keep people's right to vote, particularly when some of the laws, too many, are aimed at the people of color, reminding us that racism is a poison of america still. so, we will move forward. the path i have laid out sets up a process by which senators can finally make clear to the american people where they stand on protecting our democracy. republicans will have a chance to show where they stand on preserving the right of every eligible citizen to cast a ballot. republicans will have a chance to make clear where they stand on fighting efforts to empower partisan actors to subvert the election process and create more big lies in the future. republicans will have a chance to make clear where they stand on fighting the power of dark money, which so many americans oppose, democrats and republicans. and republicans will have a

chance to show where they stand on ending partisan gerrymandering. of course, to ultimately end debate and pass anything we will also need ten republicans to join us ultimately on cloture. if they don't, we will be left with no choice but to consider changes to senate rules so we can move forward, and changing senate rules has been done many times before in this chamber. this is not the first, second, or third time that this is happening. all of us must make a choice about whether or not we will do our part to preserve our democratic republic in this day and age. we cannot be satisfied in thinking that democracy will win out in the end if we're not willing to put in the work, strength, and courage to defend it. last night, i read the op-ed published by president obama that eloquently laid out what really is at stake here.

i encourage my colleagues to read it, if they haven't already. he reminded us that democracy is not a given, it is not self-executing, but it can indeed survive and thrive if we're prepared to follow in the footsteps of the great americans who did their part to defend democracy before us. many of them giving their lives. we are now being called upon to do our part, and i now ask unanimous consent that the obama op-ed, which i will bring to the desk shortly, be placed in the record. the president pro tempore: without objection. mr. schumer: finally, as we continue this important conversation about the future of our democracy, i ask my democrat colleagues to consider the following -- if the right to vote is the cornerstone of our democracy, then how can we in good conscience allow for a situation in which the republican party can debate and

pass suppression -- voter suppression laws at the state level with only a simple majority vote, but not allow the united states senate to do the same. let me repeat that. if the right to vote is the cornerstone of our democracy, then how can we in good conscience allow for a situation in which the republican party can debate and pass voter suppression laws at the state level with only a simple majority vote, but not allow the united states senate to do the same? in the coming days we will confront this sobering question. i yield the floor. note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call: mr. mcconnell: madam president? the presiding officer: the republican leader. mr. mcconnell: i ask consent that further proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: a recent survey asked americans for their view of the most important problems facing our country. of course we know what washington democrats view as their top priority. president biden, senate democrats have been shouting, actually shouting at the american people that an evil,

racist, antivoting conspiracy will destroy democracy forever unless democrats get total one-party control of the entire government starting next week. but are the american people buying any of it? is this what working families want prioritized? so let's take a look. in a recent survey, gallop asked citizens for their priorities, what they felt we ought to be doing. do you know what share of americans said of election law? less than one half of 1%. one-half of 1%. nobody in this country is buying the fake hysteria that democracy will die unless democrats get total control. here's what people do care about. the top response at 21% was poor

government leadership. about a year into the biden administration, the american people's single greatest concern is bad leadership. and when you dig into the other issues, you can see why. some of the next largest concerns were either general economic problems or inflation and rising costs in particular. and no wonder. no wonder. new figures just yesterday show our country continues to experience the worst inflation in 40 years, 40 years. gas prices are nearly a dollar higher than a year ago. grocery prices are up 6.5%. and across the economy inflation has exceeded 5% every month for seven straight months. there's no working family that's not been hurt directly by this.

another huge chunk of americans said their chief worry is the coronavirus. certainly no surprise there. a year into the administration that promised it would shut down the virus, well, would do we have? record setting new cases, shortages of testing, shortages of important treatments in part because the biden administration's decisions. we have reports of multiple states potentially limiting or excluding patients from lifesaving treatments on the basis -- believe it or not -- of their ethnicity. and still two years into this, notwithstanding abundant vaccines and a milder variant, we have big labor bosses in big cities permitted to lock vulnerable kids out of the classroom. oh, and when kids are in the

classroom, the department of education and the department of justice tried to persecute concerned parents who dare ask what their kids are learning. so, madam president, these are just a few examples of real problems. these are the kinds of places where the american people need this dramatically unpopular administration to entirely refocus. yesterday a new poll indicated that 33% of americans approve of the president, 33%. when he was inaugurated and pledging to govern for all americans, to heal and unite the country, this white house enjoyed impressive approval ratings. but as the far left has been handed the reins, the support has cratered. now, there's a path forward for my democratic colleagues to respond to the country they have

so badly disappointed. but it isn't to try to break the senate and rewrite election laws. it's to actually start tackling the issues that american families need tackled. now, there are also countless other issues which may not make national headlines but matter hugely to those who are affected. for example, next week i'll again travel to western kentucky to visit some of the areas hit hardest by last month's devastating tornado outbreak. the national news cameras may have left, but families in this part of the commonwealth are still trying to pick up the pieces of their lives after losing homes, businesses, and loved ones. i'm profoundly grateful to everyone contributing to the recovery process. our utility workers are taking on the herculean task of restoring public services.

the kentucky national guard has played a crucial role in distributing supplies. private individuals have donated food, clothing, and blood. the kentucky general assembly just approved a state-funded relief package and kentucky's entire federal delegation joined together to advocate directly for increased federal aid. this is going to be a long process. it will require consistent support on the local, state, and federal levels. rebuilding will take literally months and years, not days and weeks. well, i'll be with those communities every step of the way. finally, beyond our shores, there remains no shortage of forces who wish to harm america and our interests. senators will vote today on a measure to impose sanctions on nord stream 2. we can send a strong warning to putin that he won't be allowed

to use energy as a weapon. we can signal strong support for eastern and central european partners who long opposed putin's pipeline. even democratic senators who now oppose the sanctions they used to support acknowledge the pipeline is, quote, a tool of malign influence of the russian federation. really the government of germany should have shelved this project itself a long time ago. berlin can still make the right call. these sanctions like the prior nord stream 2 sanctions that had overwhelming bipartisan support here in congress are not about driving a wedge in europe. the pipeline itself is the wedge. that's the whole point. that's been putin's goal, decoupling ukraine from europe and making europe even more

