Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise in recognition of the 36th anniversary of the Challenger Space Shuttle Disaster and to pay tribute to the memory of all seven Challenger crewmembers: Gregory Jarvis, Judith Resnik, Francis Scobee, Ronald McNair, Michael Smith, Ellison Onizuka, and Christa McAuliffe.

On January 28, 1986, the world witnessed a fatal accident that claimed the lives of all seven of the Challenger's crewmembers. As many of my colleagues will remember, just moments after launch, the shuttle exploded, never having left the Earth's atmosphere. It was later determined that unusually cold temperatures caused several seals within the shuttle's right rocket booster to fail, ultimately resulting in this devastating tragedy.

This anniversary is a particularly difficult day for the people of New Hampshire as we pause to remember the Challenger crew, including Granite Stater Christa McAuliffe. The Challenger mission had been chosen to pilot President Reagan's Teacher in Space Program, and Concord schoolteacher Christa McAuliffe was selected to be the program's first participant. Christa looked forward to the opportunity to teach two lessons from space and share her once-in-a-lifetime experience with students across the country.

Although the Teacher in Space program was discontinued following the accident, the families of the Challenger's crew established the first Challenger Center for Space Science Education to promote science, technology, engineering, and math--STEM--education. The center is a nonprofit that engages with students and teachers, providing hands-on education in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Today, 40 Challenger learning centers have opened globally, and they are continuing to expand opportunities for innovative programs and activities in STEM. Though we lost five dedicated astronauts, a hard- working engineer, and a passionate and devoted educator 36 years ago, the Challenger's poignant legacy continues to live on.

So many of our students and teachers can point to Christa McAuliffe and Challenger learning centers as having inspired them to pursue careers in education, science, mathematics, and innovation. New Hampshire has both the McAuliffe-Shepard Discovery Center, an air and space museum and planetarium, as well as the Christa McAuliffe School, an elementary school in Concord. I have no doubt Christa would be glad to know that a great number of young women have chosen to follow in her footsteps and embrace the values she worked so hard to espouse. Christa lived by the words, ``I touch the future. I teach.'' More than three decades later, her enduring impact on the future is clear.

In 2019, the Senate passed the Christa McAuliffe Commemorative Coin Act, legislation I sponsored with the late Senator Mike Enzi of Wyoming. The legislation was advanced through Congress with overwhelming bipartisan

support and was subsequently signed into law. The enactment of this legislation meant that a commemorative coin in Christa's honor was minted by the U.S. Treasury in 2021. Proceeds from the sale of this coin are going to support STEM education, helping to cultivate a new generation of scientists, engineers, and educators.

Today, we take pause to honor the seven outstanding professionals lost in the Challenger accident and acknowledge that this is a very difficult day for their colleagues at NASA, family and friends. Our hearts are with them on this day of remembrance.

Madam President, today, the Senate will consider S. Res. 345, legislation I authored with Senator Roger Wicker to bring attention to the people of Belarus and their pursuit of democracy. Since Alyaksandr Lukashenka egregiously stole the Presidential elections in 2020, we have witnessed a continued crackdown on the people of Belarus, who are being denied their basic human rights. After unjustly claiming victory, Lukashenka responded to peaceful, pro- democracy protests across Belarus with violence and oppression, throwing thousands of Belarusians in jail.

In May last year, his regime forced a commercial airliner flying between two

European states to land in Minsk so his security forces could arrest a journalist and his partner, an action for which the U.S. has charged four Belarusian officials with hijacking. Then last fall, his regime exploited vulnerable migrants by bringing them to Belarus and forcing them at gunpoint across the border into the European Union, leading several countries to declare a state of emergency.

These abuses are demoralizing to the Belarusian people, who keep up the fight to bring Lukashenka to account for his egregious behavior. But now, we are witnessing a new level of desperation by Lukashenka, who is supporting Putin in his campaign of aggression against Ukraine. He has endorsed Putin's agenda and invited Russian troops for major military exercises on Belarusian soil. Lukashenka has effectively given Putin permission to use his own country for a training ground to undermine a sovereign nation.

As Lukashenka supports Vladimir Putin's efforts to destabilize the democratically elected government in Kyiv, at home he has proposed a constitutional referendum that would allow him to stay in office indefinitely.

Indeed, life under Lukashenka is perilous. Today, there are more than 1000 political prisoners in Belarus, 1000 people imprisoned because of the insecurities of one man. I welcome the recent statement from the Department of State bringing attention to the ill treatment of these prisoners. And I call on the Lukashenka regime to release these prisoners without conditions and abide by their commitments to human rights as a member of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe.

Lukashenka has ruthlessly attacked independent media in Belarus, including Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, which he declared an extremist organization. Anyone who subscribes to RFE/RL can be arrested and jailed. RFE/RL's journalists who reported on the 2020 elections have been harassed, detained, arrested, and stripped of their credentials.

