581 to 50. in august of 2021, the chairs of the foreign affairs committee in nine countries opposed explicitly the nord stream ii u.s.-german agreement, the biden agreement to allow the completion of nord stream ii. >> you can watch the rest of the senate debate from earlier today on our website, c-span.org. right now on c-span we take you back live to the senate working on legislation today dealing with sanctions on entities involved in building and operating russia's nord stream ii gas pipeline to europe.

mr. cruz: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cruz: i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: the senate is not in a quorum call.

mr. cruz: mr. president, in a few minutes, the senate is going to take a vote of incalculable importance to our national security. to the future of our allies in europe and to the very existence of the nation of ukraine. right now vladimir putin has assembled over 100,000 troops on the border of ukraine. more troops and more weapons are arriving every day. putin yearns to reassemble the old soviet union. putin would see ukraine wiped off the face of the map. this is not the first time that the people of ukraine have had to face down russian aggression and authoritarianism. throughout the cold war and through their independence in

1991, millions of ukrainians died as they struggled for independence from the soviet union. and from soviet russia. in 1994, the united states signed the budapest memorandum on security assurances. we committed -- the united states of america committed to ensuring ukraine's territorial integrity in exchange for ukraine voluntarily giving up the world's third-largest nuclear arsenal. which it had inherited following the collapse of the soviet union. that was our commitment, and it is now our national obligation. russia, of course, also signed the budapest memorandum. nevertheless, in 2014, thousands of ukrainians died when putin

invaded ukraine. putin only stopped short of a full invasion because he couldn't endanger the ukrainian energy infrastructure which he needs to get russian gas to europe. he now believes that nord stream 2 is a done deal, thanks to president biden's catastrophic surrender and waiving of the mandatory sanctions passed by congress. putin sees nord stream 2 as an alternate route to get his gas to europe that ukraine cannot touch, and so he has moved to complete what he couldn't do in 2014. when president biden waived the sanctions on this russian pipeline, the governments of

ukraine and poland warned then the result would be russian troops on the border of ukraine and an imminent invasion. they were right. in recent weeks, the people of ukraine and their government, the president, the prime minister, the speaker of the parliament, they have all called on this body to fulfill the commitment that we made to their nation. they have explicitly and repeatedly called upon the united states senate to pass this bill before us, imposing immediate sanctions on nord stream 2. none of us can know if that will change putin's calculation, but we must acknowledge the people of ukraine have pleaded with us to understand that it is the only thing that can do so.

that's why today, in just a few minutes we will have one last chance to stop the pipeline that putin built so he can invade ukraine. for two years this body has had bipartisan consensus and unanimity on standing up to russia on stopping nord stream 2 it is only with a democrat in the white house that suddenly scores of democrats have decided partisan loyalty is more important than standing up to russia. partisan loyalty is more important than stopping putin. partisan loyalty is more important than standing with our european allies. and i would note ironically the white house's lead talking point is, quote, trans-atlantic unity when the european parliament voted on nord stream 2, it

voted to condemn and shut down nord stream 2 by a vote of 585-50. 585-50. the white house is saying stand with the 50. stand with 9% of the european parliament against 91% of the european parliament. that makes no sense, and no democrat uttering those talking points believes it. but there are too many democrats who are deciding partisan loyalty means more than standing with our allies. partisan loyalty matters more than standing with our european friends. partisan loyalty matters more than honoring our treaty commitments. partisan loyalty matters more than protecting the interests of the united states. for five years the united states has uttered the words russia, russia, russia. we will now mean if they meant those words when they said them

or was that animus for president trump. we should stand together. if republicans were in the white house, mr. president, every democrat in this chamber would vote to sanction nord stream 2. the only reason not to do so is because for some democrats, partisan loyalty matters mornl standing up to -- more than standing up to russia or defending our national security. let me finally say if the senate votes down these sanctions if just a few minutes, it will effectively give a green light to putin. that's what the leaders of civil society in ukraine have told us. and if as a result of the senate's vote, if the democrats vote with russia, with putin, we may well see in the days or weeks or few months ahead russian tanks in the streets of kiev. and every senator, democrat or republican, will remember this moment, this moment we had to

stop the russian invasion of ukraine. and those senators that put our obligations to our friends, our obligations to our nation, our obligations to security above partisan loyalty, they will remember that. and those senators that didn't, they will remember that. the eyes of history are on the senate. there are moments particularly dealing with war and peace where the consequences of our actions echo throughout the decades. this moment is one of them. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from idaho is recognized.

mr. risch: i ask unanimous consent that i be allowed to five minutes followed by senator menendez to speak up to ten minutes before the scheduled roll call vote on this bill. the presiding officer: is there objection? a senator: reserving the right to object. i didn't hear the unanimous consent request. mr. risch: i think it was a minute or two for you and the rest for me, senator. a senator: then i object. mr. risch: i'd ask for five minutes for myself and ten minutes for yourself. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. risch: thank you very much. mr. president, fellow senators, i rise today to speak on behalf of cruz-risch nord stream 2 bill which is designated as senate bill 3436. to start with, it's important to note that this bill has language which is almost identical to the language that was contained in the senate and house-passed national defense

authorization act. both bodies passed this language. it was unfortunately taken out in the workup of that bill before it went to the white house in the reconciliation. but now this language is back before us in this bill. what it would do, it would immediately sanction nord stream 2, putin's premier energy weapon against europe and the ukraine particularly. the timing could not be more important. ukraine stands on the brink of invasion, and europe is in the throes of an energy crisis created by russia. there is a reason ukraine's president zelinsky had an urgent request to back these sanctions. that request is before us at this moment. we are now seeing the consequences of the administration's decision to

waive peace of sanctions and -- waive peesa sanctions. it emboldened putin. russia has deliberately cut gas transmission to europe through ukraine and is using high energy prices to pressure the european union into approving nord stream 2 as quickly as possible. putin has publicly stated that fact. meanwhile russian forces fin build-up along the border in what could be a full-scale invasion. the administration has failed to signal credibility and resolve and have not deterred putin from continuing along the path to war. u.s. diplomacy needs additional action, not just rhetoric, to stop a russian invasion, and these sanctions would provide that by putting congress in charge of waiver authority.

a vote for these sanctions will provide credibility to our threat, sending a strong message to putin. remember, nord stream 2 is designed to replace ukraine's gas transit system, meaning russia no longer has to worry about destroying its own infrastructure in the event of a full-scale war. we must not allow putin's blackmail to succeed. nord stream 2 has always been a bipartisan issue here in the senate, and it should continue to be. not a single member of congress supports the completion of this pipeline. i'd like to think a similar number of us feel we should not ignore our friends in europe, particularly central and eastern europe, who stand to lose the most from nord stream 2. our bill would impose mandatory sanctions against nord stream 2 a.g., the company responsible for the project as well as companies involved in certifying and testifying the pipeline before it becomes operational. we do provide the administration with a pathway to lifting these targeted sanctions pending congressional review. this pathway is the exact same

process for congressional input that 98 senators voted for in caatsa just a few years ago. the time to act is now. i urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this bill. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from new jersey is recognized. mr. menendez: p i ask unanimous consent that i be allowed to complete my remarks before the vote begins. the presiding officer: without objection. is there objection? without objection. mr. menendez: mr. president, this is a pivotal week for the security of ukraine. talks are ongoing to test whether the kremlin wants to engage in diplomacy or intent on war. to see the united states and our allies can pull putin back from the brink, and if the headlines are any indication this morning, it's clear that this is an open question. this is a critical time.

there still may be a window to deter the kremlin from deciding to invade, but we must be clear and united about what awaits russia if it chooses the unwise path. we must send an unequivocal message that should putin invade , the consequences would be devastating. that there would be steep cost to the economy and to the people of russia if he further tramples on ukraine's territory and independence. that message should be sent to every channel at every level, including by this body. and we have a chance to do just that. the defending ukraine sovereignty act, which has just two short days, 39 cosponsors already, is a comprehensive response to the threat facing ukraine. it would impose massive, crippling sanctions on multiple

sectors of russia's economy. it would impose the harshest sanctions on putin and senior kremlin officials themselves. it would effectively cut russia off from the international financial system. that's the sanctions that i helped devise that ultimately bought iran years ago to the negotiating table. this act also makes clear that the united states will make every effort to expedite security assistance in defense articles to help support ukraine, and it expands our efforts to counter kremlin aggression across the region. it says the united states will not stand for this bullying, and it makes clear that putin has a choice to make. but we are not voting on that comprehensive response. we're not voting, i should say, on how severe the consequences should be if putin

goes down the path of invasion. instead we are voting on whether to sanction nord stream 2, as if that alone would deter putin from reinvading. as if that alone would stop him. instead, mr. president, sanctioning nord stream now at this pivotal moment would have the opposite effect of deterring putin. it might even be the excuse putin is looking for. right now the one thing we know putin wants is for nord stream 2 to be operational. now let's be clear, if we don't sanction nord stream now, that does not mean the pipeline goes online. it does not mean that putin gets his way. what it does mean is that there's leverage. right now we have a new german government that has blocked the pipeline from moving forward. right now that german government

is a productive partner with us on this critical issue. they are where we need them to be, working to coerce putin not to reinvade ukraine. making clear that if putin advances into ukraine, there will be no nord stream. working with us to strengthen and support strong deterrence, coordinating with us to enhance the impact of devastating sanctions if we need to pull that trigger. that is where we need the german government to be. sanctioning nord stream now in the way that the cruz bill would do would not just be a sanction on nord stream 2 a.g., the bill would sanction, quote, any corporate officer of any entity

established for or responsible for the planning, construction, operation of the nord stream 2 pipeline or a successor entity, close quote. this broad scope would have a clear ripple effect on the entities, many of them german and the principles, many of them german citizens, it includes industrial sites, port operators, rail operators and any entity associated with that deal. so for an ally that is with us in this fight against putin's aggression for an ally that is standing up with us when we need them to be strong, this would be a sanction on them. they have made that clear to us. now is not the time to take that step. again, the pipeline today is pause. they basically stopped the

regulatory process on it. at the earliest it could be months before anything happens, depending upon what putin does -- depending upon what putin does, and even if they allow it to move forward. now is not the time to take off the table a key piece of leverage. now, mr. president, i have to address some other points i heard some of our colleagues mention. i listened to the senator from texas attempt to lay blame time and time and time again at the feet of president biden. he has tried to blame president biden for nord stream and now he's trying to blame him for putin's illegitimate power grabbing and military aggression. but, you know what, i suggest he look back and review just how and when nord stream came to be. because it wasn't president biden who could have imposed sanctions back in 2017. it wasn't president biden who did nothing for years while 94%

of the pipeline was being built, it wasn't president biden who waited until his last day in office to impose sanctions on nord stream. mr. president, there was someone else who could have used his authority to put a stop to this malign influence project but didn't. there was someone else who could have made the kremlin's weaponization of energy a priority but didn't. the senator already knows this, but how can i be so sure? because he said so at the time. in december of 2019, he said, and i quote, i want this to be very clear, if the pipeline is completed, it will be the fault of members of this trump administration who sat on their rear ends and didn't exercise the clear power -- their clear

power. the fault of the trump administration. his words. but now magically it's president biden's fault. please. a pipeline that was 94% complete by january of 2021. to me, that's a trump-putin pipeline. mr. president, it may be convenient to say that work on the pipeline stopped until biden became president, but that's just not the case. in fact, work stopped on the pipeline for six months -- six months from december of 2019 until the spring of 2020 because a company backed out of the project. but did russia stop? no. it was working fiewrsly to finish the job -- furiously to finish the job by retrofitting ships to complete the pipeline. and the moment the ships were ready, pipeline construction started again. a the retro fitted russian ship

showed up in germany in may of 2020, awaiting a permit by danish authorities. the permit was approved in october of 2020. the fact that it received a permit was sanctionable by the then-trump administration. the trump administration failed to act. on december 11 nord stream 2-ag had activities in shallow german waters. they were not waiting for biden to be in office, it was enacting. they should have imposed sanctions under caatsa at that point. it had other sanctions it could have imposed and chose not do. so, now, look, my position on nord stream has been clear. i have been and remain strongly opposed to the pipeline. i supported sanction measures on

the project when they could have had an impact during the trump administration, before hundreds of miles of pipe had been completed, and president trump had those tools. he had them. we passed them overwhelmingly and then we gave him more tools and more sanctions. and what did he do? nothing. not until his last day in office did he impose sanctions on nord stream, his very last day. so let's stop with the games. by the time the biden administration took office, the pipeline was 94% complete -- 94%. senator cruz wants to stop the pipeline, so do i. but it is far from clear that sanctions at this point, when the pipeline is already built, will do just that. in fact, it is clear -- it isn't clear to me at all that the senator's proposal would even change the status quo.

instead it would most certainly tie up this body and this floor so we'd be voting time and time again on resolutions of disapproval related to nord stream. now, of course, i get it. i get it. i understand why the senator would rather tie up this floor and hamstring the president's agenda instead of voting on nominees or voting rights or build back better or judges or a host of other critical elements before the country. that's the reality of the senator's proposal. so i ask my colleagues, what is the urgent threat that needs addressing? is it attempting to score political points and tie this president's hands intentionally and internationally or is it addressing the very real and potentially imminent threat amassing among ukraine's border? i believe we need to address the real threat and the whole threat facing ukraine and the region, and that's why i drafted the defending ukraine sovereignty

act. i've stood up for and alongside ukraine time and time again in the face of kremlin aggression. in 2014, i was in ukraine right after russia's invasion took place. after russia's illegal occupation of crimea i drafted the crimea reform act to increase support for ukraine. i introduced the stand for ukraine act to help restore ukraine's soafnt in -- sovereignty in the face of kremlin aggression. i will continue to ensure that the united states does all that it can to help ukraine defend itself against putin's bullying, to provide the assistance it needs, to support its integrity and to bolster its security of the region. and i urge this body to do just that. finally, senator cruz would like to suggest that partisan loyalty is why we believe his approach at this time is wrong.