reliant on russian gas. so for senators who seem more concerned about standing with berlin, this bill includes a waiver, we expect president biden would actually exercise the waiver. but a clear bipartisan message would still be sent just like when 98 senators vote to enact caf -- just like they signed off on the previous bill to sanction nord stream 2 and the 2020 ndaa. so i hope each of our colleagues will support senator cruz' measure. the senate must show we are focused on real life threats to democracy, to security, and to our friends. as we speak russia is literally preparing to escalate its military assault on ukraine. it has amassed more than a hundred thousand troops on ukraine's border. deterring russian aggression and

preparing for the very real threat of a major war on the european continent will take far more than these sanctions. it will take urgency and seriousness from the administration. time is of the essence. our delays in getting emergency assistance to ukraine approved do not inspire much confidence. the administration cannot move at the speed of bureaucracy. that won't cut it. humanitarian and military support to ukraine cannot wait. reinforcing american and nato positions in europe cannot wait. we must not pull our punches out of some fear of provoking putin. what will encourage putin is if he senses american weakness. ukraine and our eastern flank nato allies deserve our support. they're on the front lines of a

much broader war than russia and china are conducting against the democratic internal order itself. this order helps america. it benefits our national interests, and it benefits our allies. but it's not growing to enforce itself. -- it's not going to enforce itself. it will not defend itself. and our allies will not act if america fails to lead. our nation's contest with china and russia is the biggest challenge we face. it will entail significant risk and perhaps, god forbid, serious sacrifice. meeting these challenges and preventing the worst will take the kind of unity and bipartisanship that president biden promised. not the outrageous, outrageous and divisive partisanship he has embraced.

the presiding officer: morning business is closed. under the previous order, the senate will proceed to the consideration of s. 3436 which the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar number 231, s. 3436, a bill to require the imposition of sanctions with respect to entities responsible for the planning, construction, or operation of the nord stream 2 pipeline and so forth and for other purposes. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from new hampshire. mrs. shaheen: madam president, i come to the floor today to speak in opposition to senate bill 3436 which is the nord stream 2 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 long-standing 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're 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' bill would do is not stop nord stream 2. it would undermine the current diplomatic situation that is absolutely critical if we're going to respond to the russian threat. his bill is a vote supporting -- supporting his bill would be a vote to compromise transatlantic unity. 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% 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 four years. so what we saw is what i just said, that 95% 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 responsibility against russia. we have strengthened our relationship with our german allies. the biden administration has restored a diplomacy first foreign policy which statistics to advance policy interest through dialogue and not threats. and there is a new german coalition government in place that we are now engaging with. it's a government that has -- 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's very clear that the dime nammics have changed -- dynamics have changed. when the dynamics change on the ground, then our approach and foreign policy should reflect those changes. we can't look at this legislation in isolation. this legislation that senator cruz is proposing that we're 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 derrorral integrity. -- territorial integrity. russia has amassed 100,000 troops on ukraine's border and of course the next month or so are really going to be critical in changing putin's calculation that any invasion would come with a hefty price.

and nord stream 2, right now, presents a potential incentive for putin to use against our european partners. but it's also leverage. it's leverage that the west can use at a pivotal moment as russia's thinking about -- vladimir putin is thinking about what he's 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's dynamic and it demands that we adapt 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 military support to our ukrainian allies and strengthen support to our eastern european allies if putin -- in putin's attempt to look backwards instead of forward. we will not give putin and russia the ability on who joins nato. 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 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. and, 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. 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. thank you, madam president. i yield the floor and look forward to hearing senator murphy's comments because i know he shares the same concerns that i'm expressing. mr. murphy: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. murphy: thank you very much, madam president.

first and foremost, let me thank senator shaheen, she has been a leader in the senate and in our caucus about raising alarms about nord stream 2 to drainian security -- ukrainian security and i am so glad to work with her and i'm here to join her in our opposition to the legislation that is pending on the floor as we speak. if this bill passes, it won't make the nord stream 2 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 2 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'll 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's no amount of u.s. sanction that can be effective here. what we know is even if you were to sanction this german-swiss company, 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 the floor and said 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 negotiation with germany, why pass the bill in the first place? so many republicans are supporting the cruz bill but then ask the biden administration not to implement it. that does not 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 the only way to stop nord stream 2 is by convincing 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 the regulatory agencies, they have stopped building the pipeline which was built -- it was 95% built when president trump left office. it is now 100% built. but the germans have, because of american diplomacy and because of the threat of ukraine from russia, pressed pause on its 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 that they say yes is the minute that the united states senate decides to sanction german citizens.

that's bad diplomacy. it's just bad diplomacy. and it's a moment at which we have to be in lockstep with our european partners. we need to send a message to vladimir putin that the united states and europe are together and 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's 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% of this body that enacts a set of sanctions on russia if russia moves any further into ukraine, beyond where they are already in eastern ukraine and crimea. that sends the right signal.

that's 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've 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've seen that repeated in the press. and it just isn't true. 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 that they were permanent, -- 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. and during all of 2020 while the russians were retrofitting these ships and sending them back to danish waters, while the permitting was happening, donald trump didn't per mit one -- permit one sanctions, 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 and president trump did nothing and he paid no

consequence for it. 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 company and the company that owned the ship, but by this time 95% of the pipeline was finished and then he

begrudgingly hands the keys over to joe biden and leaves the incoming president with a mess, a pipeline 95% built that donald trump could have stopped if he had used the sanctions that 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's a democrat in the white house. this bill isn't going to help ukraine. it's designed to hurt the president of the united states, and, unfortunately, some -- 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 the crisis somewhere around the world when it develops and that that failure may hurt joe biden's approval rating. unfortunately, i think that's what's going on here. unfortunately i think that's what's going on here, and i hope that my colleagues see it. mrs. shaheen: mr. president. mr. murphy: i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from new hampshire. mrs. shaheen: will my colleague yield for a question? mr. murphy: i would. mrs. shaheen: senator murphy, i'm really pleased -- sadly pleased, but i think it's really appropriate that you brought up the issue about holding state department nominees because one of the things that has 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 points out, during during -- as you point out, during all of the trump administration, senator cruz did not hold one nominee because of north stream 2. is that your understanding? mr. murphy: that's 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 thats that been used during 2020, which is extraordinary, the holding of all nominees. i think i'd add to that that democratic senators have not used that tactic, right? 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, the moment when those sanctions would have been most effective. but we didn't block all of president trump's ambassadors we thought that it was better to have those people on hand working to protect us interests than it was to have those positions vacant.