I want to highlight the stories behind the names of these journalists. They have been arrested and torn from family and friends indefinitely, simply for doing their jobs to shed light on the truth.

Ihor Losik was sentenced to 15 years in prison in December after a lengthy, closed door trial. Andrey Kuznechyk has been detained since November on unknown criminal charges. Aleh Hruzdzilovich has been detained since late December for his reporting activities, after previously serving two stints in jail following the election.

The Lukashenka regime's cowardly attacks on the free press do not project strength. They show that regime is, in fact, weak, desperate and afraid of the truth. And the truth is--the Belarusian people want to live in a free country and choose their own future.

This is why I have been proud to lead efforts in the Senate to condemn the actions of the Lukashenka regime and support the brave people of Belarus who continue to stand up to an increasingly autocratic government. Last year, Senator Wicker and I cofounded the Free Belarus Caucus to advocate for the pro-democracy movement and continue to push for free and fair elections in Belarus.

I have met with Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya numerous times and others from the Coordination Council who are leading the effort to bring a peaceful, democratic transition of power to Belarus. She is an admirable woman who did not seek the spotlight, but stepped up on behalf of her people when they needed her most. Her leadership is critical for the future of democracy in Belarus, and we must do everything we can to assist her and the Belarusian people.

And today, I am calling on my colleagues in the Senate to join me in supporting this resolution, which expresses solidarity for the Belarussians' pursuit of freedom and a future of their own making. As we work together to respond to Russian threats against Ukraine, we must not forget the plight of Belarusians. We must be steadfast in our strong support to those suffering under the rule of authoritarians. So I urge my colleagues to join me at this critical moment and support this resolution.

Mr. President, on Monday, our Nation celebrated the life and legacy of Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. Like many Americans, it was a day of self-reflection for me. While leading a bipartisan delegation to Ukraine, I had a front-row seat to a nation struggling to hold on to its democracy in the face of a potential outside attack. This comes at a very poignant moment in America's history when we were reminded of the strength and fragility of our own democracy.

One year ago, a violent mob fueled by false claims of widespread election fraud stormed the U.S. Capitol. This was the most significant assault on the Capitol since the War of 1812. Although State and Federal judges ruled against efforts to overturn the results of the election, this lie of election fraud has continued to propagate. And now, those who didn't like the 2020 election results are trying to rewrite the rules.

Since the 2020 elections, Republican State lawmakers have passed an unprecedented number of bills to erode the authority of state and local election officials. These new laws would strip secretaries of state of their authority, allow partisan ballot reviews, and even make local election officials criminally or financially liable for technical errors and actions, such as proactively sending out absentee ballot applications.

In total, 19 States have passed regressive laws that make it harder to vote and, in some extreme cases, may even allow Republican- controlled legislatures to overturn the results of a legitimate election by using false claims of voter fraud. In New Hampshire, over the past year, we have seen efforts to eliminate same-day voter registration, a measure that would disproportionately impact young voters, including college students and first-time voters.

Similarly, other efforts to prohibit students attending college in New Hampshire from voting in our State's elections would unduly burden--if not outright disenfranchise--many of those young voters. Other attempts to make voter registration more complicated have failed in court, including requirements for additional documentation for same- day registrants, and restrictions on which types of addresses are valid for registration.

These efforts are ongoing, with additional restrictive and burdensome measures being introduced as recently as the current legislative session. And it is not just our voter laws. Earlier this month, the Republican-controlled New Hampshire House approved a redistricting plan that can only be described as gerrymandering. Taken together, these measures represent a comprehensive and coordinated attempt to burden-- or even deprive--certain Granite State citizens of their right to vote. Such blatant efforts to suppress the vote must not be tolerated.

The right to vote is one of the most fundamental and cherished principles of our democracy. The history of our Republic is marked by those seminal moments when we as a nation extended the right to cast a ballot to broader populations, thereby including more voices in our representative government: first after the Civil War with the 15th Amendment, then to women with the 19th Amendment, and then notably with the 1965 Voting Rights Act. As others have noted, the Voting Rights Act has historically drawn great bipartisan support for its reauthorization because the principles embodied in it go to the very heart of our democracy.

But the issues and challenges that are increasingly facing our voters are very real and very troubling--and we must take them seriously or risk eroding that most fundamental of rights. Making voter registration more difficult or making the process of voting more burdensome has disproportionate effects on some of the most vulnerable voters--whether those be young voters, communities of color, the poor, the homeless, among others. Eliminating or limiting opportunities for early voting, same-day registration, voting by mail, automatic registration, or the use of absentee ballots are all different pathways to the same pernicious effect--the suppression of the vote.

That is why I am proud to cosponsor the Freedom to Vote Act and the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act. Together, these bills would standardize voting election laws across the country, expand voting access and restore key provisions of the 1965 Voting Rights Act that have been struck down or weakened by the Supreme Court.

The right to vote isn't determined by political affiliation. It is the most sacred right enshrined in the U.S. Constitution for every eligible American and ensures that our country is, as President Lincoln said, ``government of the people, by the people, for the people.''