what is wrong is to break the coalition we now have against putin at one of the most critical times of ukraine's history. germany is a critical part with us, an ally with us to deter putin. nord stream today, not that this legislation would, one less reason for putin to say, well, that's gone, why shouldn't i invade any how? i urge my colleagues to address the actual, imminent threat amassing along ukraine's border to make clear to putin what the massive costs of his actions will be. we might still be able it to turn putin back, but we must be belaser focused on what it -- be laser focused on what it will take to get him from taking one more step towards ukraine's border. i urge my colleagues to act to address the threat at hand, one

that extends far beyond a pipeline but threatens an entire country's borders and the security of the region. it is a threat that demands a comprehensive, resounding response. that is what we will be offering in short order. so i urge my colleagues to vote no on this approach, to make sure we keep the unity that is essential at this time to deter putin, and to work with me to make sure that this body sends the united, strong message to deter putin, stand with our allies and stand with ukraine. i urge a no vote on this legislation and i yield the floor. the presiding officer: under the previous order, all time is expired. the clerk will read the title of the bill for the third time. the clerk: calendar number 231, 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. the presiding officer: the question is on the bill. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

vote:

vote:

vote:

vote:

vote:

they are preparing for invasion. the senate, just a few hours will vote on a bill that represents the best way deter putin from invading ukraine. by sanctioning the company that's racing to finish and make operational the pipeline which desperately wants completed so he can use it as a cultural

against our european allies. if we don't come together today ukraine risks getting wiped off the map altogether. potent didn't just wake up one day and decide he wanted to invade ukraine. he's wanted to invade ukraine for years. he did so already in 2014. but he stopped short of 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. the next year in 2015 potent began for project to build a pipeline to go around ukraine so he could get his gas to europe

and invade ukraine with no risks to the billions he relies on every year. nordstrom to, as we know, as we've heard from republicans and democrats, literally hundreds of times over the past years on this floor and committees and briefings, nor stream two was designed to circumvent ukraine. it's why the senate worked together for years in a bipartisan manner to stop it from coming online. in 2017 congress came together and passed the countering america's adversaries through sanctions act which sanctioned investments in russian pipelines. in 2019 congress passed protecting europe's energy security act or pisa which sanctioned nor stream to it directly, i offered fat bill

along with democratic senator. in 2021 congress expanded those sanctions do protecting europe's energy security clarification act. again, i offered fat bill along with democratic senator. ... stopped construction of the pipeline literally 15 minutes before it came back. sanctions worked, they succeeded. together we want a bipartisan foreign-policy and national

security venture. we will also revisit it. the catastrophic decision president biden made in may of this year to wave the sanctions, the sanctions that had worked, the sanctions that were successful. president biden weighed them anyway. 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. 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 ii is

quote no less an existential threat to ukraine's security and democracy than russian troops and our forces. 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. they said quote since late october of 2021 russia has amassed more than 120,000 troops close to the ukrainian border along with a logistical support for a major new offensive. this menacing buildup had been accompanied by increasingly rhetoric from senior russian officials. we believe the green light given to the nord stream ii pipeline in may of 2021 served as one of

the key triggers for the current crisis and must be urgently revised. end quote. mr. president in ordinary times that open letter for ukrainian civil society would resonate with both democrats and republicans. this is a plea for help. opponents of our legislation are clutching at free text to avoid doing what we have done many times before and i want to address it one at a time. one argument we have heard again and again is that imposing sanctions on nord stream ii, the gazprom owned cut out that runs nord stream ii would shatter

european units. that's an argument that's been repeated by the white house. this is all about trans-atlantic unity. we should give putin his pipeline excessive trans-atlantic unity. i every senator to ask a simple question, what unity? in january the european parliament voted to condemn and stop the nord stream ii pipeline and the vote was 581-50. 581-50. mr. president if you care about trans-atlantic unity that may suggest that we fight -- side with the 581 and not the 50. the biden white house argument is literally to go with the 15 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 ii u.s. chairman agreement the biden agreement to allow completion of nord stream ii. among those companies that explicitly oppose that agreement estonia the czech republic ireland latvia lithuania, poland, ukraine and the united kingdom. mr. president do we care about trans-atlantic unity with those countries that are begging us to find the courage to stand up to vladimir putin? one 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 he created an immediate quote security crisis or europe. they told us then ukraine and poland both told us then as a result of waiving sanctions we are going to see russian troops and they were right. 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 believes the greatest geopolitical geopolitical disaster of the 20th century was the dissolution of the soviet union and he wants to bring us back together by force, which i know would be a grave national security threat to the united states.

now some will say with european unity they really mean unity with germany. i've heard members on this force a lesson i'm just not prepared to sanction germany. mr. president it still doesn't sanction germany. the government doesn't sanction germany. it sanctions the nord stream ii a.g. which is wholly-owned and controlled by gazprom. this is sanctioning a russian cut out because this pipeline is a tool for putin's aggression in europe. and even when it comes to unity and germany what they really mean is unity with angela merkel and i will concede that. angela merkel once this pipeline. i don't fully understand why. she does.

angela merkel is no longer the chancellor of germany. the chairman people went to the polls and they voted her party out of office. one would think from the united states the extent to which we are concerned about standing with an l.a. we should read concerned about the current government of germany and not the former and we should respect the views of the chairman people. the current government of germany is hopelessly fractured on nord stream ii. the greens who are part of this coalition government passionately opposed nord stream ii. vocally repeatedly they have condemned the nord stream ii and they are an integral part of this chairman government. just a few hours ago the chairman defense minister on the other side said nord stream ii was off the table. they are not willing to do anything to stop nord stream ii and the chairman chancellor said the same, declaring that he seeks a positive reset with

putin. this is the same putin that as tanks on the border of ukraine. another argument that we will hear, is that sanction should be kept in our pocket. we should reserve them for you later in the case of a russian invasion. now i would note this is not what the ukrainian allies advocate. i have traveled to leaving anyone in this chamber caved -- takes that argument seriously. putin doesn't. putin believes that once he brings nord stream ii on line and once he changes the region through invasion that no one will have the will. and i would note when the biden administration first capitulated

to russia on nord stream ii the biden administration and the chairman government may have promised. they said if, if, if russia uses energy for energy blackmail then we will stop the pipeline. they were quite bold about it. i've had some members the senate say well we have got really strong promises from germany. what has happened since then? russia has nakedly and unequivocally used energy for blackmail. energy prices have skyrocketed in europe and putin is open late hosting and he is laughing and saying -- he's not hiding it. he's not pretending. he did exactly what the biden white house and the chairman government said. he did it openly laughingly and

absolutely nothing happened. zero, crickets. mr. president i ask you as a reasonable man if the chairman government and 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 chairman government have greater resolve once millions of germans are dependent on russian natural gas for nord stream ii to heat their homes? when it is literally stopping the germans from freezing to death because of the ukrainian pipeline to shut down it becomes the only viable source of heat. do we really think they will have greater courage than than they have so far? nobody knows. 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 to do the laughter latter. it would impose sanctions after the invasion. i don't think putin believes that sanctions will ever be imposed. i can tell you ukrainian president zelinsky has very explicitly address this issue and here's what he said quote only if the sanctions are applied prior to the armed conflict would they become a prevention mechanism. that's the president of ukraine begging the members of the 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 ii and stop an eminent russian invasion. 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 vote, they in every other democrat in this chamber have voted for sanctions on nord stream ii not once. twice every democrat voted on my bipartisan sanctions on nord stream ii. only two things have changed since all the democrats voted in favor of the sanctions. number one the occupant of the white house who now has a b to a hind his name instead of amar. the white house is furiously lobbying democrats asking democrats to stand with her

party -- their party. it's our allies at the expense of europe and expensive u.s. national security. mr. president this should be very easy and i would suggest if joe biden were not president and donald trump are sitting in the oval office today every single democrat in this chamber would vote for the sanctions, all of them as they did twice when donald trump was sitting in the oval office. the other thing that is changed by do we are the russian troops on the border of ukraine which is exactly what the ukrainians told us what happened when biden wave to the sanctions. those are the two things that have changed and i have to say to my colleague senator murphy and shaheen had a very 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 the state department nominees on nord stream ii and trump didn't impose sanctions for nord stream ii. mr. president i recognize politics sometimes in the heat of the moment you say things and you don't entirely think through them but even in bad arguments that as a singularly argument. it's true, i didn't hold the state department suffered nord stream ii and it's true trump didn't impose sanctions because we stop nord stream ii and because we were successful. whenever the bipartisan sanctions that were significant in the trump administration that represented the pressure department fought mightily against it.

i was more than happy to battle my own party on this because this was the right thing to do for u.s. national security. is there even one democrat encouraging him to do that against his own party? the argument i didn't hold nominees. why would i hold nominees? president trump signed the bill. i said from the beginning of biden opposes the sanctions i will lift the 32 holds in december to get this vote. my focus is on stopping the pipeline and stopping putin and russia. their argument, well trump didn't impose sanctions that's correct. because putin stopped building the pipeline today 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. to two minutes before there was nothing to sanction because they didn't commit a sanctionable conduct. they stopped. they only returned to building the pipeline. mr. president do you know what dave putin began building the pipeline once again? january 24. 2021. four days after joe biden was sworn in. putin knew that biden was going to do what he did and he waved the sanctions. the sanctions worked. we had a bipartisan fix that and explicitly this white house stopped and i want to take a minute to speak to the democrats we will talk about tax rates and

whether they should be high or low. will have good vigorous arguments on that. that's part of our democracy. but in this instance the biden white house is carrying out the policies that make 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 it makes war are much more likely. most if not all of my democratic colleagues know this and i will ask my democratic are links to do something hard would it have the courage to stand up and take some partisan grief for voting against the white house on this. save the white house from the mistakes they are making. that's one of the roles of the senate. i keep hearing the analogy the framers used in cooling the

tempers of the -- the senate did that with president trump. the senate should do so with president biden as well. in my 10 years in the united states senate i have taken a lot of votes mr. president. there are very few votes are as consequential as the vote were getting ready to take. if senate democrats put partisan loyalty above national security, if they vote simply by party lines, it will dramatically increase the chances of a violent russian invasion of ukraine. in days or weeks or months from now if we turn on the television 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'd turned against them. i pray that we don't do so. the eyes of history are upon us. in this body republicans and democrats should rise to the occasion.

mr. president this is a pivotal week for the security of ukraine. whether the kremlin wants to engage in diplomacy or intent on rule. the united states and her allies can pull putin back from the brink and the headlines are any indication this morning it's

clear that this is an open question. this is a critical time. there still may be a window to deter the kremlin from deciding to invade and we must be clear and united about what awaits russia if it chooses the unwise path. we must send an unequivocal message that should putin invade the consequences would be devastating. they would be steep cost to the economy and to the people of russia if he further tramples on ukraine's territory and independents. that message should be sent to every channel at every level including by this body and we have a chance to do just that. the defending ukraine's sovereignty act would have two short days, 39 co-sponsors already and it's a comprehensive response to the threats facing ukraine. it would impose massive

sanctions on multiple sectors of russia's economy. it would impose the harshest sanctions on putin and senior kremlin officials. it would effectively cut russia off of the international financial system. that's the sanctions that i helped devise years ago that brought iran to the negotiating table. it makes clear the united states will make every effort to expedite security assistance in the articles that help support ukraine and it extends her effort to counter aggression. it says the united states will not stand for this bullying and it makes clear the putin has a choice to make. but we are not voting on that comprehensive response. we are now -- we are not voting

i should say on how severe the consequences should we give putin goes down the path of invasion. instead we are voting on whether to sanction nord stream ii as if that alone would deter putin firm reinstating as if that alone would stop him. instead mr. president sanctioning nord stream now at this pivotal moment would have the opposite effect of deterring putin. it might even be the excuse putin is looking for. right now the one thing we know putin wants is for nord stream ii to be operational. now let's be clear if we don't sanction nord stream ii now that does not mean the pipeline goes on line. it does not mean putin gets his way. what it does mean is that there is leverage. right now we have a new chairman

government that has blocked the pipeline for moving forward. right now that chairman government is a productive partner with us on this critical issue. they are where we need them to be working to course putin not to re-invade ukraine, making clear that if putin advances into ukraine there will be no nord stream and working with us to strengthen and support strong deterrent, coordinating with us to advance devastating sanctions if we need to pull that trigger. that is where we need the chairman government to be. sanctioning nord stream now in the way that the cruz bill would do would not just be a sanction on nord stream ii a.g., the bill would sanction quote any

corporate entity established for or responsible for the planning, construction and operation of the nord stream ii pipeline or its successor entity closed quote. this would have a clear ripple effect on the entities, many of them chairman and individuals, many of them chairman citizens, who work on the pipeline. that includes chairman companies industrial sites rail operators and any entity as our stated so foreign ally that is with those in this fight against putin's aggression or an ally that is standing up with us when we need them to be strong this would be a sanction on them. putin made that clear to us. now is not the time to take that step. again the pipeline today is

basically stopping the regulatory process on it. at the earliest, it could be months before anything happens depending upon what putin does depending on what putin does even if they allowed to move forward. now is not the time to take it off the table a key piece of leverage. mr. president i have to address another point that was mentioned. i listen to the senator from texas time and time again. he has tried to blame president biden and now he's trying to blame him for putin's illegitimate power grabbing and military aggression. but you know what, i suggest we look back and review just how wind when nord stream came to be because it wasn't president biden who could have impose sanctions back in 2017.

it wasn't president biden who did nothing for years while 94% of pipeline is being built. it wasn't president biden who waited until his last day in office to impose sanctions on nord stream. mr. president there was no one else they could abuse have used his authority to put a stop to this maligned influence but didn't. there was no one else who could have made the weaponization of energy a priority and didn't. the senator already knows this. so how can i be so sure? because he said so at the time. in december of 2019 he said and i quote i want this to be very clear, if the pipeline is completed it will be the fault of members of this trump administration is that on their

rear and and didn't exercise the clear power, the fault of the trump administration, his words and now magically it's president biden's fault. please a pipeline that was 94% complete by january 2021, to me that's a trump putin pipeline in mr. president may be convenient to say work on the pipeline stopped until biden became president, that is not the case but in fact work stopped on the pipeline for six months, six front months from december 2019 until december of 2020 because the company backed out of the project. did russia stop? no, it was working furiously to finish the job by retrofitting ships to complete the pipeline and the moment the ships were

ready the pipeline started again. they retrofitted russian ships and showed up in germany in may of 2020 and awaiting a permit. the permit was approved in october of 2020. the fact that they received a permit was sanctionable by the then trump administration. the trump administration failed to act on december 11 and nord stream ii a.g. said the fortuna resumed offshore construction activities in shallow chairman waters. nord stream ii was not waiting for biden to be in office. the trump administration could and should have imposed sanctions on russia at that point. it chose not to do it. now look my position on nord stream has been clear. i have been and remain strongly

opposed to the pipeline. i supported sanction measures on the project when they could have had an impact during the trump administration before hundreds of miles of pipe had been completed and president trump had those tools. he had them. we passed them overwhelmingly and then we gave them more tools and more sanctions and what did we do? nothing. not until his last day of office did he impose sanctions on nord stream, his very last day. so let's stop with the games. by the time the biden administration took office the pipeline was 94% complete, 94%. senator cruz want to stop the pipeline and so do i but it is far from clear that sanctions at this point when the pipeline as already built and in fact it is clear -- it isn't clear to me

that all that this senator's proposal would maintain the status quo. it said it would certainly tie-up this body and we be voting time and time again relating to nord stream. of course i get it. understand it would hamstring the president's agenda voting on nominees are voting rights are build back better or a whole host of other critical elements in our country but that's the reality of the senator's proposal. so i asked my colleagues what is the threat that needs addressed rex is that attempting to score political points and tied his president's hands intentionally and internationally or is it addressing the very real and potentially eminent threat among ukraine's border? i believe we need to address the real threat and the whole threat facing ukraine in the region and

that's why drafted to defend ukraine's sovereignty act. i stood up for it and alongside ukraine time and time again. in 2014 i was in ukraine right after russia's invasion took place. after russia's illegal operation of crimea i drafted the ukraine freedom support act which was passed into law to impose sanctions on russia. in 201690 days the stand for ukraine act to help restore ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity and i will continue to ensure the united states does all they can to help ukraine defend itself against putin's bullying to provide the assistance it needs to support its integrity and to bolster its security in the region and the this body to do just that. finally senator cruz would like to suggest that partisan loyalty

is why we believe this approach at this time is wrong. what is wrong is to break the coalition that we now have against putin as one of the most critical times of ukraine's history. germany is a critical part and ally with us to deter putin. nord stream today one less reason for putin to say well that's gone why shouldn't i invade anyhow? i my colleagues to address the actual eminent threat along ukraine's border and to make clear to putin the massive cost of what his actions will be. we might still be able to turn putin back but we must be laser focused on what it will take to get him from taking one more

step towards ukraine's border. i my colleagues to address the threat at hand one that extends far beyond a pipeline that threatens an entire countries border and the security of the region. it is a threat that demands a comprehensive resounding response and that is what will be offering. i my colleagues to vote no on this approach and make sure we keep the unity at this time to deter putin and to work with me to make sure this body sends a united strong message to deter putin, to stand with our allies and support ukraine. i a no vote on the cruz legislation and i yield the floor.

a bill to require the imposition of sanctions responsible for the construction or operation of the nord stream ii pipeline and so forth and for other purposes. >> the question is on the bill. >> i rise today to speak against the sanctioning of chairman and russian businesses over the transport of natural gas between their countries. the sanctions they sanction this, sanction that or are the department of treasury is currently administering dozens of sanctions and programs designed to change the behavior of certain countries and yet no one seems to ask the important question. do sanctions promote peace and understanding or do they escalate tension between nations? what behavior as china modified since the u.s. began sanctions?