acted. so i think it's really important, as you say, to point out that 95% 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, and 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's important. december 2019, congress passes the sanctioning bill that you and senator cruz championed. that stops 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 2020 those ships are on their way. from may until october, they're caught up in permitting, but it's just a matter of time. everybody knows those ships are eventually going to start laying down pipe. by october 2020, before joe biden is elected president, those ships are back doing construction. 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% of the pipeline, somewhere around 95% 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, and all through 2ough 2020 no blockf state department nominees, no grinding to the 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% of the pipeline is done. i hope, senate shaheen, i'll let you wrap up, i hope 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've led that effort. i think senator menendez's legislation, which is all about the right set of incentives and disincentives for russia, for

russian behavior, is perhaps the means that we can sort of elevate this above the question of who's president, and get back to fighting for the interests of our nation and the interests of our partners in ukraine. mrs. shaheen: thank you, senator murphy, i couldn't say it any better. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: note the absence of a quorum. the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. thune: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from south dakota. mr. thune: mr. president, is the

senate in a quorum call? the presiding officer: yes, it is. mr. thune: mr. president, i i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection. troip just a quick -- troip mr. president, just a quick observation or two about what my colleagues from new hampshire and connecticut were talking about, the issue of the north stream 2 pipeline. i intend to talk about another subject, but listening to their dialogue 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 united states senate. and i would say to my colleagues on the democrat 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's been advocating on the norm stream 2 pipeline for years. and in fact, there were sanctions put in place during the previous administration, which i think had been quite effective, and 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. he didn't have to hold nominees in the last administration because they allowed for a vote. in this administration, that's not been the case, and he's been trying for literally weeks and months, and i happened to be here to the wee hours of the morning a few weeks ago on 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 nominees, state department nominees. so i think he has, in this case, played fairly, played by the rules in the senate and exercised the leverage that he has as a united states senator to ensure that he got a vote on a issue critically important, not only to him, i would say to this entire body, but to our country and certainly to our allies in that region. one final point i'll make, everybody was as they were talking about this, saying well, all of a sudden, this issue has become a relevant one. well, it's 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's come to a head is because last year, or not last year but two years ago, the previous administration, and 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 alleges to it for a long time ago, but one thing that intensified that attention is the fact that the russians now had tens of thousands of troops on ukraine's border. that is a new issue, and an issue i think demands 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, very important that a strong message be sent, and i'm not sure why you would wait until after the russians cross into the border and occupy ukraine before you do something that might deter that kind of bad behavior. and i think the reason they've amassed the troops they have on the ukrainian boarder is because they perceive a change in 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 that 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, and i think with respect to why this issue is now particularly relevant in light of our national security interests, it 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, in that region in particular faces considerable parable because of the neighborhood -- peril because of the neighborhood in which they live. i would hope this afternoon when this nord stream 2 vote comes up it will enjoy broad bipartisan support, recognizing the value and the importance of the message that it sends, and also

i might add, because it was also pointed out by the two that's who were just here, that this is something that ukrainian government is asking us to do. they suggested this was something that isn't desired or wanted, in fact, it is. many of us participated in a conference call on christmas eve, with president zielinski at which he voiced support for this and i think he and his country, his government and his people, realize that 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 are particular issue. so i hope 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. 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% in december, the seventh straight month inflation has been over 5%. today we discovered that year over year inflation for domestically produced gootdz increased -- goods increased more, by a massive 9 about .7%. americans struggle under fuel and utility prices, and the list goes on. despite wage increases, american families experienced a de facto pay cut with their purchasing power shrinking thanks to inflation. there's apparently no end in sight. mr. president, given the real economic harm that american families are suffering as a result of this crisis, you would think that the issue would be

front and center here in washington for democrats. but you'd 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're too focused on their manufactured voting rights crisis. earlier this week president biden traveled to georgia, which has become democrats' poster child for the supposed assault on voting rights, to deliver a speech to gin up support for 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 manned to -- 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 habits of falsely claiming that he had been arrested in various situations. and 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's what he had to say -- here's what the voting rights crisis in this country amounts to. first, according to the president, georgia is making is harder to vote by mail. now, i'm guessing he might be referring to the provision of the georgia law that asked voters to write in their driver's license number on their absentee ballot. given that almost every american in this country has a driver's license or some form of photo i.d., i've got to say it doesn't seem like an unduly burdensome requirement. after all, new york city and washington, d.c. are now requiring you to present a photo i.d. and proof that you've been vaccinated before you can enter any restaurant or public place and liberals seem okay 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, the truth is, mr. president, 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. 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, 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 nine days of early voting in contrast to georgia's 17. and new york, state of new york on their ballot recently rejected a ballot measure to allow no excuse absentee voting. so no absentee or no excuse

absentee voting, not allowed in new york. allowed in georgia. nine days early voting in new york. 17 in georgia. and yet somehow the president hasn't yet visited delaware or new york toll accuse them of making it difficult for citizens to vote. i'll 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 perhaps to 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'm going to quote directly from the president's speech. the new georgia law actually makes it illegal -- think of this, i mean, it's 2020 and now 2022, 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 not what it looks like. that's what it looks like, i should say when they suppress the right to vote, end quote. that's 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, mr. president, comparison and contrast, 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. state of new york. state of new york. but people are blowing a gasket over this provision in georgia law, very provision state of new york has in law today. and i would argue most states, mr. president, you can't go within certain number of feet of a voting place if you're a political operative or a political organization. i mean, that's true in our state. i'm sure it's true in a lot of states around the country. and the ail 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 until their hearts' content. 150 feet. that's 50 yards. and of course georgia's law explicitly allows nonpartisan poll workers to make water available to voters. so election worker, somebody's involved with the actual vote itself, can deliver water to voters. they're waiting in line. it just prevents political operatives and political organizations from doing that, mr. president. a law that again is consistent with laws throughout the country, including, including the state of new york. but i suppose it's typical of nanny state democrats to think americans are incapable of packing themselves a snack.