I am deeply disappointed by the inability--or unwillingness--of this august body to come together today to take this basic step in defense of our democracy. We, the U.S. Senate, ought to be the foremost champions and defenders of democracy, but today, I fear that we have allowed partisan considerations to distract us from that duty.

We cannot afford to stay silent and ignore these measures that attempt to undo the progress that we have made over decades. We especially cannot stay silent when all of us here witnessed the horrific events of January 2021 and the attempt to undo a legitimate election. Protecting voting rights for every American is the first and irreplaceable step towards protecting our democracy. We must take it seriously, we must not let it wither in the dark, and we must not stay silent. It is far too important--and once damaged, it is far too hard to rebuild.

Madam President, I come to the floor today to speak in opposition to S. 3436, which is the Nord Stream 2's sanctions bill sponsored by Senator Cruz.

I certainly share the concerns that have been expressed just a few minutes ago by Senator McConnell about the threat that Russia poses to Ukraine and to Eastern Europe and the role that Nord Stream 2 plays in that critical issue.

I have been a strong and longstanding opponent of Nord Stream 2. I believe now what I believed at the time that I originally cosponsored the Nord Stream 2 sanctions bill with Senator Cruz; that the Nord Stream 2 Pipeline is a long-term threat to the energy security of Europe.

But right now we are in a different place on this, and while Senator Cruz and I worked together on sanctions legislation to stop this pipeline, my disagreement now with Senator Cruz is in his approach to what we need to do to address what is right now a much more serious threat to Europe, to NATO, to the transatlantic alliance, and that is Russia's threat against Ukraine.

And what Senator Cruz's bill would do is not stop Nord Stream 2; it would undermine the current diplomatic situation that is absolutely critical if we are going to respond to the Russian threat.

His bill is a vote--supporting his bill would be a vote to compromise the transatlantic community. It is a vote that breaks the message of bipartisan support in the face of Russian aggression and, furthermore, not just bipartisan support but allied support with the United States and Germany and Western Europe against the threat that Russia poses to Ukraine and really to Eastern Germany if they take this action.

The dynamics on Nord Stream 2 have changed since Senator Cruz and I fought for the passage of legislation to prevent the completion of that pipeline. At the time, we worked together to provide the Trump administration with critical tools to sanction this pipeline, and we did that because there were some members of the Trump administration who came to us and said: We need this legislation because the administration has not acted.

And the fact is, 95 percent of the construction of the Nord Stream 2 Pipeline was completed during the Trump years. Unfortunately, the Trump administration, even after we passed that sanctions legislation, sat on those sanctions.

They waited until literally the last day of the Trump administration to sanction just one entity, just one entity in 4 years. And so what we saw is what I just said; that 95 percent of that pipeline was completed during the Trump years.

Now, we are in a very different situation right now, unfortunately, because we are in a situation where Russia is threatening Ukraine, and we need to work closely with our European allies to present a united front against Russia.

We have strengthened our relationship with our German allies. The Biden administration has restored a diplomacy-first foreign policy, which seeks

to advance American policy interests through dialogue and not through threats.

There is a new German coalition government in place that we are now engaging with. It is a government that appears to be more skeptical about the Nord Stream 2 Pipeline. They have paused certification of the pipeline and stalled its operation until at least later this year, and the new government has indicated that this pipeline is not just an economic project.

So it is very clear that the dynamics have changed, and when the dynamics change on the ground, then our approach and our foreign policy should reflect those changes. We can't look at this legislation in isolation.

This legislation that Senator Cruz is proposing that we are going to be voting on today is coming at a time when the administration is exhausting every single diplomatic avenue to deter Putin from further violating Ukraine's territorial integrity.

Russia has amassed over 100,000 troops on Ukraine's border, and, of course, the next month or so is really going to be critical in changing Putin's calculation that any invasion would come with a hefty price.

Nord Stream 2 right now presents a potential incentive for Putin to use against our European partners, but it is also leverage. It is leverage that the West can use at a pivotal moment as Russia is thinking about--Vladimir Putin is thinking about what he is going to do in Ukraine.

So I believe we need to stop this pipeline long term, and there may be a time in the future when another change in our approach on the pipeline may be necessary. As we know, that happens with foreign policy. We don't live in a static world; it is dynamic, and it demands that we adopt our responses.

I have joined Senator Menendez and 38 Democrats in introducing the Defending Ukraine Sovereignty Act of 2022, legislation that does reflect the reality on the ground, that would impose swift and crippling sanctions on Russia's economy if Putin decides to invade. It would provide critical additional military support to our Ukrainian allies, and it would strengthen support to our Eastern European allies in the face of Putin's attempt to look backward, not forward.

We are not going to give Vladimir Putin and Russia the ability to veto who joins NATO. We saw that very clearly at the session yesterday with Russian and NATO officials. Russia didn't like it because they didn't get the answer they wanted, which was a veto over who should be able to join NATO.