has russia change their behavior? has russian given that crimea? mr. president could we have order on the floor please? >> senators please take their conversations outside the chambers. the senator from kentucky. to make sanctions the lacking proof of effectiveness are very popular with both parties. embargoes, sanctions, garner bipartisan enthusiasm. u.s. -- in cuba has gone for these 60 years without evidence of a change of regime or a change of regime's policy. it's often described especially by the embargo country as an act of war. many historians say the u.s. embargo of 1807 ultimate led to the war of 1812. president jefferson's embargo was intended to punish france and england for their aggressions but instead the

embargo american shipping and exports, exports declined by 75% but some historians claim the u.s. embargo on japan for the ensuing war. roosevelt sees many of japan's assets and japan lost access to much of its international trade of over 80% of its imported oil. at least for the purpose -- from the perspective of japan the barber was act of war. the sanctions still clamor for more. sanctions against iran a lever brought about the obama era nuclear agreement with iran. perhaps that a valid argument could be made it's the carrots rather than the sticks of brother went to the table. funny how he requires his antics not just take, take, take. it should eliminate today's debate over sanctions on the nord stream ii pipeline between russia and germany but the shade

of mercantilism is dimming the light of experience. opponents of the pipeline not surprisingly are largely from states that compete in the sale of natural gas. this is more about protectionism then it is national security. it will cause a significant reduction in u.s. exports of liquid natural gas and a keen interest by people representing states that sell natural gas. this is not so much about national security, it's about protectionism. acknowledging this debate is superficially about national security and really more about provincial protectionism helps us better understand the dynamics. history demonstrates that trade and interconnectedness between nations as a barrier for war. engaging in mutually beneficial commerce coupled with a potent military concern is the

combination that best promises peace. over the past decade congress and president has eased sanctions on russia and china part i asked the state department officials to come before a committee to appeal what behavioral changes have come about as a result of sanctions by botton -- often gotten blank stares. last in image that they put sanctions on will stop them. the senate and the house overwhelmingly passed sanctions and we had sanctioned me still completed the pipeline. what a hater or they now asking russia to change? what specifically is has russia been asked to do? why koreshan action is necessary for the sanctions and? the sanctions that you want to do to russia what a hater what do you want from russia? the responses they don't want any behavior change from russia for the word for word response

is they want russia not to ship oil to germany. about trade and competing with certain natural gas stays but it has nothing to do with national security. if nord stream ii sanctions were really about changing russian behavior or deterring aggression in ukraine than nato including germany could threaten sanctions if russia invades ukraine. the threat of sanctions with germany as an ally might have deterring value but 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 any attempt to use energy as a weapon or commit further aggressive action against ukraine will be met with sanctions. this is germany and the u.s. together. that has power.

saying we don't like you and we will punish the companies that are involved will do nothing. if we work with germany we have deterring value. germany could trick off -- turn off the spigot for national gas but it's a valid threat from germany. with us together we might be able to deter prussia but simply turning the gas pipeline off now and sanction 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. the threat of sanctions has power. once you turn them on and you have no plans to turn them off you have no leverage over russia. the commitment or the agreement between russia, between germany and the u.s. the agreement says the commitment is not designed to ensure russia will not misuse any pipeline including nord stream ii to achieve a political

end or it will be met with sanctions. this could be a deterrent. the more countries that got together and said this international community of sanctions can have have an effect by one country sanctions particular against its ally germany will have no effect. the rush to impose sanctions now undermines the threat of sanctions to deter russian aggression against ukraine. if you put the sanctions on now you have nothing in no way to impose the sanctions how do you deter anything? you might as well make them angry enough that they do act and respond to those sanctions in the opposite way you intended. as today's debate unfolds i think you'll find sanctions against nord stream ii are more about mercantilism and protectionism than national security. thank you.

the eyes of history are upon us here today each of us will be faced with the moment is question, can we put differences aside and can we come together to defend our friend and our ally ukraine against eminent russian aggression. this isn't theoretical. russian tanks and troops are right now amassed on the ukrainian border and they are preparing for an invasion.

the senate in just a few hours will vote on the bill that represents the best way to deter putin from invading ukraine by sanctioning the company that is racing to finish and make operational nord stream ii pipeline. which putin desperately wants completed so that he can use it as a cajole against their european allies. if we don't come together today ukraine risks getting wiped off the map. putin didn't just wake up one day and decide he wanted to invade ukraine. he has 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 are marching all the way in. the next year in 2015 putin began the nord stream ii 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 ii as we know it as we have heard from republicans than from democrats who literally hundreds of times over the past two years, on this floor, in committees and briefings nord stream ii was designed to circumvent ukraine. it's why the senate has worked together for years in a

bipartisan manner to stop nord stream ii. in 2017 congress came together and -- they have her series through sanctions act which sanctions investment in russian energy exports pipelines. in 2019 congress passed protecting europe's energy security act which sanctions nord stream ii directly. i authored that bill along with democratic senator jeanne shaheen and in 2021 congress expanded those sanctions and protecting europe's energy security clarification act. again i authored that will 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 and using

targeted sanctions to and construction of the pipeline. when president trump sign their bipartisan sanctions into law, putin stopped construction of the pipeline literally 15 minutes before the law came into effect of sanctions work and succeeded and together we won a bipartisan foreign-policy and national security -- but we will also revisit in this debate the catastrophic decision president biden made in may of this year to wave those sanctions, the sanctions that work in the sanctions that were successful. president biden waived to 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 ii is quote no less an existential threat to ukraine security and democracy than russian troops on our border. that's the prime minister of ukraine thanking this body, the united states senate, who helped them. just this week a public letter from leaders in ukrainian civil society said and i will quote this at length, they said quote since late october of 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 frederick from senior russian officials. we believe the green light given to the nord stream ii pipeline in may of 2021 served as one of the key triggers for the current crisis and must be urgently revised end quote. mr. president in ordinary times that open letter for ukrainian civil society would resonate with both democrats and republicans. this is a plea for help. opponents of our legislation are

clutching a pretext to avoid doing what we have done many times before and i want to address those pretext one at a time. one argument we have heard again and again is that imposing sanctions on nord stream ii ad the gazprom owned cut out that runs the nord stream ii would shatter european in union or that's an argument repeated by the white house repeatedly that this is all about trans-atlantic unity. we should give putin is pipeline because of trans-atlantic unity. mr. president i 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 ii

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 ipod at 81 and not the 50. the biden white house argument is go 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 ii u.s. chairman agreement the biden agreement to allow the completion of nord stream ii. among those countries that explicitly oppose that agreement at estonia, the czech republic,

ireland, latvia, lithuania, poland, ukraine and the united kingdom. mr. president 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 the decision president biden made to surrendered a putin 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 were going to see russian troops. they were right.

it's almost as if they understand their neighbors. it's almost as if they understand putin desired to reassemble the soviet union. it's almost as if they believe vladimir putin when he said he believed the greatest geopolitical disaster the 20th century was the dissolution of the soviet union and he wants to bring us 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. 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. it doesn't sanction the chairman government, doesn't sanction the chairman companies. it sanctions nord stream ii ae which is holy owned and controlled by gazprom.

this is sanctioning a russian cut out because this pipeline is a tool for putin's aggression. even when it comes to unity in germany what they really mean is unity with angela merkel and i will concede that. angela merkel wants this pipeline. i don't fully understand why, but she does. angela merkel is no longer the chancellor of germany. indeed the chairman people went to the polls and they voted her party out of office. one would think to the extent we are concerned about standing with them we should be concerned about the current government of germany and not the former government and we should respect the needs of the chairman people. the current government of germany is hopelessly fractured on nord stream ii. the greens who are part of the

coalition government passionately oppose nord stream ii. vocally repeatedly they'd condemn the nord stream ii is an integral part of this chairman government. just a few hours ago chairman defense minister on the other side said nord stream ii was off the table. they are not willing to do anything to stop nord stream ii and the chairman chancellor's said the same declaring he seeks a positive reset with putin. this is the same putin that had tanks on the border of ukraine. 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 her ukrainian allies meant and i have trouble believing anyone in this chamber thinks

that regarding -- or should be? putin doesn't. putin believes once he brings nord stream ii on line and wants to use change the region through invasion that no one will have the will to impose sanctions and i would note it's not to believe that. when the biden administration first capitulated to russia on nord stream ii the biden administration the chairman government said if, if, if russia uses energy for energy blackmail then we will stop the pipeline. they were quite old about it. i've had some members the senate say well we have got really strong promises from germany now. what has happened since then?

russia has nakedly and unequivocally used energy to blackmail. energy prices have skyrocketed in europe and putin is laughing and saying -- he's not hiding it and he's not pretending. he did exactly what the biden white house and the chairman government said. he did it openly ang lee laughingly and absolutely nothing happened. zero, crickets. mr. president i ask you as a reasonable man if the chairman government and the biden white house is not willing to impose sanctions when putin immediately triggered what they said was the red line quite universal the biden white house or the chairman government have greater resolve once millions of germans

are dependent on russian natural gas from nord stream ii to heat their homes? when it is literally stopping the germans from freezing to death because of the ukrainian pipeline to shut down its the only viable source of heat. do we really think they will have greater courage than than they have so far? 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? the bill that my colleague senator menendez is pushing would do the latter but it would impose sanctions after an invasion. i don't think putin believes the sanctions would ever be imposed. but i can tell you ukrainian

presidents olinskey has explicitly address this issue and here's what he said. quote only if the sanctions are applied prior to the armed conflict with a become a prevention mechanism for any possible legislation. that's the president of ukraine begging the members of the 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 ii and to stop an eminent russian invasion in ukraine. just a few minutes ago two of my colleagues senator murphy and senator shaheen had a colloquy in which they explained why they afflicted their position. they in every other democrat in the chamber have voted for sanctions on nord stream ii not once, but twice.

every democrat voted for my bipartisan sanctions on nord stream ii to only two things have changed since all of the democrats voted in favor the sanctions. number one the occupant of the white house who now has ad and his name is that of amar or the white house is seriously 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 thing and i would suggest his joe biden were not present in sitting in the oval office today every single democrat in the chamber would vote for it, all of them as they did twice when donald trump was sitting in the oval

office. they are the thing that is changed by do we are the russian troops on the border of ukraine which is exactly what the ukrainians told us what would happen when biden waived to the sanctions. those are the two things that have changed and i have to say my colleague senator murphy and shaheen had a very colloquy. because they decided to go after me personally instead of focusing on the merits of the issue. in particular they said you know when trump was president senator cruz didn't hold the state department nominee over nord stream ii and trump didn't impose sanctions over nord stream ii. mr. president i recognize impolitic sometimes in the heat of the moment you say things and you don't entirely think through them but even in the annals of

bad arguments that is a singularly argument. it's true i didn't hold the state department nominees over nord stream ii and didn't impose sanctions, why? because we stop nord stream ii, because we were successful after the bipartisan sanctions there were significant elements of the trump administration they resisted. the treasury department fought mightily against it and i was more than happy to battle my own party on this because this was the right thing to do for u.s. national security. is there even one democrat that has the courage to do that against his own party? the argument i didn't hold nominee, why would i hold nominees? president trump signed the bill and if i said from the beginning if biden -- i lifted 32 holds in

december to get this vote. my focus is on stopping this pipeline and stopping putin and russia. and the argument, well trump didn't impose sanctions. that is correct because putin stopped building the pipeline. i remind you 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. they didn't commit to sanctionable conduct. they stopped. they only returned to building the pipeline. mr. president do you know what date putin began holding the pipeline once again? january 24 of 2021. four days after joe biden was sworn into office.

putin knew that biden would wave the sanctions. the sanctions worked. we had a bipartisan victory that inexplicably this white house giveaway. i want to take a minute to say to my colleagues there are lots of decisions we will disagree with some bipartisan manner and that's fine. we have good vigorous arguments and it's part of our democracy but in this instance the biden white house is carrying out 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 are much more likely.

most if not all of my democratic colleagues know this. i'll ask my democratic colleagues to do something hard have the courage to stand up and take some partisan grief for voting against the white house on this. save the white house from the mistakes they are making. that's one of the rules of the senate. we keep hearing the analogy that the framers used of the saucer to cool the tempers of -- the senate did that was president trump. the senate should do so with president biden as well. in my 10 years the united states senate i've taken a lot of votes mr. president and there are very few votes as consequential as the votes were getting ready to take. the senate democrats but

partisan loyalty above national security. if they vote simply by party lines, he will dramatically increase the chance of a violent russian invasion in 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 them down. i pray that we don't do so. the eyes of history are upon us and this by the republicans and democrats should rise to the

occasion. i yield the floor. >> madam president i come to the floor today to speak in opposition to senate bill 3436 which is the nord stream ii sanctions bill sponsored by senator cruz. i certainly share the concerns of expressed a few minutes ago by senator mcconnell about the threat that russia poses to ukraine into eastern europe and the role that nord stream ii plays in that critical issue. i have been a strong and long-standing opponent of nord stream ii. at least now i believe it's a time i originally cosponsored the nord stream ii sanctions bill with senator cruz the nord stream ii pipeline was a long-term threat to the energy

security of europe. right now we are in a different place on data and while senator cruz and i worked together on sanction legislation to stop this pipeline my disagreement now a senator cruz is his approach and 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 ii, it would undermine the current diplomatic situation that is absolutely critical if we are going to respond to the russian threat. his bill is a vote -- supporting his bill would be a vote to compromise trans-atlantic unity unity and a vote that breaks the message of bipartisan support in

the place 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 ii have changed and senator cruz and i thought for the passage of legislation to prevent the completion of the pipeline. at the time we worked together to provide the trump administration with sanctioning this pipeline, and we did that because there were some members of the trump administration you came to us and said we need this legislation because the administration is not acted in the fact is 95% of the construction of the nord stream ii pipeline was completed during the trump years. unfortunately the trump administration even after we pass that sanctions legislation

they waited until literally the last day of the trump administration to sanction this one entity in four years to what we saw, 95% of the 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 on a united front against russia. we have to strengthened our relationship with their chairman allies. the biden administration is restored diplomacy first foreign-policy which advances american policy and just through dialogue and not through threats

and there's a new chairman coalition government that we are now gauging with, government that appears to be more skeptical about the nord stream ii pipeline. they have paused certification of the pipeline installed the 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 dynamics have changed. when the dynamics change than our approach and are foreign-policy should reflect those changes. we can't look at this legislation in isolation. this legislation senator cruz is proposing that we were going to be voting on today is coming at a time when the administration is taking every single avenue

from deterring putin from -- territorial integrity. rush has amassed over 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 at any invasion comes with a price. with nord stream ii right now it presents a potential incentive for putin to use it against our european partners. it's also leverage that the west can use a vet pivotal moment as russians and vladimir putin is thinking about what he will 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 to her perch on the pipeline may be

necessary. as we know that happens with foreign-policy. we don't live in a static world. it demands a weighted gap to our responses. that have joined senator menendez and 38 democrats in introducing the defending ukraine's sovereignty act of 2022. legislation that does reflect the reality on the ground and would impose within sanctions on russia's economy if putin decides to invade. it divides critical additional military support for ukrainian allies and strengthen support for eastern european allies in the face of putin's attempt to look, not forward. we are not against vladimir putin and russia's abilities to veto nato. we saw that very clearly at the session yesterday with russian and nato officials. russia didn't like it because they didn't get the answer they wanted which was a veto over who

should be able to join nato. we are going to continue to take a strong stand with our allies to what rush is doing that we can't use yesterday's solution to help us solve today's problems. the immediate threats that we are facing right now is the threat of russian invasion of ukraine and we need to do everything possible to work as closely as possible and show no daylight with their allies in standing up to that thread and unfortunately what senator cruz is proposing with the nord stream ii sanctions legislation would do exactly that he would drive a wedge between us and our allies between united the united states and germany at the time we cannot afford it. i support senator menendez' 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 i look forward to hearing from senator murphy's comments because i know she shares the same concerns that i'm expressing. >> madam president. thank you very much madam president but i want to thank senator shaheen. she has been a leader in the senate and in our caucus on raising alarms of the danger of nord stream ii and the european security and ukrainian security. i'm so glad to work with her over these past several years and i'm on the floor to join her in strong opposition for the legislation that is pending on the floor as we speak. if this bill passes it won't make the nord stream pipeline any less like lee. it won't stop russia from invading ukraine.