mr. president, i'm pretty sure, pretty sure i've never seen a weaker case for a crisis. take a look at democrats' supposed evidence and their case crumbles to dust which is of course raises the question of what is behind democrats' manufactured crisis. and unfortunately i think we know the answer. democrats have manufactured this 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 admit that democrats want to pass a federal election takeover because they think it will help their party win elections. mr. president, 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, democrats have reason to be scared about their 2022 electoral prospects. but instead of addressing the inflation crisis they helped create or perhaps moving their agenda from the far left closer to the center, 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 long-standing protections for the minority in the senate and the millions upon millions of americans that the senate minority represents will be swept away in the name of

perhaps improving democrats' electoral prospects, although i have to say, mr. president, in "the washington post" fact 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 earlier -- or last year about this georgia election law. they went on to say that the analysts who have looked at this, a lot of analysis has been done by so-called election experts, think that it will expand, expand the opportunity for people in georgia to vote. well, all of this is disheartening to say the least. because i think we all know that if you're 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 to in 2017 the republicans retaliating, following suit with supreme court justices. and 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're not going to be able to blame republicans because once the rules are gone, the rules are gone. and then we become the house of representatives, a totally

majoritarian body, with longer terms. that's not what the founders intended, mr. president. this place is here for a reason. it's 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'm hopeful that there are still some democrats with doubts about this course of action, enough perhaps to block their leadership's partisan push. mr. president, 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's becoming nothing more than a president for the far left wing of the democrat party. in less than a year, he's gone

from promising unity to sowing division. it's a sad epithet to a presidency that has barely begun. mr. president, i yield the floor and i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cruz: i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cruz: mr. president, the eyes of history are upon us.

today each of us will be faced with a momentous question. can we puppety differences aside -- 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 nation 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's wanted to invade ukraine for years. and 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, as we've heard from republicans and from democrats, literally hundreds of times over the past years, on this floor, in committees and briefings, nord stream 2 was designed to circumvent ukraine. it's 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 in energy pipelines. in 20, congress passed pisa, which strengthens 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 after 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, nord stream 2 is, quote, no less an existential threat to uukraine's security and democracy -- to ukraine's security and democracy than russian troops on our border. that's the prime minister of ukraine begging this body, the united states senate, to help them. just this week a public letter from leaders in ukrainian civil society said -- and i want to quote this at length. they said, quote, 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 buildup had been accompanied by increasingly 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 revisedment, end quote. -- revised, end quote. mr. president, 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've heard again and again is that imposing sanctions on nord stream 2a.g., the gazprom cutout that owns

nord stream 2, would shatter european unity. that's an argument that's being repeated by the white house repeatedly, that this is all about trans-atlantic unity. we should give putin this pipeline because of trans-atlantic unity. mr. president, 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 581-50. 581-50. mr. president, if you care about trans-atlantic 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 trans-atlantic

unity. i don't know how you stand up and make that argument with a straight face. 581-50. in august of 2021, the chairs of the foreign affairs committee 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. mr. president, are those countries europe? do we care about trans-atlantic 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, quote, security crisis for europe. they told us then -- ukraine and poland both told us then as a result of waiving sanctions, we're going to see russian troops. they were right. it's almost as if they understand their neighbor. it's almost as if they understand putin's desire to reassemble the soviet union. it's 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 mean european unity, they really mean unity with germany. indeed, i've heard members on this floor say, listen, i'm just not prepared to sanction germany. mr. president, this bill doesn't sanction germany, doesn't sanction the german government, doesn't sanction a german company. it sanctions nord stream 2 a.g., which is wholly controlled by gazprom. this is sanctions a russian cutout because this pipeline is a tool for putin's aggression in europe. and even when this comes to unity in germany, what they really mean is unity with angela merkel. and i'll 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 to the polls and they voted her party out of office. so one would think from the united states, to the extent we're 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've condemned nord stream 2, and they're 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're not willing to $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 that has tanks on the border of ukraine and he's preparing to invade. another argument that we will hear is that sanctions should be kept in our pocket. we should reserve them for use later in the case of a russian invasion. now, i would note this is not what our ukrainian allies advocate. and i am troubled believing anyone in this chamber actually takes this argument seriously. nor should they. putin doesn't. putin believes that once you brings nord stream 2 online, he will -- and once he's changed the region through invasion, that no one will have the will to impose sanctions. and i would note, he's 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'll stop the pipeline. they beat their chest with that promise. they were quite bold about it. i've had some members of the senate say, well, we've got really strong promises from germany now. what's 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's not hiding it. he's 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 if the biden white house was unwilling to impose sanctions when putin immediately triggered what they said was their red line, in what universe will 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 european pipeline is shut down, becomes the only viable sort of heat. you really think they're going to have greater courage then than they have had so far? nobody does. putin doesn't.