We are going to continue to take a strong stand with our allies in opposition to what Russia is doing, but we can't use yesterday's solutions to help us solve today's problems. The immediate threat that we are facing right now is the threat of a Russian invasion of Ukraine, and we need to do everything possible, work as closely as possible, show no daylight with our allies in standing up to that threat. Unfortunately, what Senator Cruz is proposing with the Nord Stream 2 sanctions legislation would do exactly that. It would drive a wedge between us and our allies, particularly between the United States and Germany, at a time that we cannot afford it.

So I intend to vote against this legislation and support Senator Menendez's legislation that will give us the tools we need to continue to address potential Russian aggression.

I yield the floor and look forward to hearing Senator Murphy's comments because I know he shares the same concerns that I am expressing.

Would my colleague yield for a question?

Senator Murphy, I am really pleased--sadly pleased, but I think it is really appropriate that you brought up the issue about holding State Department nominees, because one of the things that have been unfortunate about Senator Cruz's approach to Nord Stream 2 in recent weeks has not just been his holding up of nominees but has been his suggestion that the change in response on my part and on others' who oppose Nord Stream 2 has been partisan.

But, as you point out, during all of the Trump administration, Senator Cruz did not hold one nominee because of Nord Stream 2. Is that your understanding?

Well, I think the other important point that we both made is the fact that what stopped policies and the pipeline when the first sanctions bill was passed was the threat of sanctions; it wasn't actually implementing those sanctions. In fact, it was then Russia's ability to come back in, retrofit ships, and do the work themselves, Gazprom and Russia. Russian ships did the work themselves, and throughout the last year of the Trump administration, they refused to take any action to address that. In fact, I remember being in a meeting--I can't remember if you were in that meeting or not--with Senator Cruz and some of our Republican colleagues and a member of the administration urging us to pass another sanctions bill because the administration had not acted.

So I think it is really important, as you say, to point out that 95 percent of that pipeline was done under the previous administration when Senator Cruz and our colleagues who would like to stop the pipeline had the opportunity to hold up his nominees to raise those concerns, and that did not happen. That puts us at a disadvantage today as we look at the threat of Nord Stream. Would you agree with that?

Thank you, Senator Murphy. I couldn't have said anything better.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I come to the floor to pay tribute to John Victor Amrol, Jr., a long-time New Hampshire resident, State employee, and labor advocate who passed away recently at the age of 85. Born in our State capital of Concord, John was in many ways a quintessential Granite Stater. He had a warm personality, an exceptional work ethic, and a passion

for service that enriched his community and improved the quality of life for so many across our great State.

After graduating from nearby St. John's High School in 1953, John took a job with the State of New Hampshire in our department of transportation, DOT. It was the start of a 44-year career in highway road design. Throughout his long tenure with DOT, John played a role in ensuring that our roadways were developed in a safe and efficient manner. He also served his community and State as a member of the Army National Guard from 1953 to 1978. He retired as a master sergeant, and he was a proud member of American Legion Post 21 for 26 years.

John achieved so much with the department of transportation; yet as a longtime member of the State Employees Association (SEA)/Service Employees International Union (SEIU) Local 1984 and its president from 1991-2000, his true impact transcends all that he accomplished in his decades of work with the DOT. John was a pillar of the SEA/SEIU, serving on nearly every committee and always diving deep into the issues that affected working people and their families. The union represents a wide range of occupations in the public and private sector workforce that provides critical services to our State. Each and every member owes a debt of gratitude to John. He was a force in fighting for their well-being, dignity, and fair treatment. As a negotiator, John was as tough as New Hampshire granite. In fact, his wisdom and judgment at the negotiating table earned him the nickname ``The Father of Collective Bargaining for State Employees'' among his SEA colleagues. They also paid tribute to John by dedicating their office building on North State Street in Concord in his name.

John was the president of SEA/SEIU Local 1984 when I was elected Governor. We shared a vision of a strong, secure middle class in New Hampshire where hard-working Granite Staters get a fair shot and their fair share, and we knew that unions play an important role in achieving that vision. I could always count on him for a fair, honest, and informed assessment of labor issues.

The Granite State and the many people John served are grateful for his many gifts and powerful advocacy. In the last couple of weeks, family and friends have gathered to share and cherish their many fond memories of him. I am with them in spirit as they reflect on the life of this good and generous man.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 5 minutes before the vote.

Madam President, I am really pleased to join my colleague Senator Hassan to speak in support of Samantha Elliott's nomination to the Federal District Court for the District of New Hampshire.

As we heard from Senator Hassan, Samantha Elliott has had an amazing public service career. Her professional experience and commitment to ensuring equal access to justice make her eminently qualified to serve on the Federal bench. She will make an excellent addition to the Federal district court in New Hampshire.

Now, Samantha actually came to the practice of law in a less traditional way. She started out first as a writer for magazines before she and her husband flipped a coin to see who would go to law school. After graduating from Columbia Law School--she obviously won the toss-- she joined Gallagher, Callahan and Gartrell, a law firm in Concord, our capital city.