in fact it will do the exact opposite. it will make the completion of nord stream more likely and it will be a gift to russia, dividing us from our european allies right at the moment when we need to be in solidarity with them in order to deter russian aggression. i'll try not to repeat too much of what senator shaheen has said that let me underscore the point that she has made. first the sanctions in this bill are and fortunately. they are 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 no amount of u.s. sanctions can be effective here. what we know is that if we were to sanction this chairman swiss company, chairman board of directors in a matter of days, weeks and maybe a few months the russians could reengineer the financing of the administration of the -- to get it going even more interesting to me is what senator mcconnell said presented mcconnell and devoran said he supports senator cruz thing mass proposal and he expects the biden administration will waive the sanctions. if republicans are going to support the waving of the sanctions because the sanctions would interrupt our negotiations with germany why pass the bill in the first place? apparently many republicans are supporting the cruz bill.

the primary impact of this bill as senator shaheen described it as we know the only way to stop nord stream ii is by convincing the germans and other europeans. we have for the first time since we began talking about this convince the germans to press hard. the first time the chairman government was pressed by radio trajan season stop the certification of the pipeline which by the way was built, 95% else when president trump left office. let it be constructed, 95% felt that now it's 100% built. the germans because of american diplomacy and because of the threat of invasion of ukraine from russia pauses project that they 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 the project is not in their interest. so think about this from the chairman perspective. they finally said he guessed to the united states and the minute that they say yes the united states senate decides to sanction chairman citizens. that is bad diplomacy. it's just a bad diplomacy and it's a moment in which we have to be in lockstep with their european partners. we need to extend a message to vladimir putin that the united states and europe are together and we will deliver a crushing package of sanctions if you enter ukraine any further. this would be a -- to vladimir putin because of the signal of division at a moment when we need to be standing together. senator menendez has the right approach to senator menendez has

proposed a bill which i think can cross 90% of his body an axe a set of sanctions on russia if russia moves any further into ukraine beyond where they all already. that sends the right signal. that's a message of consequence. in this proposal which apparently is a set of sanctions republicans -- and devices from our partners in 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 again on this proposal. senator cruz says the construction of the pipeline

stopped when congress stopped the nord nord stream sanctions ended and didn't begin again until joe biden became president. i've heard that repeated in the press and this isn't true. one company that was laying the pipeline back of the project when the 2019 sanctions bill was passed. russia started retrofitting other ships to finish the job and the minute they were permitted construction began again. not when joe biden was present but when donald trump was present. the ships were ready in may of 2020 and they started work a few months later as soon as the danish government permitted them. senator shaheen and senator cruz pass the sanctions bill with all of our support at the end of 2019 and during the fall of 2020 the russians were retrofitting these ships while the permitting

process was happening donald trump didn't enact one sanction permitted by congress. at the end of 2019 and 2020 donald trump did not enact a single sanction. this was the critical moment. this was the time in which the pipeline is being built in president trump did nothing and he paid no consequence for it. do you know why? because in 2020 senator cruz didn't hold up any of donald trump's nominees when trump was refusing to implement sanctions when the russians sent ships that started showing up to start construction. not even when construction restarted in the fall of 2020. all of trump state apartment nominees not a single objection or block. the last day in office, his last day literally as he was packing

up in the oval office january 19 he sanction one ship and the company that owned the ship. potentially a signal of how little he cared in the day that he was leaving he sanction one ship from the company did on the ship and by this time 95% of the pipeline was complete. it was too late and then he begrudgingly hands over the keys of the oval office to joe biden and leaves the incoming president with ms a pipeline 95% built the donald trump could have stopped if you use the sanctions. so you understand why some of us wonder what the motivation is behind senator cruz thing ma -- senator cruz' ideas. essentially now there's a democrat in the white house. this bill isn't going to help ukraine. its design to hurt the president of the united states and

unfortunately some, not all, some of our republican colleagues here 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 nominee. it doesn't help the security of the nation. it just increases the chance united states won't have personnel at on hand to deal with the crisis when it develops and that failure may occur joe biden's approval rating. at first i think that's what's going on here. unfortunately i think that's what's going on here. i yield the floor. >> with my colleague yield for a question? >> i would. >> senator murphy i'm really

pleased, sadly please but i think it's appropriate that you brought up the issue about holding state department nominees because one of the things that has been unfortunate that senator cruz' approach to nord stream ii in recent weeks has not just been holding up of nominees but his suggestion that the change in response my part and on others to oppose nord stream ii has been part of it. as you point out during all of the trump administration, senator cruz did not hold one nominee because of nord stream ii. in fact is that your understanding? >> that is my understanding. my understanding is there may have been public speeches given but there certainly wasn't

attacked that has been used during 2020 which is extraordinary, the holding of all nominees. and i would add to that democratic senators have not used that tactic. we had huge disagreements with president trump's policies including his failure to sanctions. at the moment the sanctions would have been most affected that we didn't block all of president trump's ambassadors and state department personnel because we thought that it was better to have those people on hand working to protect u.s. interests than it was to have those positions vacant and that's the case we've been trying to make on this floor that if you really care about helping ukraine, why did senator cruz >> all of 2020 locking the ambassador and state department personnel whose job it would have been to help ukraine and no

one is more engaged on this question than you senator shaheen. >> the other important point that we both made is the fact that what stopped the pipeline when the first sanctions bill was passed was the threat of sanctions. it wasn't actually implementing those sanctions and in fact it russia's ability to come back and retrofit ships and to do the work themselves gazprom and russian ships do the work themselves and throughout the last year of the trump administration they refuse to take any action to address that. in fact i remember being in a meeting and i can't remember if you were in that meeting are not with senator cruz and some of our republican colleagues and a member of the administration urging us to pass another sanctions bill because the administration had not been.

so i think it's really important as you say to point out that 95% of that pipeline was done in the previous demonstrations when the senator cruz and her colleagues who would like to stop -- had the opportunity to hold up his nominees to raise concerns but that did not happen and that's the disadvantage today as we look at the threat of nord stream. would you agree with that? ..

until october. it is just a matter of time the other going to eventually lay down by type. and before joe biden was elected president those are back doing construction october, november, december, all throughout the 2020. rebuilding the pipeline such that on generate 19th elastic trump's 5% of the pipeline 95% is done and then literally walking out the door donald trump lays out a section on one company and one ship the company owns a parade altered 2020 no blockade of state department nominees. no grinding to a halt senate nomination business to try to prompt the present to change his mind. all of that magically starts

happening when joe biden is president perry would 95% of the pipeline is done. i will let you wrap up, i hope you can find a way to get on the same page here. because we have been for much of the last several years and you have lead that effort. i think senator menendez legislation which is all about the right set in disincentives for russian behavior is perhaps the memes to elevate this above the question of who is president and get back to fighting for the interest of our nation and the interest of our partners and friends regards thank you, senator murphy i cannot say it any better.

make senate and in a closing stages of a boat that started eastern time for that event stuck on 98 tallies for quite some time. at issue is a built loving sanctions regarding the russian gas pipeline ignored stream it too. this needed 60 votes to pass and there are already enough no votes to prevent the measure from passing. the two senators left to vote art from hawaii who was out sick with covid and majority leader schumer. we understand this vote is delayed because of senator schumer is trying to negotiate a way forward on voting rights. while we wait for the last vote to be cast here is more debate from earlier today on this bill.

for the security of ukraine. talks are ongoing to test whether the kremlin wants to engage in diplomacy or intent on war. to see if united states and our allies can pull putin back from the brink. if there any headlines this morning it is clear this is an open question. this is a critical time, there still may be a window to deter the kremlin from deciding to invade. but we must be clear and united about what awaits russia if it chooses the unwise path. we must send an unequivocal

bull message that should putin invade the consequences would be devastating. that there would be steep cost to the economy and to the people of russia if it further tramples on ukraine territory and independence. that message should be sent through every channel at every level including by this body. we have a chance to do just that. the defendant ukraine sovereignty act has 239 code sponsors it would impose a massive crippling sanctions on a multiple sectors of russia's economy. be the harshest on pollutant and officials themselves. it would effectively cut russia off from the international financial system

brought around to the negotiating table. this also makes clear the united states will make every effort to expedite defense articles to help support ukraine. and it expands to counter kremlin aggression across the region. it says the united states will not stand for this bullying. and it makes clear putin has a choice to make. we are not voting on that comprehensive response that we are now voting -- we aren't not voting i should say on how severe the consequences would be of putin goes down the path of invasion. instead we are voting on whether to sanction ignored stream two. that alone when you turn that alone would stop him. instead mr. president

sanctioning now at this pivotal moment would have the opposite effect of deterring putin. it might even be the excuse putin is looking for. right now that one thing we know putin wants is for ignored stream toot to be operational. if we do not sanction ignored stream and now it does not mean the pipeline should go online. it does not mean putin gets his way. but it does mean is that there is leverage. right now we have a new german government that has a blocked the pipeline moving forward. right now that german government is a productive partner with us on this critical issue. they are where we need them to be working to coerce putin not to re- invade ukraine making

clear if putin advances into ukraine there will be no nordson dream. working with us to strengthen coordinating with us to enhance the impact of if we need to pull that trigger. that is where we need the german government to be. sanctioning now in the way the crews bill would do would not just be a sanction on nord stream two. it would sanction any corporate officer of any entity established for all responsible for the planning construction operation of the nord stream two pipeline. this a broad stroke would have a clear ripple effect on the entities. many of them german and

individuals in many of them german citizens who work on the pipeline. that includes german companies involved in the pipeline, industrial sites, rail operators any entity associated with that deal. so far an ally that is with us in this fight against putin's aggression. an ally who is standing up with us when we need them to be strong. this would be taken to a sanction on them. they have made that clear to us. now is not the time to take that step. again the pipeline today is paused. they basically stop the regulatory practice on it. at the earliest, it could be months before anything happens depending upon what putin does. depending on what putin does in a bailout to move forward. now is not the time to take off the table a key piece of

leverage. no mr. president i have to direct some other points to i've heard our colleagues mentioned but listen to the senator from texas attempted to lay blame time and time and time again at the feet at president biden. he has tried to blame president biden for nord stream. he is now trying to blame them for putin's illegitimate power grabbing and military aggression. but do you know what? i suggest you look back and review just how and when north stream came to beat. because it was not president biden who could have imposed sanctions back in 2017. it was not president biden who did nothing for years while 94% of the pipeline was being built. it was not president biden who waited until his last day in office to impose sanctions on nord stream. mr. president there was somebody else who could have used his authority to put a

stop to this malign influence project but did not. there was someone else who could have made the kremlin's weaponization of energy a priority but didn't. the senator already knows this. so how could i be so sure? because he said so at the time. in december of 2019 he said, and i quote, i want this to be very clear. if the pipeline is completed it will be the fault of members of this trump administration who sat on their rear end and did not exercise the clear power, the faults of the trump administration, his words. now magically it is president biden's fault. please, the pipeline was 94% complete by genera 2021

comment to me that is eight trump putin pipeline. mr. president may be convening to say work on the pipeline stopped until biden became president is just not the case. in fact work stopped on the pipeline for six months, six months from december of 2019 until the spring of 2020 because a company backed out of the project. did russia stop? no. it was working furiously to finish the job by retrofitting ships that complete the pipeline. in the moment that was done the moment the ships are ready pipeline construction started again. a retrofitted russian ship showed up in germany in may of 2020 awaiting a permit by danish authorities. the permit was approved in october of 2020. the fact that it received a permit was sanctionable by the then trump administration. the trump administration

failed to act on december 11 nord stream two ag the offshore activities and shallow german waters. nord stream two ag was not waiting for biden to be in office it was an act in the trump administration should and could have imposed sanctions at that point. as a matter fact the sanctions it could have imposed and chose not too. so now look, my position on nord stream has been clear. i have been and remain strongly opposed to the pipeline. i supported sanction measures on the project whether they could have had an impact during the trump administration. before it hundreds of miles of pipe had been completed. and president trump have those tools. he had then we pass them overwhelmingly and then we

gave him more tools and more sanctions and what did you do? nothing. not until his last day in office did he impose sanctions on nord stream, his very last day. so let's stop with the games. by the time the biden administration took office the pipeline was 94% complete, 94%. senator cruz wants to stop the pipeline, so do i. it is far from clear that sanctions at this point, when the pipeline is already built would do just that. in fact it is clear what is not clear to me at all is the proposal would even change the status quo. instead it most most certainly type this body and this floor so we'd be voting time and time again on disapproval related to nord stream. of course i get it, i get it, i understand why the senator would rather tie up this floor and hamstring the president's

agenda instead of voting on nominees, voting rights, "build back better", judges are a whole host of other critical elements before the country. that is the reality of the senator's proposal. so i ask my colleagues, what is the urgent threat that needs addressing? is it attempting to score political points and tie this president's hands intentionally and internationally? or is it addressing the very rear while real and potential threat on ukraine's border? i believe we need to address the real threat in the whole threat facing ukraine and the region. that's why i drafted the defending ukraine sovereignty act. i've stood up for them and alongside ukraine time and time again to face the kremlin aggression for 2014 i was in ukraine right after russia's invasion took place. after russians illegal occupation i drafted the ukraine freedom support act

which passed into law to impose sanctions and increase support for ukraine. in 2016 introduce the stand for ukraine act to help her sort ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity in the face of kremlin aggression. i will continue to ensure the united states does all that it can to help ukraine defend itself against putin's of bullying to provide the assistance it needs, to support its integrity and to bolster its security in the region. and i urge this body to do just that. finally, cruz would like to suggest that partisan loyalty is why we believe his approach at this time is wrong. what is wrong is to break the coalition we now have against putin at one of the most critical times of ukraine's history. germany is a critical part with us and allied with us to

deter putin. nord stream today, not that this legislation would, one less reason for putin to say that's gone why shouldn't i invade anyhow? i urge my colleagues to address the actual imminent threat amassing along ukraine's border to make clear to putin with the massive cost of his actions will be. we might still be able to turn putin back. but we must be laser focused on what it will take to get him from taking one more step towards ukraine's border. i urge my colleagues to act to address the threat at hand, one that extends far beyond a pipeline but threatens an entire country borders and the security of a region. it is a threat that demands a comprehensive, resounding response. that is what we will be offering on short order. so i urge my colleagues to

vote no on this approach. to make sure we keep the unity that is essential at this time to deter putin and work with me too make sure this body sends a united strong message to deter putin, stand with our allies and with ukraine. i urge a no vote on the crews legislation and the yield the floor. cracks under the previous order all time has expired the clerk will read the title of the bill for the third time.

over the transport of natural gas between the countries. proponents of sanctions sanction this sanction that is currently administering sanctions and programs designed to change the behavior of certain countries. and yet no one seems to ask the important questions, new sanctions promote peace and understanding? or do they escalate tension between nations? what behavior has china modified since the u.s. began a sanctions? has russia changed her behavior? has russia given back crimea, mr. president, we have order on the floor please? quick senators protect their conversations outside of the chamber. the senator from kentucky. quick sanctions though it lacking in proof of are very popular with both parties.

embargoes, sanctions, "big brother" also garner bipartisan enthusiasm. the u.s. embargo of cuba has now gone on for more than 60 years without any evidence of a change in regime or a change in regime policy. embargoes are often described, especially by the embargoed country as an act of war. many historians at the u.s. embargo of 1807 ultimately led to the war of 1812. president jefferson's embargo was intended to punish france and england some historians blame the u.s. embargo of japan for the ensuing war. roosevelt seized many of japan's assets and japan lost access to much of its international trade in over 80% of its imported oil. effectively, at least from the

perspective of japan the embargo is an act of war. enthusiasts for embargoes and sanctions still clamoring for more. sanction point to the international sanctions against iran as the lever that brought about the obama era nuclear agreement with iran. perhaps but an equally valid argument made is the extension rather than sticks that brought iran to the table. if any how diplomacy seems to require give and take not just take, take, take. our interaction with iran should illuminate today's debate over sanctions on the transport pipeline between russia and germany. but the shade is dimming the light of experience. opponents of the pipeline not surprisingly are largely from states that compete in the sale of natural gas. this is more about protectionism than it is a national. reports are the pipeline will

cause a significant reduction u.s. exports of liquid natural gas. hence the keen interest by people representing states that sell natural gas. this is not so much about national security, it is about protectionism. acknowledging this debate is only superficially about national security and relate more about professional protectionism helps us better understand the dynamics. history demonstrates the trade and interconnectedness between nations is a barrier to war. engaging in mutually beneficial, coupled with a military deterrent is the combination that best promises peace. over the past decade congress has heaped sanctions on russia and china. they come before our committee to review what behavioral changes have been come about as a result of sanctions. i often got blank stares.