and it's important to understand, 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, it would do the latter. it would impose sanctions after an invasion is complete. i do not believe putin believes those sanctions would ever be imposed. i can tell you ukrainian president zelensky has specifically addressed this issue. here's what he said. quote, only if the sanctions are applied prior to the armed conflict would they become a prevention mechanism for any possible escalation. that's 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. number one, 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, at the expense of u.s. national security. on the merits, mr. president, 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, are 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. i have to say my colleagues senator 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. and 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, mr. president, i recognize in politics sometimes heat of the moment, you say things you don't entirely think through them. but even in the ana ls of bad arguments, that is a singularly absurd argument. it's true. i didn't hold the state department nominees over nord stream 2. it's 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 treasury department fought

mightily against it, and i was more than happy to battle my own party on this because this is 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's the other side. the argument i didn't hold nominees. why would i hold nominees? president trump signed the bill. i 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, 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 7:00 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. mr. president, do you know what date putin began building deep sea pipeline once again? january 24, 2021, four 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. there are lots of issues we're

going to disagree with on a partisan manner. that's find. we talk about tax rates, whether they should be high or low. we can have good, vigorous arguments about that. that's 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'm going to ask my democratic colleagues to do something hard, which is 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're making. that's 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 ten years in the united states senate, i've taken a lot of votes, mr. president. you've taken a lot of votes. there are very few votes, i think, are as consequential as the vote we're getting ready to take. if senate democrats put partisan loyalty above national security security, if they vote simply by party line, it will dramatically increase the chances of a violent russian invasion of ukraine. and 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 united states 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 us, and this body, republicans and democrats, should rise to the occasion. i yield the floor.

the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. durbin mr. president, earlier today --. mr. durbin: 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're 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, 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. 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's 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's a good thing. in a democracy, it's to be applauded. each year we should try to improve on that outcome. the second thing, though, we would have to be in the liability column, and that is a petulant former president who refused to even acknowledge that he lost the election, instead claims that he was abused and 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 corridor. unfortunately, some people are listening.

some 30% of american people agree with the president, 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 hand-picked attorney general to back him up. and so he resorted to sending a mob of his followers on january 6, 2021, storming 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'll never forget it. those who were here, i'm 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 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 of the lawmaking it more difficult. it doesn't sound too reprehensible on the 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 out 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, illinois, we vote in the park district. there's seldom a wait more than five minutes, and that is the average across america. but we know there are exceptions. we've 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. and the idea of perhaps giving someone a drink of water under those circumstances is now against the law in georgia, it's hard to imagine. that's 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's happening. it's 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'm about to say is true. that the 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 administrator, 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're going to do.

we're going to get this jab, this shot available to americans across the board, and we're going to spend the money to do it. it does no good to have a formula which 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. 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. 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 your state,

i'm sure new jersey is similar to illinois, but i've talked to a lot of restaurateurs 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's the reality of the bill that the republicans all, every single one voted against. so it's 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 in coming out of college and hearing about the voting rights act being debated right here on the floor of the united states senate, and as

i've said before on the floor -- and i won't belabor it -- i've time 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, georgia, has written a book called "one man, no vote." she flattered me and asked me to write the forward to the book, which i gladly did, and then read it and thought, what an incredible story it tells about us and america and the battle to win the vote. i remember -- i was young and fresh out of college and law school -- when martin luther king martin luther king came to the city of chicago. i remember it well because i was working on a political campaign and it made all the headlines.

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 jr.'s day of observance, which coming up next week, people have a tendency to think about that in gentle and positive terms, and it should be. but let's not forget the price he paid -- ultimately miss life -- to deliver that pledge to a divided america. 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

fighting 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's day will be a day of reflection, a chance to envoys in america what it -- 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 united states senate. each day we open the session of the senate by pledging allegiance to the flag. that's a good thing. i do it out of respect and gladly so. but we don't stand heroins pledge allegiance to the -- 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's changed over the years over

and over again. it is the best efforts of politicians in this chamber in their day to write a rule that establishes a minimum vote. and what does it mean to us? well, it means a lot. in a senate that's divided 50-50, 50 republicans, and 50 democrats, it means that there are measures which require 60 votes. that used to be a rare occurrence in this body that someone would invoke a filibuster. and yet now it's become virtually commonplace. if you just look at the last five or ten 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 one year vietnamed for 26 -- in one year we voted for 26 amendments. 26. that is what happens when you shut down debate, and that is what happens when you shut down options to the filibuster. something as fundamental as our constitutional authority to vote should be given a day for argument on the floor of the senate and should be subject to a vote -- a majority vote up or down. that's not too much to ask.

i'd 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's been properly used in its history. there are many enduring victories that 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 erupted barriers like poll taxes, literacy tests. when it comes to jim crow lurks it's easy to get caught up in distractions. you hear the phrase literacy test that was used even into the 1960's 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 them. draw a line around a number, a letter of this sentence. what the heck does that mean? 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 i mentioned earlier, tactics like literacy tests were, quote, 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 this senate, on a bipartisan basis, decided in the 1960's to outlaw this legislative sleight of hand. our predecessor didn't cave in to the disingenuous crisis of states' rights which we hear to this day on the republican side of the aisle. our predecessor 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 0 crow laws did in their day, republican state lawmakers are

erecting new barriers to the ballot box, latched onto the myth of, quote, widespread voter fraud. that's what the state legislators are saying. where could they have come up with that idea? is it possible it's a disgruntled former president with a bruised ego because he lost his effort for preelection in 2020? the laws they're passing in these states are not about preventing voter fraud. they're about preventing eligible americans from voting. the nurse work being back-to-back shifts on election day, the single parent that doesn't own a car, 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 in we certainly should. the new laws enacted in nearly-to-states will prevent our most vulnerable neighbors from accessing their right to vote. that's why we ought to look at the senate rules. it isn't just an 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 pow to meddle and interfere in election administration. some of the proposals we've seen can potentially allow partisans to overrule the ballots of the american people. over the next few days i suspect many of us will quote dr. king's speeches. my hope is we will take heed of the words he wrote in the birmingham jail. he responded to a bunch of white religious leaders who pleaded to him to slow down, wait a little longer. 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 the distinguished jurist 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, sirs, you can understand our legitimate and unavoidable patience. mr. president, the issue that we're debating on voting rights and the issue of our rules is not just a casual conversation about a rule book that hardly no one knows of. it's an issue that goes to it the heart of our democracy. to our pledge of allegiance to the flag, not to the filibuster. the issue is our republicans are afraid of this debate. traditionally, they played a key role in the passage of the voting rights act of the 1960's. in fact, percentage wise, there were more republican voters voting for that than democratic senators. and i is a that acknowledging that my democratic party in those days was not all together on the right side.