Since becoming an attorney, Samantha has litigated before Federal and State courts, handling an impressive collection of matters that involves complex areas of law. She has also served in a variety of leadership positions at her firm, including serving as president for 5 years.

During the selection process, Samantha always came back to the importance of equal access to justice, saying at one point: ``No one closes or opens doors to access to justice like a judge does.'' Samantha knows firsthand, through her extensive work with the New Hampshire legal aid community, just how correct that saying is.

For 9 years, she served on the joint board of the New Hampshire Legal Assistance and the Legal Advice and Referral Center, and she has held various roles on its executive committee. Samantha has also spent more than 2\1/2\ years on a special committee that has met every other Monday to revisit the structure of legal aid in New Hampshire. Just think about that--every other Monday for 2\1/2\ years to better restructure legal aid in New Hampshire. These tireless efforts culminated in the creation of 603 Legal Aid, which is a new entity that will increase access to justice for New Hampshire's low-income residents.

Samantha has consistently demonstrated her commitment to ensuring that everyone has access to justice no matter what their socioeconomic status. As a result of her commitment, her tenacity, and her respect for the law, Samantha's nomination has garnered widespread support throughout the New Hampshire legal community, including from Chuck Douglas, who is a former Republican Representative to Congress and New Hampshire Supreme Court Justice. Now, he has only ever faced Samantha as an adversary in litigation, but he said she is an ``excellent lawyer who is creative and diligent and exhibits the highest standards of our profession.''

In addition to former Justice Douglas, Samantha's nomination is supported by a diverse collection of attorneys and others in the New Hampshire legal community, including the New Hampshire Women's Bar Association; Judge Gary Hicks, who is a current supreme court justice in New Hampshire, a senior associate; and George Moore, the executive director of the New Hampshire Bar Association, to name just a few of those who have weighed in with letters of support.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have these letters of support printed in the Record.

I am confident that Samantha's passion for the law and dedication to the impartial administration of justice will make her an excellent judge, and I urge my colleagues to support her nomination.

I yield the floor.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I am really pleased to be on the floor this afternoon with my friend and colleague Senator Rob Portman to talk about an issue that we have been working on, literally, for a decade, and it has been a bipartisan effort to focus on energy efficiency as a response to the energy needs in this country.

In 2011, Senator Portman and I introduced S. 1000, which was the first version of the Energy Savings and Industrial Competitiveness Act. Over the years, it has been known as Shaheen-Portman, when we were in the majority on the Democratic side, or Portman-Shaheen, when the Republicans were in the majority.

But it doesn't matter what you call it. Our bill has proposed substantial investments in energy efficiency in this country, and what we did in the bill was to focus on the most energy-intensive sectors in our economy: buildings, residential and commercial, which is about a third of our energy use; the industrial sector; and the Federal Government. And, in the United States, the biggest user of energy is the Federal Government.

In a Congress that is divided along partisan lines on so many issues, energy efficiency is one priority that can bring us together on a bipartisan, bicameral basis to get things done. I always like to say that energy efficiency is one of those energy sources that you can support whether you are from New England or Ohio or Wyoming. Whether you support oil and gas or wind and solar, energy efficiency is the fastest, cheapest way to meet our energy needs.

Our legislation has always focused on low-cost tools and adoption of off-the-shelf technologies to save money for consumers and businesses, to make America more energy independent, and to reduce emissions.

And over the years, over the last decade, we have had some big wins. In 2015, President Obama signed a targeted version of Shaheen-Portman, the Energy Efficiency Improvement Act, into law. That bill helped align the interests of commercial building owners and their tenants to reduce energy consumption, and it allowed certain water heaters to help with demand response programs in rural areas.

Now, we have also made great strides through annual appropriations and administrative actions on things like energy efficiency standards for appliances.

Of course, we have also had some real defeats. But, though frustrating, as those defeats were, our resolve on this bill has never wavered, and when we reintroduced Portman-Shaheen last Congress, we worked to again incorporate feedback from stakeholders. For 7 months, our staffs held back-to-back meetings with constituents, stakeholders, and committee staff to ensure the bill addressed the energy needs in New Hampshire, Ohio, and the rest of the country.

Improving the efficiency of residential and commercial buildings through energy-saving building codes remained central to our bill, as did industrial energy efficiency provisions and improvements to Federal energy efficiency programs.

We also, again, included energy efficiency bills from our colleagues. So in that piece of legislation, we included Senators Murkowski and Manchin's Federal Energy and Water Management Performance Act. We included Senators Hoeven and Manchin's All-of-the-Above Federal Building Energy Conservation Act. And we included Senator Collins and Warner's legislation coordinating the energy retrofitting for schools. Finally, as part of that, we included Senator Bennet and Senator Isakson's Sensible Accounting to Value Energy Act, or the SAVE Act.