they want to sanction already completed pipeline. lester they said if we put sanctions on we will stop them. well, the senate and the house overwhelmingly passed a sanctions. they have a sanctions and they still completed the pipeline. but what behavior are they now asking russia to change? what specifically has russia been asked to do? what russian action is necessary for these sanctions to end? i have asked to sponsor this bill paid the sanctions you want to deal with russia what behavior what you want from russia? the response is they do not want any behavioral changes from russia. a word for word response from the sponsors of this bill is they just want russia not to ship oil to germany. it is about to rate it's about trade that might compete with certain natural gas producing states. it has nothing to do with national security. if transport sanctions are ruling about changing russian behavior or deterring aggression in ukraine then

nato, including germany, could threaten sanctions if russia invades ukraine. now 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 a germany and the u.s. together. that has a power. our pinprick sanctions and saying we don't like you are going to punish the companies involved will do nothing. if actually work with germany we have deterring values. germany can turn off the spigot to the natural gas like that. if it is a valid threat from germany with us together we might be able to deter russia. simply turning the gas pipe laid off now and sanctioning

it is like being a hostage taker saying we don't want you to do this. we have your hostage going head and shooting the hostage before you get what you want. we should threaten sanctions the threat of sanctions has power. once you turn them on you have threat to turn them off you have no leverage over russia and you do nothing. the commitment or agreement between germany and the u.s. from the agreement says the commitment is not designed to ensure russia will not misuse any pipeline including nordstrom to to achieve aggressive political ends. or they will be met with sanctions. this could be a deterrent. the more countries they got together and said this, international community of sanctions can have some effect. one countries a sanctions against his ally, germany, will have no effect. the rush to impose sanctions now undermines the threat of

sanctions to help deter russia aggression against ukraine. no way to remove these sanctions you might make them angry enough they actually do act the opposite of what you have intended. you'll find sanctions against north stream our more about mercantilism and protection the national security. thank you. >> mr. president, the eyes of history are upon us. today, each of us will be faced with a momentous question. can we put petty differences aside? and can we come together to defend our friend and our ally, ukraine against imminent russian aggression this is not

theoretical this is russian tanks and troops are right now on the ukrainian border 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. might sanctioning the company that is racing to finish and make operational the the nord stream two pipeline. putin wants desperately completed so we can use it against our european allies. if we do not come together today ukraine risks getting wiped off the map altogether. putin did not just wake up one day and decide he wanted to invade ukraine. he has wanted to invade ukraine for years.

and he did so already in 2014. but he stopped short of a full invasion because he could not endanger ukraine's energy infrastructure, which he needs to get russia's natural gas to europe. that stopped putin all the way for marching to kiev. the next year in 2015 putin began the nord stream two 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 two, as we know, as we have heard from republicans and from democrats literally hundreds of times over the past years. on this floor nord stream two

was designed to circumvent ukraine. it is why the senate has worked together for years in a bipartisan matter to stop nord stream two from coming online. in 2017 congress came and passed the adversaries through sanctions act. which is sanctioned exploration pipeline spring 2019 congress the past protecting energy security act which sanctions nord stream two directly. he authored that bill along with democratic senator. and in 2021 congress expanded those sanctions into protecting europe's clarification act. again i authored that bill along with democratic senator shaheen. for the next several hours this body will revisit and

debate this issue once again. we'll revisit our successes from 2019 -- 2021 and using targeted sanctions to end construction of the pipeline. when president trump signed a bipartisan sanctions into law, putin stopped construction of the pipeline literally 15 minutes before the law became in effect. sanctions worked. they succeeded, together we won a bipartisan foreign policy and national security victory. but we will also revisit in this debate. in may of this year to waive those sanctions for the sanctions that worked. the sanctions that were successful. president biden weighed 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. : : >> ukraine's prime minister said last week, they are no less next potential threat to ukraine's security and democracy than russian troops on our border. that is the prime minister of ukraine, baking it is body of the united states senate, to help them. and just this week a public letter from leaders and

ukrainian civil society said, quote this at length, they said since late october of 2021, russia has amassed more than 120,000 troops close to the ukrainian border, along with the logistical support for major new offense. in this menacing buildup had been accompanied by increasingly belligerent rhetoric from senior russian officials and we believe the green light given to the pipeline in may, 2021, served as one of the key triggers for the current price and must be urgently revised. "and mr. president in ordinary times, that open letter from you ukrainian civil cited would resonate with both of them

present a public is and this is a plea for help in the premise of our legislation, are clutching at the pretext to avod doing what we have done many times before, and i want to address those pretext, one at a time. one argument that we have heard, again and again, is that imposing sanctions on the gas own cutout that runs more strength to, would shatter european units, that is an argument that's been repeated five the white house and this is all about transatlantic unity, we should give putin's pipeline because of transatlantic units. mr. president, i urge every senator to ask a simple question, when unity and with

who, in january, the european parliament voted to condemn and stop the north stream in the vote was 581 - 80. 581 - 50 and mr. president if you care about transatlantic unity, let me suggest that we side with a 581 and not the 50 police, the biden white house argument, the transatlantic it unity and a how you stand up and make that argument that with a 50 and in august, 2021, the chairs of the foreign affairs committee in nine countries oppose german agreements on the biden agreement to allow the completion of more extreme to,

among those countries that exquisitely oppose that agreement, and the czech republic, ireland, up the, lithuania, ukraine and the united kingdom mr. president, those countries your with those countries that are making us define the courage to stand up to vladimir putin. when president biden, the pipeline to go through anyway when he made the deal and the foreign minister issued a remarkable joint statement declaring for the decision that president biden made to surrender to put in that it immediate quote, security crisis for europe and they told us then, the ukraine and poland both told us then, as a result of sanchez, we are going see

russian troops. and they were right. it's almost as if they understand their neighbor and they understand putin's desire to reassemble the soviet union and it's almost as if they believe vladimir putin 20 said, many believe that the greatest geopolitical disaster of the 20th century was the dissolution it on the soviet union. and he wants to bring back together by force, which i would know it would be a grave national security threat to the united states. nessim is that when they mean your opinion unity with a really mean is unity with germany pretty and he never members say that listen, i'm just not prepared to sanction germany. mr. president, it does not sanction germany, this unsanctioned german government work german companies is to ag,

which is for putin, aggression. and even when it comes unity in germany, what they really mean, is unity with angle michael and i can see that, angle and merkel months is pipeline, do not fully understand why but she does. but she is no longer the chancellor of germany, and indeed the german people wonderful they voted her party out of office someone with a from the united states that are to be said that we are cart are concerned this we should be concerned about the current government of germany, not the former government. and we should respect the views of the german people in the

current government of germany is hopelessly fractured on or stream to. and the greens are part of this coalition government passionately opposed it and vocally repeatedly, they condemned more strength to an integral part of this german government by just a few hours ago, the german defense minister on the other side said that they are off the table card and a willing to do anything to stop them in the german chancellor said the same, declaring it that he seeks a positive reset with putin and this is the same putin listings on the border of ukraine is preparing. another argument that we will hear, is a sanction of the kepler pockets, we should reserve it for use later in the case of russian invasion i would

know that this was nowhere ukrainian allies advocate. and i have trouble believing anyone in this chamber actually thinks this argument - or should they, putin does not, he believes that once he brings more to stream to online, that he will if months through the invasion the nobody will have the will to impose the sanctions and i would note that he is not crazy to believe that the biden administration at first went to russia on nord stream two, the biden administration and german governments, made a promise, they said if, if, if, russia uses energy for energy blackmail, then we will stop the pipeline and they beat their chest with a promise them a quite bold about it momentum members of the senate say that

we have really strong promises from germany now. what is happened since then. russia has negatively and unequivocally using energy for energy black mail and they have skyrocketed in europe, and the blessing that he is laughing at, and saying well, your prices will go down, he is not hiding it or pretending. he did exactly with the biden white house and the german government said that if you do x, we will stop it and he did it, openly and blatantly, laughingly, and absolutely nothing happened. zero, crickets. mr. president i ask you and reasonable manner, and the german government and the biden white house were unwilling to impose sanctions, when putin immediately triggered what they said was there redline.

in what universe with the biden white house for the german government have agreed to resolve months millions of germans are dependent on russian natural gas from nord stream two to heat their homes when it was literally sobbing the germans from freezing to death because if the ukrainian pipeline is shut down to becomes the only viable source of heat. do we really think they would have greater courage then and they have had so far. nobody does putin doesn't. it is important to understand debate before the chamber is to impose sanctions before the innovation in order to stop the invasion orderly threaten sanctions after an invasion it is done. the bill that my colleagues senator menendez will do the latter, it would impose sanctions after an invasion is

complete. and i don't think putin believes the sanctions would ever be imposed. but i can tell you that ukrainian president linsky, has it very explicitly addressed this issue in here here's what he said, only the sanctions are applied prior to the armed conflict, with a become a prevention mechanism of freight possible escalation. the president of ukraine is bagging the members of the senate to vote on this bill on the floor today. and today, we one of our very less chances to stop nord stream two in a minute russian invasion of ukraine rated in just few minutes ago, to my colleagues senator murphy and senator shaheen, in which they explained

why they afflicted their positions, they in a manner democrat in the chamber have voted for sanchez on nord stream two, not once but twice, and every democrat voted in support of my bipartisan sanctions on nord stream two. only two things have changed since all of the democrats voted in favor the sanctions, number one, the occupant of the white house who now has a deep behind his name is eleanor in the white house is seriously lobbying democrats. asking the democrats to stand with the party, sadly at the expense of our allies and the expense of europe and the expense of u.s. national security and this should be a very easy vote and i was suggested joe biden were not present and donald trump were sitting the oval office to, that every single democrat in this

chamber vote for the sanctions, all of them, and twice when donald trump was sitting in the oval office. many of the thing that is changed by the way is the russian troops on the border of ukraine which is exactly when the ukrainians the polls told us what happened when biden waived the sanctions. so the two things that are changed i have to say the my senator murphy and shaheen had a very odd policy. because, they decided to go after me personally instead of focusing on the merits of the issue. and in particular, they said it when trump was president, senator cruz did not hold the state department nominee over nord stream two, and trump did not impose the sanctions over nord stream two and mr. president i recognize the politics sometimes, and heat of the moment and you say things

sometimes you don't entirely think through them but even in the bad arguments, that is a singularly absurd argument, it is true. i didn't hold the state department nominee's at nord stream two and trump did not impose thank you so why because we stopped nord stream two, because we were successful. and also the bipartisan sanctions, they were significant elements of the trump administration's and treasury department, fought mightily against it. i was more than happy to battle my own party in this because this the right thing to do for u.s. national security. is there even one democrat who has the courage to do that against his own party. now that it is the other side, the argument i didn't hold, why would i hold nominees, president trump signed the bill.

and i said from the beginning of my biden posted it section, i would lift all of the holes when i lifted 32 holds, in december to get this vote. my focus is on stopping this pipeline and stopping putin and russia. and they say well, trump didn't impose the sanctions, that is correct, because putin building the pipeline. and remind you that president trump signed the bill if my memory serves correctly, 7:00 p.m. on a thursday night. a putin stop building a pipeline it 6:45 p.m., 15 minutes before hannah, their sanction, they didn't have the clinic, they stopped. they only returned to building at the pipeline, do you know what date putin began building the pipeline once again, januar.

that was of 2021 pretty four days after joe biden was sworn into office. putin knew the biden was going to do what he did. wave sanctions and surrender and sanctions worked. we had a bipartisan victory. and this white house give it away and wanted take a minute to speak my democratic colleagues, there's lots of issues we will disagree with and that's fine, and we have good vigorous arguments. that is part of our democracy. put in this instance, the biden white house is carrying out the policy that makes no sense. that abandons our allies that is harmful to american national security, that strengthens and

encourages the aggression the vladimir putin, a bully and a tyrant. and it makes war and most of all my democratic colleagues know all of this pretty avoid it as my democratic colleagues to semihard comes take some partisan grief have the courage to stand up for voting against the white house on this, save the white house from a mistake. it is one of the rules of the senate. we keep hearing the analogy that the framers use of pulling the timbers 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 and you have as well as residents and they're very few

votes that thinkers house which was about we are getting ready to take. and senate democrats partisan loyalty reported above national security. and if they vote simply by party fine, it will dramatically increase the chances of a violent russian invasion of ukraine. in days or weeks or months from now, if we turn the television set and we see russian tanks in the streets, the reason will be that the united states senate heard the pleas of our ukrainian allies and we turn a deaf ear to them. i pray that we don't do so. in the eyes of history, are upon

us this body republicans and democrats, should rise to the occasion. i yield the floor.

on the sanctions bill by senator cruz, and i certainly shared the concerns that have been expressed just a few minutes ago by senator mcconnell about the

threat that russia poses to ukraine and eastern europe and the role that nord stream two in a critical issue that a place and i've been a strong among long-standing opponent of nord stream two, and i believe now what i believed at the time that i originally cosponsored the nord stream two sanctions bill and senator christopher that the nord stream two pipeline is a long-term threat to the energy security of europe. but right now were in a different place on this. and while senator cruz 94 to get there sanctions of the legislations, on this pipeline, my disagreement now with senator cruz is that with his approach what we need to do to address what is right now a much more serious threat to europe, tomato, to the transatlantic

alliance, and that is russia's threat against ukraine. and what senator cruz is bill would do is not stop nord stream two, it would undermine the current diplomatic situation that is absolutely critical we are going to respond to the russian threat. it is bill is about supporting is bill will be about to compromise transatlantic unity, a boat breaks the message of bipartisan support in the face of russian aggression and furthermore, not just bipartisan support, but ally support with united states and germany and western europe is the threats the russia poses to ukraine and relate to eastern germany if they take this action. the dynamics audit nord stream two, have changed and senator cruz and i thought for the

passage of legislation to present completion of the pipeline. at the time we work together to provide the trump and ministration of critical tools to sanction the pipeline and we did that, because there were some members of the trump administration it became to us and said, we need this legislation because the administration has not acted in the fact is that 95 percent of the construction of that nord stream two pipeline, was completed it during the trump years. unfortunately, the trump administration even after the past that sanctions legislation, though sanctions, they waited until literally the last day of the trump administration it, to sanction a sworn into the one entity in four years, and always so is what i just said, 95 percent of that pipeline was completed during the trump years. now we are in a very different

situation right now unfortunately, because were in a situation where russia is threatening ukraine and we need to work closely with our european allies to present a united front against russia. we have strengthen our relationship their german allies, the trump administration of the biden administration has stored in diplomacy first foreign policy which seeks to advance america policy for dialogue and not through threats. and there is a new german coalition government we are now engaging with, the government that has appears to be more skeptical about the nord stream two pipeline, that's because certifications of the pipeline and solve the operation until it leaked later this year.