we've been told that we are break the senate if we change this rule to protect people's right to vote at at the heart of what the senate is and what it stands for is the right for americans to vote. is it worth a carve-out? is it worth a change? is it worth a modification. senate rules to protect the right to vote? can anything be more sacred? mr. president, i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from arizona. ms. sinema: thank you. for years america's politics have spiraled 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, 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 playbook at other americans who have different views and see the other or even see them as enemies instead of as fellow countrymen and women who share our core values. it's 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, in 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've 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 community. 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 underr -- underlying disease of division infecting our country. the debate over the 60-vote threshold shines a light on our broader challenges. there is no need for me to restate its role protecting our country from wild reversals and federal policy. it is a view i've 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,d.c., 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 judicial 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 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. no, it's 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' p diverse views and shared values are represented. but when one party need only negotiate with itself, policy will inextricably be pushed from the middle towards 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 traditional 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 this 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 fragment the america. this work is our shared responsibility as americans. i share the disappointment of many that we've 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 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 and 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 focus 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 united states 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 okay, they're normal. and honest disagreements matched with a willingness to listen and learn can help us forge sturdy and enduring solutions. 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've 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've ever faced, and 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.

thank you. the presiding officer: the senator from kentucky. mr. hagerty: -- mr. paul: i rise to speak about german businesses. proponents of sanctions says sanction this, sanction that. the department of treasury is currently administering dozens of sanctions, programs designed to change the behavior of certain countries. and, 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 u.s. began sanctions? has russia changed her behavior? has russia given back crimea? mr. president, could we have order on the floor, please? the presiding officer: will the senators please take their

conversations outside the chamber. the senator from kentucky. mr. paul: sanctions, though lacking in proof of effectiveness are popular with both parties, sanctions, big brother, garner enthusiasm. the u.s. embargo of cuba has gone on for more than 60 years without any evidence of a change in regime or regime policy. embargoes are often described as an act of war. many say that the u.s. is embargo of 1807 ultimately led to the war of 1812. thomas jefferson's embargo was to punish france and england, but instead it affected the u.s. exports. some blame the u.s. embargo of japan for the ensuing war. japan lost access to much of its

international trade and over 80% of its imported oil. effectively, at least from the perspective of japan, the embargo was an action of law. sanction to the international sanctions against iran that brought about the nuclear agreement with iran. perhaps, but an equally valid argument could be made that carrots, rather than sticks that brought iran to the table. diplomacy requires give and take, not just take, take, take. we need to look at the sanctions on the nord stream 2 pipeline with it between. 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. sports 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's about protectionism. acknowledging that this debate sl only superficially about national security and really more about provincial protectionism helps us better understand the dynamics. history demonstrates that trade and inner connectness is a barier to work. en -- commerce is the combination that best promises peace. over the past decade, congress and presidents have heaped sanctions on russia and china. when i've asked the state department officials who have come before our committee to

talk about what behavioral changes have come about because of sanctions, i often get blank stares. the senate and house overwhelmingly passed sanctions and they still completed the pipeline. but what behavior are they now asking russia to change? what specifically is russia been asked to do? what russian action is necessary for these sanctions to end? i've asked the sponsor of this pill, -- bill, the sanctions you want, what do you want from russia? the spobs is they don't want any behave -- the response is they don't want any behavioral changes, they just want russia to stop shipping oil to germany. it is about producing gas and

nothing to do with national security. if it was really about 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 u.s. and germany did just that. the u.s. 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 u.s. together. that has power. our little pin prick sanctions saying we don't like you and we're 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. 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 shooting the hostage before you get what you want. we should threaten sanctions. the threat of sanctions has -- 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 russia -- i mean between germany and the u.s. from the agreement says the commitment is designed to ensure russia will not misuse any pipeline, including in other nord stream o achieve political ends or they will be met with sanctions. this could be a deterrent. more countries that got together to say this, international

communities could have an effects. this against one country will have no effect. the rush to impose sanctions now undermines the threat of sanctions to deter russian aggression against ukraine. you put the sanctions on now and offer 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 intended. as today's debate unfolds, i think you will find that sanctions against nord stream 2 are more about mer america ka -- has less to do with national security. thank you.

the presiding officer: the senator from wyoming. mr. barrasso: thank you, mr. president. first, i ask unanimous consent that i be able to speak for up to five minutes, followed by senator sullivan, who is on the floor, for 15 minutes and then to senator sasse, seven minutes before the scheduled recess. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. barrasso: thank you. i hope everyone in this body listened to senator sinema's important speech about the filibuster. i appreciated her clear-eyed rationale and to find common ground in this chamber. and i thank her, mr. president. mr. president, i also come to the floor today to support the sanctions on vladimir putin 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 the ukraine and the prime minister of the ukraine endorsed this legislation. the prime minister said the following. he said nord stream 2 is no less an existential threat to our security and democracy than russian troops on our border. he said senators shouldn't vote to protect russia and nord stream 2. he said this is a security matter not only for ukraine but for the entire region. believe the prime minister of ukraine is exactly right. the nord stream 2 gas pipeline is being built by gasprom, it is the national state-owned gas company. it would double the amount of gas going to germany via the baltic sea. this pipeline is an existential threat to our ally ukraine. it's a threat to our allies in europe as well.

right now vladimir putin has mobilized 100,000 troops on the border of ukraine. now, 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. 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. vladimir putin uses energy as a geopolitical energy. he uses energy to coerce our allies and our partners in europe. stopping this pipeline should be an area of bipartisan agreement. in fact, mr. president, it was an area of bipartisan agreement in this very body until joe biden became president.

many democrats in this 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 sanction 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 if you give putin what he wants, then he's going to play nice. that's 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, a 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's time now, mr. president, for this body to stand up, stand up against russia. it is time to sanction this pipeline. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. mr. sullivan: mr. president.