So there were a lot of reasons why a number of Members of this body were interested in that legislation. But it was also a real savings because, according to the American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy, the policies from that bill would save consumers over $51 billion on their energy bills. It would reduce carbon emissions by 1.3 billion metric tons, which is the equivalent of taking 280 million cars off the road for a year. And it would save 32 quadrillion Btus of energy, which is nearly the total energy use of all U.S. industries for 1 year.

Now, a previous study from ACEEE also estimated that the legislation would add more than 100,000 jobs to the economy. That bill passed the Energy and Natural Resources Committee by a vote of 14 to 6, and it was the fifth

time--fifth time--the bill passed in committee on a bipartisan basis.

Now, I am proud to say that the Energy Policy Act of 2020 that was signed into law by President Trump at the end of last year had several provisions from that Shaheen-Portman legislation that would streamline efficiency for schools, increase energy efficiency for Federal data centers, provide rebates for energy-efficient electric motors and transformers, and support Federal energy efficiency programs. But, of course, a piece of that bill was left on the cutting room floor, with the voluntary building codes, where so much of the savings was really incorporated.

But despite the success and the defeat in the last Congress, we came into this year as determined as ever. And as part of the original Gang of 10, Senator Portman and I teamed up to ensure that energy efficiency was a big part of the bipartisan infrastructure framework.

We worked with Senator Manchin and our bipartisan colleagues to incorporate much of Shaheen-Portman with funding in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act.

I am going to turn it over to Senator Portman for a few minutes so my voice can recover, and then I will pick it up when he finishes.

Mr. President, I thank my colleague and partner in this effort, Senator Portman. And as he pointed out, on November 15, President Biden became the third President to sign energy efficiency provisions from our bill into law.

Now, we still have a lot of work to do. But I just want to recognize current and former Shaheen-Portman staff who have helped us shepherd this bill through its many obstacles.

From my staff, I want to thank Trent Bauserman, Robert Diznoff, Ariel Marshall, Drew Story, and Janelle DiLuccia.

From Senator Portman's staff, I want to thank Pam Thiessen, Steve Kittredge, Pat Orth, Sarah Peery, and Lydia Denis.

I would like to ask unanimous consent to enter the names of these current and former staff into the Record.

Finally, I want to thank the chairs and ranking members of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee who have played such a pivotal role over the years: Senators Manchin, Murkowski, Cantwell and Wyden and their staffs.

Senator Portman talked about all of the various groups who have been involved in helping to move this legislation where we are today. So I won't go back over those. But I will say, again, energy efficiency is a win, win, win. It create jobs; it reduces cost to consumers; and it lowers emissions.

And as our economy recovers and grows, the investments in energy efficiency from our bipartisan infrastructure package are going to make sure that we use energy smarter. And I am going continue to partner with Senator Portman and others so we can unlock the full potential of energy efficiency for our growing economy.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I come to the floor today to support a number of our nominees for Ambassadors and positions within the State Department.

As the chair of the European Affairs Subcommittee, I am particularly concerned about the number of openings we have in Europe for Ambassadors.

I want to support today Mark Gitenstein, again, to be U.S. Ambassador to the European Union; Kent Logsdon to be U.S. Ambassador to Moldova; Michael Murphy to be U.S. Ambassador to Bosnia and Herzegovina; Clair Cronin to be U.S. Ambassador to Ireland; Denise Bauer to be U.S. Ambassador to France and Monaco; and Julissa Reynoso Pantaleon to be Ambassador to Spain and Andorra.

Those are the Ambassadors in Europe whom I wanted to raise this afternoon, but I also want to raise concern about Rufus Gifford, who has been nominated to be Chief of Protocol for the Department of State.

As I said, I am chair of the European Subcommittee, so I have had the opportunity to attend the hearings for these nominees and to see just how qualified they are and how important to American foreign policy they are.

Earlier this week, Victoria Nuland, who is an Under Secretary at the Department of State, testified in front of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that the U.S. foreign diplomacy is operating at quarter-power as a consequence of the numerous holds that have been placed on ambassadorial appointments by just a few of our Republican colleagues.

I have some maps here that I think really very vividly demonstrate the consequences of this inaction in the Senate.

The first map shows where we have U.S. Ambassadors to Europe. You can see that anything blue is where we have Ambassadors. On this map, everything from Spain to Ukraine, the United Kingdom, Iceland, Ireland--we have no U.S. Ambassadors approved in those countries.

Compare that to what Russia and China have in terms of their diplomatic ability in Europe. The gold color is Russian Ambassadors, countries where Russia has their Ambassadors--virtually every country in Europe. Red is where China has its Ambassadors--virtually every country in Europe. Again, the United States, our Ambassadors in Europe--it is basically empty. Finland, Sweden, Norway, Spain, France, Germany, Poland, Ireland, the EU--we are desperately in need of Ambassadors because right now, we have very little presence in Europe.