the new government has indicated that this pipeline is not just an economic project. it is very clear that the dynamics have changed when the dynamics change, then our approach on our foreign policy should reflect those changes. we cannot look at this legislation it in isolation. this legislation senator cruz proposing that were going to be voting on today, is coming at a time when the administration is exhausting every single diplomatic avenue to deter putting from further violating ukraine's territorial integrity and russia has messed over 100,000 troops on ukrainian border, come in the next month or so truly going to be critical in changing put in copulation that any invasion it would come with a hefty price predict nord

stream two right now presents a potential incentive for puttingo use because our european partners but is also leverage, leverage that the west can use and pivotal moment as russia is thinking about vladimir putin and thinking about what he will do in ukraine. i believe we need to stop this pipeline long-term. there may be a time in the future when another change in our approach on pipeline may be necessary as we know that happens with foreign policy, we don't live in a static world is dynamic and he demands responses i have joined it senator menendez and 38 demo that's introducing ukraine sovereignty act of 2022 of the legislation the desert but the reality on the ground that would impose

swift and crippling sanctions on russians economy if put in decided to invade and provides critical additional military support for ukrainian allies and with strength and spark dark eastern european allies in the face of putin attempt to to look backwards, not forwards we are not going to give vladimir putin and russia the ability to veto who joins nato, we saw that very clearly yesterday with russians and nato officials. russia did not like it because they didn't get the answer they wanted which was a veto over who should be able to join nato. we're going to take it strong scent of our allies in opposition to what russia is doing but we can't use yesterday's to help us solve today's problems, the immediate threat that we are facing right now, as a threat of russian invasion and ukraine and we need

to do everything possible and work as closely as possible, show no daylight with our allies and standing up to that threat and unfortunately, what senator cruz is proposing without nord stream two sanctions legislation would do exactly that, would drive a wedge join us in our allies particularly between the united states and germany and that's how we cannot afford. so i intend to vote against this legislation and senator menendez legislation that would give us the tools we need to continue to address potential russian aggression and thank you and i yield the floor. and i look forward to hearing senator murphy's commas because i know he shares the same concern that i am impressing. >> senator from connecticut. >> thank you very much, i want to thank the senator shaheen,

she has been a leader in the senate and in our caucus on raising alarms but the danger of nord stream two, to the european security and ukrainian security and i'm so glad to have worked with her over these past several years and i'm joining her in her strong opposition to the legislation it that is pending on the floor as we speak. .. to be in solidarity with them

to deter russian aggression. i will try not to repeat too much of what senator shaheen has said. let me underscore what she said. they are because they can be done done easily within a 38 -- 60 days by the russian government. the reality please do not convince our european partners to stop moving forward with this project is no amount of u.s. sanctions that can be effective here. what we know is even if you were to sanction the german swisher company, german board of directors in a matter of days, weeks, maybe a few months, the russians could re- engineer the financing and administration of the project to keep it going.

even more interesting to me is what senator o'connell just said. senator mcconnell said he supports senator cruises proposal, he expects the biden administration waive the sanctions. so then why are we engaging in this in the first place if republicans are going to support the waving of the sanctions because the sanctions would interrupt our negotiations with germany, why pass the bill the first place? apparently many republicans are supporting the cruise bill but then are going to be asked in the biden administration to not implement that does not seem to make a lot of sense. the primary impact of this bill is senator shaheen explained is to divide us from germany, why is that? we know the only way to stop nord stream two is by convincing the germans and other europeans stop the project. now we have for the first time since we began a talking to the germans about this,

convince them to press deposit. the first time german government has decided to press pause they stop the certification of the pipeline which by the way is built it was 95% built when president trump left office. he let it be constructed 95% bill it is now one 100% built. but the germans because of american diplomacy and the threat of invasion of ukraine from russia, press deposit on this project. cannot start until the summer or the fall. and frankly that time allows us to continue to engage with the germans and others to try and convince them this project is not in their interest. so, think about this from the german perspective. they finally said yes to the united states. and that minutes and they say yes is the minute the united states senate decides to sanction german citizens.

that is bad diplomacy. it is just bad diplomacy. it's that moment we have to be in lockstep with our european partners. being to be sending a message to vladimir putin the united states and europe are together we are going to deliver a crushing passage of sanctions if you enter ukraine any further. this would be a gift to vladimir putin at a moment when we need to be standing together. senator menendez has the right approach. senator menendez has proposed a bill that i think 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.

that sends the right signal that is an effective message of consequence rather than this proposal which apparently the sanctions republicans have 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 i have heard senator cruz make over, and over, and over again in defense of this proposal. cruz says that the construction of the pipeline stopped when congress passed the nord stream sanctions and did not begin again until joe biden became president. i have seen that repeated in the press. it just is not true. one company that was laying the pipeline backed out of the project with a 2019 sanctions bill was passed. but then guess what happened, russia started retrofitting

other ships to finish the job. the minute they were permanent, 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. they started work a few months later as soon as the danish government. now senator shaheen and cruz have passed the sanctions bill with all of our support at the end of 2019. during all of 2020 while the russians were retrofitting the ships. when they were sending them back to danish waters when the process was happening donald trump did not enact one sanction. congress passed the law in the end of 2019 all of 2020 donald trump trump did not 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. do you know why? because in 2020 cruz did not hold up any of donald trump state department nominees when trump was refusing to implement sanctions. when the russians assent ships that started showing up to restart construction. not even when construction restarted in the fall of 2020. no, during this time all of us sailed through that single republican objection or blockade. on trump's last fight in office, his last day literally and is packing up the oval office generate 19th he sanction one ship in the company that owned the ship. essentially a signal of how little he cared on the day he was leaving he sanction one for the company on the ship. by this time 95% was completed was too late. then he begrudgingly hands over the keys to joe biden

leaves the incoming president with a mess. a pipe like 95% of the bill donald trump could have stopped if he is the sanctions he was given. so you can understand why some of us wonder what the motivation is behind senator cruises externa tactics now when the pipeline is already built. it seems the difference between 2020 and 2021 is essentially now there's a democrat in the white house. this bill is not going to help ukraine. it is designed to hurt the president of the united states. and unfortunately some, not all, not all but some of our republican colleagues consistently but their desire to politically harm present biden ahead of their desire to protect the nation. holding up a confirmation of present biden's nominee does not have the security of the nation.

it increases the chance united states one of the personal on the hand to deal the crisis when it develops. i'm not a failure it may hurt joe biden's approval rating. unfortunately think that's what's going on here. unfortunately i think that's what's going on here and i hope my colleagues sees it. i yield the floor. quick center from new hampshire for. >> mode may call yield for question? >> i would. click senator murphy, i am really pleased, sadly please i think it's really appropriate you brought up the issue about holding state department nominees. because one of things has been unfortunate about cruz approach to nord stream two in recent weeks has not just been has holding up of nominees,

but has been his suggestion of the change in response on my part and others who oppose nord stream two has been partisan. but, as you point out during all the trump administration, cruz did not hold one nominee because of nord stream two. is that your understanding? >> it is my understanding. my understanding my been private advocacy or public speeches given certainly was not the tactic used during 2020 which is extraordinary. the holding of all nominees. i think i would add to that democratic senators have not used that tactic. we had huge disagreements of president trump's policy including his failure to use sanctions that were given to him by congress at the moment

when sanctions would've been most effective. we did not block all of president trump's ambassadors and state department personnel because we thought it was better to have those people on hand working to protect u.s. interest then it was to have those positions vacant. that's the case we have been trying to make on this floor. if you really care about helping ukraine, why did cruz spent all of 2020 blocking the ambassadors and state department personnel whose job it would have been to help ukraine. no one has been more engaged on this question than you have senator shaheen. >> i think the other important point we both made is the fact what stopped the pipeline when the first sanctions passed was the threat of sanctions but is not actually implementing those sanctions.

in fact it was in russia's ability to come back in, retrofit ships and do the work themselves, russian ships did the work themselves. throughout the last year of the trump administration they refused to take any action to address that. in fact i remember being in a meeting, i cannot remember if you were in that meeting or not was cruz and some of our republican colleagues and a member of the administration urging us to pass another sanctions bill because the administration had not acted. so i think it is really important as you say, to point out 95% of that pipeline was done under the previous administration when cruz and our colleagues who would like to stop the pipeline had the opportunity to hold up his nominees to raise those concerns and that did not

happen. that puts us at a disadvantage today as we look at the threat of nordstrom would you agree with that? >> i would. if you do not mind senator shaheen i'd like to go to the timeline once again because i think it's important. december 2019 congress passes a sanction billed you in santa cruz champion. that stops the private company from constructing the pipeline. they pulled back but immediately russia starts retrofitting their own ships. we knew it we saw it was not secret. that happens the beginning of 2020 by may of 2020 though ships are on their way. from may until october they are caught up in permits. but it's just a matter of time everyone knows so ships are eventually going to start laying down pipe. by october of 2020 before joe biden was elected president those ships are back doing construction october, november, december, author of 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 pipe at somewhere around 95% of the pie plate is done. and literally walking out the door donald trump lays down sanction on one company and one ship the company owns pre-altered 2020 note blockade of state department nominees. note grinding to a halt of senate nomination business to try to prompt the present to change his mind. all of that magically starts happening when joe biden is president 195 of the pipeline is done. i hope senator shaheen i'll let you wrap up, i hope we can find a way to get on the same page here. we have been for much of the last several years that you have lead that effort. think senator menendez legislation which is all about the right set of incentives and disincentives over russian

behavior is perhaps that means we can elevate this above the question of who is president and get back to fighting for the interest of our nation and the interest of our partnering ukraine. >> think it senator murphy i cannot say it any better. >> mr. president, this is a pivotal week for the security of ukraine. talks are ongoing to test whether the kremlin wants to engage in diplomacy or intent on war. to see if the united states can hold putin back from the brink. at the headlines are any indication this morning it is clear this is an open question. this is a critical time there still may be a window to deter the kremlin from deciding to invade. but we must be clear and united about what awaits russia if it chooses the

unwise path. we must send an unequivocal message that should putin invade, the consequences would be devastating. there would be steep costs to the economy and to the people of russia if he further tramples on ukraine's territory and independence. that message to be sent to every channel, at every level, including by this body. we have a chance to do just that. defendant ukraine sovereignty act which has adjusted to short days, 39 cosponsors already, is a comprehensive response to the threat facing ukraine. it would impose massive crippling sanctions on multiple sectors of russia's economy. it was impose the harshest sanctions on putin and senior kremlin officials themselves. it would effectively cut russia off from the international financial system.

that is the sanctions i helped devise that ultimately brought iran years ago to the negotiating table. this act also makes clear the united states will make every effort to expedite security assistance and defense articles to help support ukraine. and it expands our efforts to counter kremlin's across the region. it says the united states will not stand for this bullying. and it makes clear that putin has a choice to make. but we are not voting on that comprehensive response. we are not voting on how severe the consequences should be if putin goes down the path of invasion. said were voting on whether to sanction nord stream two. as if that alone would deter putin from re- invading. as if that alone would stop

him. instead mr. president, sanctioning nord stream now at this a pivotal moment would have the opposite effect of deterring putin. it might even be the excuse putin is looking for. right now the one thing we know putin wants is for nord stream two to be operational. now let's be clear, if we do not sanction nord stream now that does not mean the pipeline goes online. it does not mean putin gets his way. what it does mean is there is a leverage. right now we have a new german government that has blocked the pipeline for moving forward. right now that german government is a productive partner with us on this critical issue. they are where we need them to be working to coercive putin not to re- invade ukraine.

making clear that if putin advances into ukraine, there will be no nord stream. working with us to strengthen and support strong deterrence. coordinating with us to enhance the impact of a devastating sanctions if we need to pull that trigger. that is where we need the german government to be. sanctioning nord stream now in the way the cruz bill would do, would not just be a sanction on nord stream two ag. the bill would a sanction quote any corporate officer of any entity established or responsible for the planning, construction, operation of the nord stream two pipeline or a successor entity". this broad scope would have a clear ripple effect on the

entities, many of them german and individuals many german citizens who worked on the pipeline. that includes german countries involved in the pipeline, industrial sites, rail operators, board operators any entity associated with that deal. so, for an ally that is with us in this fight against putin's aggression, for an ally that is standing up with us when we need them to be strong, this would be a sanction on them. they have made that clear to us. pipeline stop the regulatory on it. it could be months before anything happens depending upon what putin does. now is not the time to take

off the table a key piece of leverage. not mr. president have to address some other points i've heard some of our other colleagues mention. i've listened to the center from texas lay blame time and time again at the feet of president biden. he has tried to blame. and now is trying to blame him for illegitimate power grabbing and military aggression. because it was not president biden who could have imposed the sanctions back in 2017. it was not president biden who did nothing for years while 94% of the pipeline was being built. it was not president biden who waited until his last day in office.

there someone else who probably could have used his authority to put a stop to this malign influence project but didn't. there someone else who could have made the kremlin's weaponization a priority but didn't. the senate already knows this. but how could i be so sure? the summer of 19 he said and i quote, i want this to be very clear. if the pipeline is completed it would be the fault of the members of this trump administration who sat on their rear ends and did not exercise the clear power, the fault of the trump administration, his words. but now it magically it is president biden's fault. please, pipeline that is 94%

complete by 2021 as a trump putin pipeline. mr. president may be convenient to say work on the pipeline stop until biden became president, that is just not the case. in fact work stopped on the pipeline for six months, six months from december 2019 until the spring of 2020 because a company backed out of the project. but did russia stop? no. it was working furiously to finish the job by retrofitting ships that complete the pipeline. in the moment that was done the moment ships were ready pipeline construction started again. a retrofitted ship showed up in germany in may of 2020 awaiting a permit by danish authorities. the permit was approved in october of 2020 the fact he had received a permit was sanctionable by the then trump

administration. the trump administration failed in charlotte german waters. i was not waiting for biden to be an office, it was acting. trump administration could and should have imposed sanctions at that point in their sanctions it could have imposed and chose not to do. it's an outlook, my position on nord stream has been clear but i have been and have remained strongly opposed to the pipeline. i supported sanctions when it could have had an impact during the administration before hundreds of miles of pipe is been completed. president trump had those tools. he had then we pass them

overwhelmingly. i gave them more tools and more sanctions what did he do? nothing. not until his last day in office did he impose sanctions is very last day. so let's stop with the games. by the time the buy demonstration took office the pipe i was 94% complete, 94%. senate occurs once a stop the pipeline so do i. it is far from clear sanctions at this point when the pipeline is already built would do just that. it is not clear to me at all the senator's proposal would even change the status quo. instead it would most certainly tie up this body and this a floor so would and time again on resolutions related to nordstrom. i get it, i get i understand what the senate would rather tie up this floor and

hamstring the president's agenda instead of voting on nominees or voting rights or "build back better" or judges or whole list of other critical elements before the country. but that is the reality of the proposal. i ask my colleagues what is the urgent threat that needs addressing? is it attempting to score political points and tied the president's hands intentionally and internationally? is it addressing the real and imminent threat amassing among ukraine's border. i believe we need to address the real threat and the whole threat facing ukraine and the region. that is why i drafted the ukraine sovereignty act. i stood up for and alongside kremlin aggression. i was in ukraine right after russia's invasion took place at. after russia's illegal

occupation i drafted the freedom support act which passed into law and thousand 16 stanford ukraine act i'll continue to ensure the united states does all it can to help ukraine defend itself against putin to support its integrity into bolstered security in the region. i urge this body to do just that. note finally senate occurs would like to suggest that partisan loyalty is why we believe in his at this time is wrong. what is wrong is to break the coalition we now have against putin is one of the most critical times of history. germany is a critical part in

norton's dream today not that this administration would one less reason for putin to say that's gone why shouldn't i invade anyhow? i urge my colleagues to imminent threat along the border to make clear with the massive cost of his actions would be we might still be able to turn putin back spieth laser focused on what it will take to get him from taking one more step towards ukraine's border. i urge my colleagues to act to address the threat at hand, one that extends far beyond a pipeline that threatens an entire country's borders on the security of a region. it is a threat that demands a comprehensive resounding

response. that is what we will be offering in short order. i urge my colleagues to vote no on this approach. to make sure we keep a unity to deter putin and to work with me too make sure this body sends the united strong message to deter poaching, stand with our allies and support ukraine. i urge a no vote on the crews legislation and i yield the floor. clicks under the previous order all time is expired for the clerk will read the title of the bill for the third time for. >> calendar number 231 s3 436. bills require the sanctions with respect to entities responsible for the planning, construction or operation of the nord stream two pipeline and so forth and for other purposes. >> the question is on the bill.