the presiding officer: the senator from alaska. mr. sullivan: thank you, mr. president. i want to commend my colleague, mr. barrasso, a leader on so many of these issues. senator cruz on this bill, this important piece of legislation we'll vote on here in a couple hours. mr. president, 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. i want to provide a little broader context to that bipartisan strategy, mr. president, and put this debate and vote that we're having here today into that context. the united states commitment to european security, as we all know, is ironclad. we fought two world wars, 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. well, mr. president, 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's 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's 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 election of pro-western one, russia did what they normally do, they cut off gas to that country. and mr. president, it's 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 e.u. countries with regard to those cutoffs. and it's happening even today. just yesterday, mr. president, the head of the international energy agency in paris said that russia is already, right now strategic strategically limiting natural gas to europe during this very cold winter to

pressure european nations not to support ukraine as the russians as -- amass tens of thousands of troops on their border as we speak. for these reasons, mr. president, it has been the long-standing bipartisan american policy to do two things as it relates to energy security. first, we have sought, dating back to the 1980's, to block implementation of major pipelines from russia, from then the 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 b.t.c. 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. mr. president, some of these, some of the diplomacy here on these pipelines started with the clinton administration, who 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, mr. president, 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're going to be voting on today, in the 2021 ndaa and in had the 2020 ndaa. very big, very bipartisan. another reason we were set up very well, mr. president, in terms of eurasian security that at the end of the trump administration we had achieved a long-standing 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. of 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're 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. we're going to get the gas from america. our exports of l.n.g., liquefied natural gas, surged, to asia and europe, to take care of this problem. this is a good thing. and mr. president, in terms of the environment and climate, u.s. l.n.g. exports to europe have a 41% lower emissions profile than russian gas and pipelines to europe. so it's good for the environment, climate, natural security, energy security. and here's another area -- this

big production of american energy was something that the people who know vladimir putin best new was one of the biggest things we could do. a couple years ago i was in a meeting with my colleague, who we miss very much here, senator mccain, and a russian dissident, very famous russian dissidents. and at the end of the meeting, i said, what more can we do to undermined the -- undermine the putin regime? mr. president, you know what he said to me? looked me in the eye, without hesitating, said, produce more american energy. that's the number one thing 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 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 border. where are we today on these key areas that i just mentioned? well, mr. president, we're 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. seems like president putin wants to undermine the very bipartisan goals we've had for decades -- american energy independence, and the united states as a world super power again.

think about what he's seeing. cancels pipelines, the keystone pipeline, canada and the 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. now we're importing two times as much oil from russia as a year ago. that's helping putin, hurting the united states. and mr. president, what about nord stream 2? where we looked so strong just in the past few years. with this body and a strong bipartisan way sanctioning that pipeline right there. well, president biden has green lighted it. but we don't have to. that's the point of this vote today. and again, this vote is not just about the current crisis in

ukraine. it's about countering a long-term -- it's 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's literally happening right now. just listen, as i mentioned, to the international energy agency's report yesterday on this topic. mr. president, to be honest, it's 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 welcome their conversion to a more hard line approach. but it always begs 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 interest? or was this conversion more of a temporary one, depending on who occupied the white house? i hope it's 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're making arguments to rationalize this new position, and i'd like to review briefly, mr. president, just a few of those. senator murphy's been down on the floor, the junior senator from connecticut, with a lot of these arguments. i respect him, thoughtful voice on foreign poll system i don't always agree with him, but he's

a serious voice on foreign policy. mr. president, his arguments on this issue right now are not very persuasive or powerful. here's the thing he's saying right now. this isn't about russia. now i'm quoting senator murphy. this is about, quote, a cruz-trump agenda to break up the atlantic alliance. cruz-trump agenda to break up the atlantic alliance. now look, he's clearly trying to make a bogeyman here, the so-called cruz-trump agenda. but mr. president, serious people who've been working on these issues for decades know that what we're 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 long-standing approach.

you know, in his quote on the cruz-trump agenda, he said this is actually about keeping the atlantic relationship going to, quote, save ukraine from an an vation -- from an invasion. save ukraine from an invasion. but where's the president of ukraine on this issue? well, the president of ukraine, who knows a little about power, politics, and piewtin, what does he think -- and putin, what does he think about what we're doing today? he supports sanctions. he supports sanctions on nord stream 2. that's 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's what senator murphy said about that -- i'm a big supporter of president zelensky, but he often misreads american

politics, and i think it would be better for him to have stayed out of this one. wow. wow. so the leader of the country right here, who many of us think this is all about, who certainly knows what russian energy power politics are about, since he's 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, quote, saving your countries. unless, of course, you support his position on nord stream 2. so, mr. president, these are very weak arguments by the senator from connecticut. the most legitimate argument i've 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. okay. that's an argument we should all consider. and this is what i've heard secretary blinken and national security adviser sullivan have been telling senators this week as they lobby against this vote we're going to take, although early in the year it was reported in the press that both of them actually supported nord stream 2 sanctions. but, mr. president, here's the thing on that argument. it's 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, quote, russian blackmail on energy prices. this is the current foreign

minister of germany. and it's 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 581-50 in favor of canceling the entire project in the wake of the rest of a russian democracy leader who putin first tried to kill before locking away in prison. the european parliament has voted at least four further times and other resolutions to call on the e.u. to halt this very project which is what we're looking to vote on today. and finally, mr. president, outsourcing this very important foreign policy, national

security american issue to the germans is not -- is simply not wise. the germans have not always been so clean or level headed when it comes to russian gas in nord stream 2. what am i talking about? of course i'm talking about the former chancellor of germany, glarehart schroeder, one of the biggest beprayers of the west, certainly in this and last century he left his chanc chancellorship to become putin's lap dog. he's the main lobbyist pushing russian gas all over germany and europe. he's an embarrassment to the atlantic alliance. now as the chairman for many years of gas prom, the former chancellor of germany and of course it's influenced germans to say this is good. he's made millions doing it, by the way, should be sanctioned with other putin cronies.

but so at the end of the day, mr. president, this shouldn't be outsourced to germany. what we need to do is make a vote on what's right for american national security and a vote that sanctions this pipeline would be consistent with long-term, very bipartisan american or asian 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've done recently in the last couple of years which is vote in an overwhelming bipartisan manner to sanction the nord stream 2 pipeline. i yield the floor.