This is happening at a time when we know there are significant challenges taking place in Europe, particularly in Ukraine, where Russia is threatening to invade Ukraine, its sovereign territory, again, and where we need--if we are going to be successful in responding to Russia--where we need to take a unified approach among our allies. We need to be working with the EU, with NATO, with all of our European allies.

Yet, in most of the countries where we need to be working, we don't have Ambassadors, and we don't have Ambassadors because of opposition from just a few of our Republican colleagues.

I see Senator Cruz on the floor, so I know that he is going to be here to object to my effort to move these. But this is the impact of what is happening as a result of the holds of Senator Cruz. We can't put our national security in the hands of those people who don't have the status of Ambassadors. We know that our Embassies are doing a great job in all of those countries. They are working hard. But it makes a difference to have someone who has been approved by the Senate, who has been nominated by the President, who has the rank of Ambassador.

As I think about the challenges that are facing this country, I can't think of anything that is more harmful to our foreign policy than deliberately hampering this country's ability to advance American interests on the international stage.

I want to say a few words about each of these nominees before I move for unanimous consent. Again, I would like to begin with Mark Gitenstein, who has already served our Nation before. He was the U.S. Ambassador to Romania. He has spent over 25 years working on energy issues. And as we think about the negotiations that are happening around energy and Nord Stream 2 in particular, which I know is a concern for Senator Cruz because it is a concern that I have, we don't have an ambassador to the EU at the table for those discussions. Mr. Gitenstein's nomination is critically important in responding to Russia's weaponization of gas flows to Europe and strengthening the transatlantic alliance as we face escalating aggression from Russia.

Similarly, Kent Logsdon's nomination as Ambassador to Moldova couldn't come at a more critical moment where Russia is, again, using energy there as a weapon.

Maia Sandu--the newly elected, pro-EU, pro-reform President there-- has every intention of steering Moldova, the poorest country in Europe, toward a better path, and she is looking west to do that. But, of course, she has already faced pressure from Putin and his cronies, who have threatened to weaponize gas flows into Moldova.

We can't allow Moldova to become the next Ukraine or the next Georgia, and we can only prevent that by conveying strong U.S. leadership to support its pro-European aspirations.

I also want to say a few words on Michael Murphy's nomination as Ambassador to Bosnia and Herzegovina. America played a critical role in bringing peace to Bosnia through the Dayton Accords, but we are seeing now that peace and stability in Bosnia and unity in Bosnia are under increasing attack.

Earlier today, I had a chance to meet with the Bosnian Foreign Minister, and I am seriously concerned by the deteriorating political situation there. It requires an expert career diplomat like Michael Murphy to provide the commanding leadership to help Bosnia through this moment.

The same is true in Ireland. Claire Cronin's nomination as Ambassador to Ireland is not just a symbolic gesture to a longstanding ally of the United States. Peace in Northern Ireland is hanging by a thread as the UK, Ireland, and the EU handle the fallout from Brexit.

I was concerned by the release of a report on Tuesday which indicated that the paramilitary gangs embedded in Northern Ireland's divided communities pose a ``clear and present danger'' of violence fueled by post-Brexit tensions. By stalling our confirmation of Ms. Cronin, we risk tarnishing our legacy in fostering peace in Northern Ireland through the Good Friday Agreement.

Of course, Denise Bauer's nomination to France is necessary as the country prepares for national elections next year. These elections have significant implications for our bilateral relationship, in addition to the role France will play in the EU and NATO.

Similarly, Julissa Reynoso's nomination to Spain requires swift confirmation. Spain will host the Madrid Summit next year, where NATO will elect the next Secretary General and finalize the strategic concept. What happens in NATO is critical to America's national security, and we want to have an ambassador on the ground there who can monitor what is going on with those talks, in addition to the other officials we need to send.

Finally, Ambassador Rufus Gifford has been nominated to be the Chief of Protocol for the Department of State. He previously served as our Ambassador to Denmark, where the Queen there acknowledged him for his meritorious service to the Kingdom of Denmark. His background and service will make him an excellent Chief of Protocol, and we urgently need him in place to assist Secretary Blinken.

Combined, these nominations are all critical to immediate challenges facing our national security interests.

With that in mind, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding rule XXII, the Senate proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations: Executive Calendar Nos. 320, 440, 447, 448, 450, 454, and 519; that the Senate vote on the nominations en bloc without intervening action or debate; that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate; that any statements related to the nominations be printed in the Record; and that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action and the Senate resume legislative session.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object.

My colleague and I agree on our opposition to Nord Stream 2, but I am not looking at it, despite your accusations, through the same partisan lens that you are, Senator Cruz.

And I would go back--I think you threw out a lot of red herrings in your initial objection there, one of which was to suggest that I said that you had a hold on our Ambassador to Ukraine, and I actually agree with you. I think this administration needed to appoint that Ambassador to Ukraine 8 months ago.

And if you agree with me right now, then will you agree that you will not put a hold on the Ukraine nomination, once we get it--if we get it within the next couple of weeks, before the end of this year?