the senate and the closing stages of a vote that started at 2:55 p.m. eastern time. they've been stuck on 98 tallies for quite some time. at issue is a built levying sanctions regarding the russian gas pipeline nord stream two. this bill needed 60 votes to pass and there are already enough no votes to prevent the measure from passing. the two senators left to vote are from hawaii who was out sick with covid and majority leader schumer. we understand this vote is delayed because senator schumer is trying to negotiate a way forward on voting rights. while we wait for the last vote to be cast, here is more debate from earlier today on this bill.

german and russian businessmen's over the transfer of natural gas between their countries. proponents of sanctions essay sanction this, sanction that is, 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 a russia change behavior? has russia given back cry me a comment mr. president can we have order on the floor please? >> centers please take their conversations outside the

chamber. senator from kentucky. >> sanctions though lacking in proof of effectiveness are very popular with both parties. in bargain agenda embargoes, sanctions a "big brother" gone our bipartisan enthusiasm. the embargo of cuba has gone on for more than 60 years without any evidence of a change in regime or a change in regime policy. embargoes are often described, especially at the embargo country is an active war the embargo of 1807 ultimately led to the war of 1812 intended to punish france and england experts declined by 75%. some historians also blamed the bargo of japan for the ensuing or. roosevelt seized many of japan's assets 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 is an active war. enthusiast sanction to the point of the international is brought about the obama new area nuclear agreement with iran. perhaps been equally valid argument can be made was extension of carrots rather than sticks that brought iran to the table. funny how diplomacy requires give and take not just take, take, take. it should aluminate today's debate over sanctions on the north stream to pipeline between russia and germany. but the shade of mercantilism is dimming the light of experience. opponents of the pipeline not surprisingly art largely from states that compete in the sale of natural gas.

this is more about protectionism than it is national security. reports are the pipeline will cause a significant reduction in u.s. exports of liquid natural gas. hence the keen interest by people representing states that sell natural gas. this is not so much about national security it's about protectionism. acknowledging this debate is only superficially about national security and more about provincial protectionism helps us to better understand the dynamics. history demonstrates the trade and interconnectedness between nations is a barrier to war. engaging and mutually effective commerce couples with the military determinants is the combination that best promises peace. over the past decade congress and presence of heat sanctions on russia and china when it asked the state department officials to come before our committee to reveal what behavioral changes have come

about as a result of sanctions , i often got blank stares. they want to sanction an already completed pipeline. faster they said if we put sanctions on we will stop them. the senate and the house overwhelmingly passed sanctions. we have sanctions the cell completed the pipeline. but what behavior are they now asking russia to change? what specifically has russia been asked to do? what russian accent is necessary for the sanctions to end. asked to sponsor this bill what you want from russia? the response as they do not want any behavioral changes from russia. the word for word responsibly sponsors of this bill is they just want russia to not ship oil to germany. it is about trade it's about trade that might compete with certain natural producing states for is nothing to do with national security.

if nord stream two sanctions are really about changing russian behavior or deterring aggression and ukraine then nato including germany could threaten sanctions if russia invades ukraine. now that is, 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, any attempts to use energy as a weapon or commit further aggressive action against ukraine we met with sanctions as is germany and the u.s. together. that has power. on pinprick sanction saying we do not like you were going to punish the companies that are involved we will do nothing. we actually work with germany we have deterring value. germany could turn up the >> it to the natural gas like that. if it is a valid threat from

germany with us together, we might be able to deter russia. template turn the gas of pipeline off now and sanction it is like being a hostage taker and saying we don't want you to do this and we have your hostage and going ahead and shooting the hostage before you get what you want. we should threaten sanctions the threat of sanctions has power. once you turn them on and you have no plan to turn them off you have no leverage over russia and you do nothing. the commitment or agreement between germany and the u.s., from the agreement says the commitment is designed to ensure russia will not misuse any pipeline including nord stream two to achieve aggressive political ends. or they will be met with sanctions. this could be a deterrent to parade the more countries got together to say this international community of sanctions can have some effect. one country sanctions against

the ally, germany, will have no effect. the rush to impose sanctions now undermines the threat of sanctions to deter russian aggression against ukraine. nothing in no way to remove the sanctions you might as well make them angry enough opposite of what you intended us more about mercantilism the national security thank you. >> mr. president, the eyes of history are upon us today each of us will be faced with a momentous question. can we put petty differences aside? to come together to defend our friend and ally.

against imminent russian aggression. this isn't theory or theoretical, russian tanks and troops are right now masks on the ukrainian border. in their preparing for invasion the senate, just a few hours of vote on a bill by sanctioning the company make operational the nord stream two pipeline. we can use it as a cudgel against our european allies. if we do not come together ukraine risks getting wiped off the map altogether. pugin did not just wake up one

day and decide he wanted to invade ukraine. he has wanted to invade ukraine for years. and he did so already in 2014. but he stopped short of a full invasion because he could not endanger ukraine's energy infrastructure. which he needs to get russia's natural gas to europe. that stopped putin for marching all the way to kyiv. the next year in 2015 putin began the north nord stream to build a pipeline going around ukraine so he could get his gas to europe and invade ukraine with no risk to the billion he relies on every year. nord stream two as we know as we have heard from republicans and from democrats literally hundreds of times over the

past years on this floor and in committees and briefings, nord stream two was designed to circumvent ukraine. it is why the senate has worked together for years in a bipartisan manner to stop nord stream two from coming online. in 2017 congress came together and passed the adversary through sanctions act. which sanction investments and russian energy export pipelines. in 2019 congress passed protecting energy act which sanctions directly from the author that bill along with democratic senator. and in 2021 congress expanded those sanctions into protecting europe's energy security clarification act. again i authored that bill along with democratic senator

shaheen. for the next several hours this body will revisit and debate this issue once again. will revisit our successes and using targeted sanctions to end construction of the pipeline. when a president trump bipartisan sanctions into law, stop construction of the pipe line literally 15 minutes before the law came into effect, sanctions works, they succeeded, and 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

the sanctions he sanctions the headworks, the sanctions that were successful, president biden waive 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 a 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 two is quote no less than existenial threat to ukraine security and democracy than russian troops on our border. that is 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 cause this at length, they said since late october 2021 russia has amassed more than 120,000 troops close to the ukrainian border along with the logistical support for eight 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 nordstrom pipeline and may of 2021 served as one of the key triggers for the current crisis. and must be urgently revised. ". mr. president, and ordinary

times that open letter for ukrainian civil society with resignation of both republicans it is a plea for help. opponents of our legislation are clutching at pretext to avoid doing what we have done many times before. i want to address those projects one at a time. one argument we have heard again and again is that imposing sanctions on nord stream two ag the cutout that runs nord stream would shatter european unity. as an argument deemed by the white house repeatedly this is all about transatlantic 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 two pipeline. the boat was 581, 250. 581 to 50, mr. president if you care about transatlantic unity let me suggest we side with the 581 and not the 50. the biden white house argument is literally go with the 50 in the name of transatlantic unity. i do not know how you stand up and make that argument in a straight face. 581 -- 50. in august, of 2021 the chairs of the foreign affairs committee and nine countries

opposed explicitly the nord stream two u.s. adjournment agreement, the biden agreement to allow the completion of nord stream two. among those countries that explicitly oppose that agreement estonia, the czech republic, ireland, latvia, lithuania, poland, ukraine, and the united kingdom. mr. president, are those countries here? to care about transatlantic unity with those countries who 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 the decision president biden made to surrender to putin created an immediate security crisis for europe.

they told us and then, ukraine and poland both told us then as a result of waving a sanctions are 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 he believed the greatest geopolitical disaster was the soviet union. and he wants to bring it back together by force which i would know it would be a grave national security threat to the united states. now, some will say they mean european unity they really need unity with germany. indeed i have heard members on this floor say listen, i am just not prepared to sanction germany.

mr. president, this bill does not sanction germany produced not sanction the german government sanctions nordstrom to this is the sanctioning russian cut out because this pipeline is a tool for putin's aggression in europe. and even when it comes to unity in germany, what they really mean and i will concede that. merkel once this pipeline. i do not fully understand why but she does. that is no longer the chancellor of germany. indeed the german people want to the polls and voted her party out of office. so one would think from the united states, to the extent we are concerned about standing with an ally we should be concerned about the

current government of germany not the former governor. and we should respect use of the german people for the current government of germany is hopelessly fractured on nord stream two. the greens were part of the coalition government passionately opposed nord stream two. vocally, repeatedly they have condemned nord stream two and they are an integral part of this government. but just a few hours ago the german defense minister on the other side said nord stream two was off the table. they are not willing to do anything to stop nord stream two. the german chancellor said the same, declaring he seeks a positive reset with putin. this is the same putin who have tanks on the border of ukraine and is preparing to invade. another argument that we will hear, is that sanctions should be kept in her pockets.

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. i have trouble believing anyone in this chamber takes this argument seriously, or should they? putin doesn't. putin believes once he brings nordstrom to online and once he has change the region through invasion no one will have the will to impose sanctions. and i would note he is not crazy to believe that. when the biden administration first capitulated to russia on nordstrom too, the biden ministration the german government made a promise. they said if russia uses energy for energy blackmail

them he stopped the pipeline they beat their chest they were quite bold about it. reading really strong promises from germany now. russia has it nakedly and unequivocally used energy for energy blackmail. energy prices have skyrocketed in europe. putin is openly boasting he is laughing and saying well turn nord stream two on your energy prices will go down for it is not hiding it, he is not pretending, he did exactly of the biden white house and the german government said but if you do x we will stop it. he did it, openly, brazenly, laughingly, and absolutely nothing happened. zero, crickets. mr. perez ask you as a reasonable man, if the german government and the biden white house was unwilling to impose

sanctions when putin immediately triggered what they said was the red lion, in what universe were the biden white house or the german government have a greater resolve once and millions of germans are dependent on russian natural gas from nord stream two to treat heat their homes when it is literally stopping the germans from freezing to death because if the ukrainian pipeline is shut down, becomes the only viable source of heat. do we really think they're going to have greater courage then than they have had so far? nobody does. pollutant doesn't. and it is 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 invasion is done?

the bill that my colleague senator menendez is pushing when you're the latter it was impose sanctions after invasion is complete. i do not think putin believes that sanctions would ever be imposed. but i can tell you ukrainian president zelensky has a very explicitly address this issue. here's what he said, quote. only if the sanctions are applied prior to the armed conflict with they become a prevention mechanism for any possible x that's a present of ukraine backing the members of the senate to vote in favor of the bill on the floor today. today it will be one of our very last chances to stop nord stream two and to stop and 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 voted for sanctions on nord stream two not once but twice every democrat vote in support of my bipartisan sanctions on nord stream two. only two things have changed since all the democrats voted in favor of the sanctions number one, the occupant of the white house. who now has a d behind his name instead of in our. the white house is furiously lobbying democrats. asking democrats to stand with their party. sadly, at the expense of our allies, this should be a very easy votes.

i would suggest if joe biden were not president, donald trump set in the oval office today every single democrat in this chamber would vote for the sanctions, all of them. as they did twice when donald trump was sitting in the oval office. the other thing that is changed by the way are the russian troops on the border of ukraine which is exactly what the ukrainians told us what happened when biden waved in the sanctions. those of the two things that have changed. i have set my colleagues murphy and shaheen had an odd quality. because they decided to go after me personally instead of focusing on the merits of the issue. and in particular they said when trump was president, senator cruz did not hold his state department nominees over nord stream two.

when trump did not impose sanctions over nord stream two. no mr. president i recognize in politics sometimes the heat of the moment you say things you do not entirely think through them. but even in the annals of bad arguments, that is a singularly absurd argument. it is true i did not pull the state department nominees over erica mokay's troops for trump did not have sanctions why qwest work because we stopped to nord stream two. we were successful. when it offered the bipartisan sanctions there were significant element of the trump administration that resisted by the treasury department fought mightily against it. and i was more than happy to battle my own party on this because it's the right thing to do for u.s. national security. as or even one democrat with the courage to do that against his own party?

now that it is the other side, the argument i did not hold any nominees? why would i hold nominees president trump signed it. i said from the beginning of biden impose a 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. on the argument was a trump did not impose sanctions. that is correct because putin stopped building the pipeline. i remind you of the timing president trump sign the bill, if my memory serves me correctly at 7:00 p.m. on a thursday night. putin stopped building the pipeline at 6:45 p.m. 50 mess beforehand. there is nothing to sanction because they did not commit to sanctionable conduct. they stopped at. they only returned to building

the pipeline, mr. president you know what date putin began building deep sea once again? generate 24, 2021. four days after joe biden was sworn into office. putin knew that biden was going to do what he did. wave the sanctions and surrender. the sanctions worked. we had a bipartisan victory, inexplicably this white house giveaway. i want to take a minute to speak to my democratic colleagues. there's a lot of disagreements will disagree with our partisan manager that's fine was about tax rates high or low have good figures arguments about that. but as part of our democracy. but in this instance biden white house is carrying out a policy that makes no sense.

that abandons our allies, that is harmful to american national security, but strengthens and encourages the aggression of vladimir putin a bully and a tiger. that makes war much more likely. most of if not all of my democratic colleagues know this. 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 are making. that is where 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 were getting ready to take. if senate democrats but partisan loyalty above national security, if they vote simply by party lines, it will dramatically increase the chances of a violent russian invasion of ukraine. and days, weeks, months from now, if we turn on the television set and see russian tanks in the streets of kiev, the reason will be the united states senate heard the pleas of our ukrainian allies and we

turned a deaf ear to them. i pray that we do not do so, the eyes of history are upon us and this about eight republicans and democrats should rise to the occasion. i yield the floor. >> the senate now five hours into a boat that started to 55:00 p.m. eastern time. they've been stuck on 98 tallies for quite some time. at issue is a bill living gas pipeline nord stream two. this bill needed 60 votes to pass there are already enough no votes to defeat the measure. the two senators left about

our brian from hawaii was out sick with covid and majority leader schumer. we understand this vote is delayed because senator schumer is trying to negotiate a way forward on voting rights. one of the democratic centers of the heart of the issues arizona kiersten cinema. she has stated her opposition to change and the filibuster rules which is needed to pass the bill. late this afternoon she and another democratic holdout west virginia joe manchin travel to the white house to meet with president biden on the issue purred earlier she spoke about her for objecting to set filibuster rule changes.

>> for our nation, for years america's politics have spiraled steadily downward into increasingly tribal partisanship. our democracy has been stranger. although that may sound abstract, it is a problem that hurts americans in real tangible ways for these deepening divisions hurt our ability to work together to create new job opportunities, protect the health and safety of our community 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 table. we are divided. it is more likely today that we look at other americans who have different views and see the other or even see them as enemies instead of as a fellow countrymen and women who share our core values appear it is

more common today to demonize someone who thanks 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 it lasting a broadly supported solutions to safeguard our freedoms, keep our country safe and expand opportunity for all our citizens. the two questions faces as a nation. where does this descending spiral of division lead? and how can we stop it? our country's divisions have fueled efforts in several states that will make it more difficult for americans to vote. and undermine faith 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 has hardened in recent years and have combined with 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 shrinking respect for a founding constitutional principle. in the years that followed, my colleagues and i in this body were called upon to participate in two separate impeachment trials against our constitution. and on january 6, last year, i was standing in this very spot

speaking in this very chamber, defending arizona fair and valid election against disinformation when a violent insurrectionist halted the presidential certification braid threats to american democracy are real. i share the concerns of civil rights advocates and others i have heard from in recent months about these state laws. i strongly support beau's efforts to contest these laws in court and to invest significant resources into the states to better organize into stop efforts to restrict access of the ballot box. and i strongly support and will continue to vote for legislative responses to address the state laws including the freedom to vote act and the john lewis and voting rights advancement acts that the senate is currently considering. i support these bills because they strengthen american access to the ballot box. they better ensure american votes are counted fairly.

it is through elections that americans make their voices heard, select the representatives and guide the future of our country and our community. these bills help treat the symptoms of the disease. they do not fully address the disease themselves. while i continue to support these bills i will not support separate actions that worsen the underlying disease of division infecting our country. the debate over the 60 vote threshold shines a light on her broader challenges, there is no need for me too restate my long-standing support for the 60 vote threshold to pass legislation. there is no need for me too restate its role protecting our country for wild reversals and federal policy. it is a view i've held during my years serving about the u.s. house and the senate. it is a view i continue to hold. it is the belief i have shared

many times in public settings and in private settings. senators of both parties have offered ideas including some that will earn my support to make this body more productive, more deliberative, more responsive to american's needs and a place of genuine debate about her country's pressing issues. and while this week's harried discussion about senate rules are but a poor substitute for what i believe could have and should have been a thoughtful public debate any time over past year. such a discussion, but a's discussion of rules falls short of what is required. american politics are simple. the granting of a power in washington d.c. is exchanged regularly by the voters from one party to another. the shift of power back and forth means the senate 60 vote

threshold has approved a 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 where the server and the majority or the minority. but what is the legislative filibuster other than a tool that requires a new federal policy to be broadly supported by senators, representing a broader cross-section of americans, a guard rail. inevitably viewed as an obstacle by whoever holds the senate majority. but which in reality ensures 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. that makes the rift both wider and deeper. consider this, until recent years nearly every partyline response to the problems we face in this body, every partisan action taken to protect a cherished value has led up to more division, not less. the impact is clear for all to see. the steady escalation of tip for tat in which each new majority weakens the guardrails of the sentence and excludes input from the other party furthering resentment and anger amongst this body and our constituents at home. democrats increased use of closure for traditional nominees under president george w. bush led to similar tactics by republicans under president barack obama.