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from nebraska. a senator: thank you, mr. president. first i want to commend the senior senator from arizona for an extraordinary stand of courage and a great speech on the floor a few minutes ago. mr. sasse: mr. president, 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 its' president of the other party who is decided to go full demagogue. for his entire career in the senate, basically joe biden served in this body as long as

i've been alive, plus or minus a few years. joe biden was a stalwart defender of the filibuster. he said that weakening the filibuster would, quote, 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 speech writers puppet mastered him into saying that anyone who disagrees with him is george wallace, walt connor, jefferson davis. you disagree with joe biden and you're jefferson davis. it's pretty breathtaking.

acquitting millions of americans to some of the ugliest racists in all of american history isn't just overheated rhetoric, it's a disgusting smear. does president biden really believe this in his heart of hearts? based on the conversations i've 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's why the man was elected because he said that the crap we went through the last four years was wrong. he said he was going to try to unify the country. but now he's 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 the overwhelming majority of all political tweets in america come from less than one and a half percent of americans. let's just say that again because there are a bunch of more rones around -- morons

around this building who decided to take their twitter feed as reality. it is not reality. what the president said in georgia was nonsense and joe biden of 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 who have decided to reconsider some of their covid expansion policies around voting, 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, if kyrsten cinema is really a racist, -- sinema is really a racist, he should have the courage to say that to their faces. he's not going to say that to their faces because he doesn't believe it.

ron has an army of twitter patrols that has decided a 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 united states senate. in fact, if joe biden really believes that joe manchin and kyrsten sinema are bigots why hasn't he called for them to be kicked out of his party. if they're as racist as bull connor and jefferson davis, why does he 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's 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 hope he would have the guts to come and say it to our faces but he's not because this is perform

tif politics, it was nonsense and everybody knows it goes away after this weekend but chuck schumer might have a primary from a.o.c. so it's really useful to shift the blame from his disastrous leadership of the senate over the last 13 months from himself to kyrsten sinema and joe manchin. that's really what's 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 violating the ninth commandment disparaging people was not would he really believes and he wouldn't say it to me face to face. this fiasco is 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 big gots because -- bigots because they're not in favor of federalizing elections -- let's reveal 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 account act which is 130 years old and obviously doesn't work that well. we should reform the electoral reform act. this is about subversion of an election, not 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. but here's the silver lining. president biden, leader schumer, and everybody in this body knows that the charade we've been going through the last three days is great for the one and a half percent of people addicted to rage on twitter. i get it. one and a half percent of people get their jollies out of this. it's bad to america. it's just as undermining of public trust in elections as what donald trump did last year, but here's 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's like losing your virginity just once -- every senator knows that's not really how it works. once the filibuster goes for x, it goes for y, and it goes for z. today it's election centralization. tomorrow it's gun politics. the next day it's climate debates. every rod 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 don't just 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's 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 d.c. 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. and everybody knew when harry reid set this place on fire in 2013 that that's what it was going to produce. and the same exact thing would have on the legislative calendar with the supposed one time carve-out from the legislative filibuster. let's remember what this institution is for. what the senate is supposed to be about is we're 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 a hundred people right now and only i think it's 2,100 people across 230 something years of u.s. history. only 2,000 people have had the honor of serving our states in this body. it's supposed to be our job to take the long-term view. not just 24 hours of twitter but

we're supposed to think beyond the 24 months of the next election. that's 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's their right but they shouldn't be senators. because the purpose of this place is supposed to take a long-term view. some of my completion 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're 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 dissent 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 righted 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 that jerks the american people around to it the opposite legislation of what was just passed. 50-50. sheaf 50 in today's senate. and all -- 51-50 in today's senate. and all of it flips. 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 of every 24

months. we think tribalism is bad now? i guarantee you can make it works, and eliminating the filibuster accelerates that dissent into tribalism. there's a police where simple majority -- there's a place where simple majorities rule. it's right down that hall way. does anybody want to make the argument that the house is healthier than we are because it is a simple majoritarian body? no. it is plain to see that the house is being more and more ruled by demagogues and adults. that's 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's the whole reason we have six-year thames. 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. 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, conspiracy. s and clowns. that's what will happen in this body. the american people don't have time for that crap. americans don't want one-party rule, either by democrats or by republicans. both of these parties are really crappy. the american people are not fans of these political parties. getting rid of the filibuster doesn't mean 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're 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're in around here tries to undermine so much of what the senate is about. i'm for lots of transparency.

i'm for pen-and-pad reporters everywhere, but the cameras we have put in this place have encouraged so much demagoguery. that's why we have so much tribalism here and tribalism more broadly in had the country. if you eliminate the filibuster, you accelerate all those most destructive short-term performance 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 and 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 more popular on twitter than politics. the share of americans paying attention to political twitter

bounces around .6%. we should remind ourselves of that again and again and again because there are people history regularly -- who regularly mistake twitter with reality and with the american public. we're called to serve the american public. we're 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. the senate, we can do better. thank you, mr. president. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the senate the

>> changes to senate rules to prevent voting rights legislation from being filibustered. when the senate returns we will have live coverage on c-span2. >> c-span is your unfiltered view of government funded by these television companies and more including cox. >> cox is committed to providing eligible families access to affordable internet through the connect contain

bridging the digital divide one connected and engaged student at a time. cox: bringing us closer. >> cox supports c-span as a public service along with these other television providers giving you a front row seat to democracy . >> today on the senate floor nevada's kiersten cinema said she opposes any changes to filibuster rules. she said she supports the democrats voting rights legislation but believes it should not not be exempt from the filibuster and america's divisions should be addressed. >> i rise by challenging a divisive time for our nation. for years america's politics have spiraled steadily downward into increasingly better tribal partisanship and our democracy has been strained