2013 decision by senate democrats to eliminate the 60 vote threshold for most presidential nominations led directly to responsive 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 partyline 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 a limiting the 60 vote

threshold will simply guarantee 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-party strategies are not working. not for either side. and especially not for the country. it's comfortable for members of each party, virtually those who spent their career in party politics to think their respective party alone can move the country forward. party control becomes a goal in and of itself. instead of prioritizing an appropriate balance in which americans diverse views and shared values are represented but when one party will only negotiate with itself, policy will inextricably be pushed from the middle towards the extreme. and i understand there are some on both sides of the

aisle. some prefer that but i do not. and i know there are others who 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 ruin of public liberty. i was no party meant myself, washington wrote, 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 an equally divided. the house of representatives is nearly equally divided as well. it seems evident to me, work

together and get stuff done for america. the past years have shown, when a party in control pushes a partyline changes exceeding their electoral mandate, the bitterness within our politics is exacerbated. tensions are raised within the country and traditionally nonpartisan issues are transformed into partisan wedges. we must address the disease itself, the disease of division to protect our democracy. we cannot be achieved by one party alone. it cannot be achieved solely by the federal government. the response requires something greater, and yes more difficult than what the senate is discussing today. we need a robust sustained strategies that put aside party labels and focus on our democracy because these

challenges are bigger than a party affiliation. we must connect to a long-term approach as serious as the problems we seek to solve, one that prioritizes listening. 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 fair majority partyline will only succeed in exacerbating the root causes that gave away to these state laws in the first place, extending our dissent into a more fragmented america. this work is our shared responsibility as americans. i sure the disappointment of many we have not found more support on the other side of the aisle through legislative

responses to state-level voting restrictions. i wish that were not the case. just as they wish to have been a more serious effort on the part of democratic party leaders to sit down with the other party and genuinely discuss how to re- forge common ground on these issues. my republican colleagues have a duty to meet their shared responsibility to protect us 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, independence, and all americans in communities across this country. so we ask, what must be do to protect her democracy? we should invest heavily in recruiting and supporting state and local candidates for office.

both parties who represent the values enshrined in our constitution. we should ensure we have a judiciary that is not lopsided in his political leaning and we can all depend on to uphold the constitution. we must confront and combat the rise of a rampant disinformation and ensure all americans have the tools to seat fact from fiction. this will be particularly difficult work since some in power have this information 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 and focused efforts to effectively reverse. there are steps we can take today and better to set stage

for repairing our democracy. many of you know i began my career as a social worker. there are social work training the necessary skill is the ability to listen to others. listening not to argue or rebuts, but listening to understand. iran for the united states senate rejecting partisanship. willing to work with anyone to help arizonans build better and more secure lives. throughout my time serving arizona i have listened to arizonans expressing diverse views on inflation, economic competitiveness, climate, social priorities in the world 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

positions on issues and policy. their similarities and their differences are surely representative of the complexity of americans nationwide. i find this question answers itself, can to 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 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 are normal. and on the disagreements matched with a willingness to listen and learn can help us

afford 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 in 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 goals of easing our divisions and uniting americans. i have not. i have worked hard to demonstrate in my public service and the value of working with unlikely allies to get results. helping others see our common humanity and finding our common ground.

i remain stubbornly optimistic because this is america. we have overcome every challenge we have ever faced it. and am committed to do 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 of. 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 senate now approaching six hours into about that start at 2:55 p.m. eastern time. they've been stuck on 98 tallies for quite a while. at issue is a bill levying sanctions regarding the russian gas pipeline schatz three to 60 votes needed to pass they're always enough no votes to defeat the issue. the two centers left about our

brian schatz from hawaii who is out sick with covid id. at majority leader schumer made me understand this vote is delayed because senator schumer is trying to negotiate a way forward on voting rights. both voting rights in the situation of the russia were discussed at today's white house briefing. jen socket was to invite national security advisor jake sullivan at the podium.

[background noises] hi everyone. okay, we have another special guest today per national security advisor jake sullivan who will give us some brief opening comments but will take some questions in the bill will proceed with the grieving from there. with that i'll turn over too jake. >> thank you jen, thanks everybody. i am here to provide a brief update on the situation with respect to russia and ukraine. we have now completed intensive week of diplomacy in multiple formats for the strategic stability dialogue the nato russia council. russia raised its concerns, we raised our concerns including the actions russia is taken to undermine european security. secretary blink and spoke so eloquent about last week preceptor core premise of

reciprocity. we are firm and our principals clear about those areas where we can make progress in those areas that are non- starters. allied unity and transatlantic solidarity were on full display and they remain on full display. the discussions were frank and directed. they were useful, they gave us and our allies things to consider they gave russia things to consider. when i reflect and consult with allies and partners on how to proceed. we are prepared to continue with diplomacy to advance security and instability in the euro atlantic bridge are equally prepared if russia chooses a different path. we continue to coordinate intensively of partners of severe economic measures in response to a further russian invasion of ukraine. we continue to work with allies at nato on changes in force or posturing capabilities especially on nato's eastern flank of dennis scenario arises. we continue to support ukraine and the ukrainian people in the defense of their sovereignty and territorial integrity. we have been very clear with

the russia on the cost and consequences of further military action or destabilization in ukraine. so we are ready either way. we are ready to make progress at the negotiating table, serious and tangible progress on important issues of concern to us, to europe, and to russia in an environment of de-escalation. and we are ready to take the necessary proper steps to defend our allies, support our partners and respond robustly to any aggression that might occur. in our view diplomacy is a more sensible path for the russians will have to make their own assessment. in terms of next steps the genetic process we will remain engaged with allies and partners and with the russians and make determinations in the coming days about what comes next. i'm going to leave it there and be happy to take your questions. reporter: the talks? works there are no dates set for any march oxford will consult with allies and partners first. we are in communication with

the russians will see what comes next. reporter: could you address the foreign minister comments that russia can deploy. [inaudible] and latin messes of the u.s. is concerned about? >> i'm not going to respond to bluster and the public commentary. that was not raised in the discussions at the strategic stability dialogue of russia were to move in that direction we would deal with it decisively. >> the russian republic suggested congress disagreeing on keeping exercises away from the nato and russia are limiting missiles and other weapons is that on the table is that not something? >> deputy secretary sherman said in her read out of these meetings and was closely coordinate with allies and partners at nato, we are prepared to discuss reciprocal limitations on the planet of missiles as long as russia is

prepared to fulfill its end of the bargain and there's adequate verification. we are prepared to have a detailed negotiation on that, emphasis on detail because the devil is off it in the detail on these things also with deputy secretary sherman indicated in her read out of these discussions has said we are prepared to discuss reciprocal parameters around the size and scope and frequency of military exercises by reporting his suggestion were going to reduce the number of troops we have deployed or somehow cut back on her overall force posture in europe those reports are wrong. reporter: with no marked tax schedule with the russians right now, as i sit here today in your view what is the likelihood of russian baiting? >> i'm not going to put any kind of likelihood on. from prince's united states and her allies and partners are prepared for any contingency, any eventuality. we are prepared to keep moving forward on the diplomatic path in good faith were prepared to respond if russia acts. beyond that all we can do is get ready and we are ready.

reporter: are you making the case to invade? >> when you mean making the case? >> is russia trying to justify an invasion? >> i'm not going to put my health self in the head of the russians as you can save the public, saves in many different things. some contradictory. different speakers of the course of this week have given both hopeful signs and pessimistic signs but you'll have to ask them where they stand in respect to the positioning. from our perspective we can just be clear about where we stand. where we stand is ready to go down a principal path of diplomacy and ready to respond in the face of aggression. : : :

some of the underlining issues related to transparency entity confliction and get to risk reduction and conflict management so that the overall security situation in europe is more stable. that is certainly viable if russia is prepared to engage. if they are not, and they choose to further invade ukraine, then they are going to deal with the costs and consequences of united states and our partners and allies. >> you are still saying if. does that mean that you are seeing if they are negotiating in good faith? >> the intelligence committee hasn't made an assessment that the russians have definitively decided to take a military course of action in ukraine, so as things stand right now, russia has the opportunity to come to the table as we go forward to deal with the very real concerns that we put on the table, that the secretary has

put on the table and to negotiate and some of the areas we've been talking about. if they choose to go a different path we will respond accordingly but we are still at a moment where we believe the path and diplomacy can operate in a way that indicates and reflects our interests and principles, and we will prepare to work with our allies and partners in that. i think we are united with the european union, with nato, with ukraine, with the rest of the countries of the community on the notion that there is a diplomatic path forward here. we are also united with our allies and partners if they choose to go a different way for whatever reason or no reason at all we will be ready for that. >> the ambassador had a different assessment i'm sure you heard him say it sounded well and the rhetoric so do you agree with that or disagree? >> the russians have put tens of

thousands of troops in and around ukraine and occupied territory relative to ukraine, so it is certainly the case that the threat of the military invasion is high and that's why i've stood at the podium repeatedly over the course of the past few months and warned about that and laid out what would come as a result of that with respect to a response by the united states and our allies and partners, so there is no illusions on the part of the united states government or on the part of any of us who've been dealing with this issue about what the prospects are for a potential conflict. today the united states and our european allies and partners are prepared for multiple different eventualities, and even javale mcghee that has us at the negotiating table working on these issues in a series of substantive ways and has us responding as russia does in a

clear and effective forceful way. it doesn't seem necessarily they are prepared to join the aggressive multinational. if vladimir putin were to invade russia tomorrow, are you confident that the sanctioned use you've threatened with or lined up and ready to go and the kremlin. >> the main focus of the sanctions package that we've been working with europe on has been significant financial

sanctions with a start high and stay high mentality, not a graduated application of the sanctions. export control that goes at a certain fundamental strategic industry in russia and other steps that we would take to ensure russia had to deal with the economic consequences of this invasion. in terms of your question about my level of confidence with our european allies and partners, i feel good about the level of engagement and the level of convergence between the united states and russia. a come on the fundamental proposition that there would have to be severe economic consequences and to be, the category types and target a sanctions that would have to flow. does that mean the u.s. and europe will have the precise list down to every last detail? no. does it mean i will be able to stand before you and see the united states and europe have moved in unison on the application of severe economic measures? i'm confident that i will be able to do that.

>> i'm wondering in terms of the ability how the federal systems have been affected by the vulnerability if that is because the government hasn't done the necessary patchwork to prevent it happening and it affirms as you spoke with today in terms of financial assistance or other assistance to maintain kind of critical open source software that seems to be an issue that continues. >> first, the president signed an executive order last year that goes to procurement of software by the united states government and fundamentally we are in the process of implementing that. and actually, where things stand with respect to the departments and agencies that the u.s. government today, compared to nearly one year ago today when the president took office, we are in a more robust posture, and at that is due to the work not just of the inner agency but of specific departments and

agencies that have implemented that order. in terms of the session today, i'm not going to speak on behalf of the company is in terms of the decisions they made, but it was a constructive decision about the way the public and private sector can work together to ensure that public sector systems are more robust and resilient and private sector systems are more robust and resilient. i will leave it at that and we will try to develop along with a participant in that meeting and agreed read out so we are not portraying. >> secretary blinkin said any major breakthroughs this week could be a de-escalation of tension. what specifically does that look like for russia de-escalating right now? >> it would involve them reducing the number of forces that they have deployed and aggressive postures to work ukraine. that would ultimately be a key part of de-escalation. there's other steps russia could take with respect to the

de-escalation that go far beyond ukraine as well, but in terms of the proximity challenge in and around the border of ukraine, that would be an important step. i would also say one other thing that i think is important that tony, you mentioned secretary blinkin's comments at the beginning of the week, he said something last week i want to underscore that is our intelligence community has developed information, which has now been downgraded, that russia is laying the groundwork to have the option of fabricating a pretext for an invasion including through sabotage activities and information operations by accusing ukraine for an eminent attack against russian forces in eastern ukraine. we saw this playbook in 2014. they are preparing this playbook again, and we will have the administration will have further details on what we see as the potential pretext to share over the course of the next 24 hours. >> on the flipside, the u.s. will respond to the u.s.

aggression, but what the u.s. would need to see that actually responds, would it be troops crossing the border or things like moving helicopters into tactical weapons for the u.s.? >> when you say moving helicopters into tactical weapons, you mean onto the territory of ukraine? our position is quite straightforward. the u.s. and russian military moves across the frontier to seize territory we believe that is the further invasion of ukraine and it will trigger a response for the international community. >> i want to ask about the current policy but first your indulgent. correct me if i'm wrong, preparations for president biden's first summit with president putin held in geneva last year, the national security team undertook a comprehensive review of the official documentary records of all the

insurrections president trump has with president putin. we saw reporting to the effect mr. trump or his aides. so to prevent the maintenance of a full record of those interactions -- without asking you to disclose any confidential information, number one, did your review uncover any evidence of any effort at any point along the way in the creation and storage of those records to tamper with that process, and number two, did your review uncover any evidence of any on propriety of any kind of any severity on the part of president trump he and his interactions with president putin? >> on that question, i've got nothing for you. >> okay. foreign policy then. this administration has tried without success to use sanctions to compel the military to abandon its coup d'état. this administration has used sanctions without success to compel china to release the

concentration camp. the obama administration of course used sanctions without success to try to detour the annexation of crimea. here you stand again and pushing the threat of sanctions to try to serve the russian invasion of ukraine. why shouldn't this be perceived as clinging to the tactic and why shouldn't president putin ss that the adversary is operating from the weakness. >> he indicated what he doesn't want to see his further nato force posture coming close to his border. president putin indicated what he doesn't want to see is further american allied support to ukraine. he does want to see the further strengthening of the industries of the russian economy. we have laid out on all of those metrics that russia will suffer costs and consequences in the event of a further invasion of ukraine. and he can make his own determination about what he wants to do.

on those issues and in those ways we have the capacity to do that and president biden has been clear that is what we intend to do. the negotiation of the interim agreement and the joint company is a plan of action we do believe economic impression on iran and bringing it to the table to putting a lid on its nuclear program there's other instances and of course there's instances across the administration's democrat and republican like sanctions have not achieved the full result. the sanctions are a tool that solves every problem but talking about how we will deal with a potential russian invasion of ukraine those tools often they

are on the interest santa security capacities the russian federation, and our goal at the end of the day is not to get into been escalatory spiral. it is to find a way forward consistent with our principles, consistent with our interests and consistent with open transparent consultation with our allies to pursue diplomacy. if that works, great, if it doesn't, we are ready. >> with all of that said, when it comes to fluency on this issue and you talk about options that are on the table, you said sanctions, what are the other options? the president said there's a whole host of options him and [inaudible] are all options on the table for this moment? >> we've been clear both directly to the russians and we've been clear publicly about some of the other options, and they include changes in the forces and capabilities of the united states and nato would