I will ask you to think about that for a minute because I do think we need to have an Ambassador there. And that is certainly on my list of places in Europe where we need Ambassadors.

But I think the bigger question now, you suggest that the mere action of sanctioning Nord Stream 2 would be enough to deter Putin and his ambitions in Ukraine. Sadly, I think that is a simplistic analysis of the situation that we are in because the biggest deterrent we can provide right now to what Putin is thinking about is to let him know that we are united with our allies in Europe on our opposition to any action he might take in Ukraine, that we are united with our NATO allies, that we are united with our European allies. And, unfortunately, one of those major allies is Germany.

And I don't think it would be good for the unity message that we need to give to Putin to, at this point, sanction Nord Stream 2 because I think the Germans are going to come to that conclusion on their own. They have a new administration. They have a new administration that has issued some contracts--what they call contracts in developing their coalition government--that have a very different tone with respect to how they are talking about Russia and China, for that matter, and so I think it is more prudent.

I also have real concerns about the current legislation on Nord Stream 2. But I think it is more prudent for us to continue to work with our allies to make clear to Putin what is at stake. And Nord Stream 2 is at stake if he goes into Ukraine. There is no about that. And right now, as we know, the certification of the pipeline has been delayed, and it has been delayed until well after the first of the year. We are not sure what the timetable is, but it is going to be sometime after the spring.

So I just came to a different conclusion than you did, Senator Cruz, about the best way to deter Putin at this point. I think it is to work together. It is not to poke a finger at our most prominent ally on this issue and suggest that we create those divisions, which is what you would like to do.

And I think, furthermore, that the efforts to undermine our appointment of Ambassadors and our ability for the State Department to conduct foreign policy further weakens our ability to negotiate with Putin. And it sends a message about divisions within Congress that is really not helpful. It is not helpful as Putin is watching us; it is not helpful as China is watching us.

So you and I just have fundamentally different views of how best to address this issue and how we can achieve the goal that we both want, which is to end Nord Stream 2 and reduce Europe's dependence on Russia and to prevent Putin from invading Ukraine.

So, Mr. President, I object.

Will my colleague let me ask a question?

I just want to correct what I said because I think the Senator mischaracterized it.

What I said was, we know that the certification has been delayed until after the first of the year, and it is not likely to happen until after the spring, which is well later than January, February, So I just want to correct for the record that. And I think if you look at what is being proposed, you will find that it is even later than that.

Then I went on to say, after the spring, as well. I just want the Senator to listen to what I said.

Mr. President, I just want to clarify a couple of things that Senator Cruz said. One is that the Nord Stream 2 pipeline was completed, despite those sanctions, because what Russia did was to employ their own ships with Gazprom and complete the Nord Stream 2 pipeline despite the sanctions that we had threatened. And it was, in fact, not until right before he left office that President Trump actually invoked some of those sanctions.

So, again, I think the response has been somewhat simplistic in terms of what we really need to do now to address what is happening with Russia and Ukraine. And I certainly applaud our allies: Poland and Ukraine. But I think we need to stand united with many more of our allies in Europe in order to deter Putin that the United States, Poland, and Ukraine probably are not going to do it on our own, and we need all of us to act together.

Also, you know, maybe if we had our Ambassador to the EU, he could have reported to the Senate what the vote was in the EU about Nord Stream 2, but because he is still on hold, we haven't had a chance to hear from him.

I would also point out that at this time in the first year of the Trump administration, 44 of his Ambassadors had been confirmed, compared to 13 for the Biden administration. And, you know, it seems like there ought to be a number of things we can agree on. And by the way, there was going to be a vote on Nord Stream 3 before some of your colleagues objected to the process under the Defense bill. If that hadn't happened, we would have actually had a vote on Nord Stream 2 and we could see what the view of this body is. But, unfortunately, it was because of those objections that we didn't get that vote.

I think, again, if you look at our ability to conduct our foreign policy and to be effective against Vladimir Putin, one of the most important things we can do is to put in place our diplomats so that they can help advance American foreign policy.

What is happening right now, in addition to those people you have on hold, we have over 50 State Department nominees on hold because of your objections and the objections of some of your other colleagues. Again, I don't think that is where most of the Members of your caucus are. I think most of them, while they may not agree with all these Ambassadors, they would agree that we should go forward and allow our foreign policy to move forward with diplomats.

I understand your objection to Nord Stream 2. As I said, I have objected to Nord Stream 2. But I think at this point what we need to do is look at how we can conduct our foreign policy in a way that best puts pressure on Vladimir Putin, and I just disagree with you that that is going to do it right now.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I rise today to acknowledge that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration will soon lose a fine public servant to retirement. The National Weather Service's director, Dr. Louis Uccellini, is retiring at the end of this year. The National Weather Service--NWS--produces the weather forecasts and products that we rely on a daily basis. These predictions are critical for protecting lives and property around the country, and Dr. Uccellini has played a big part of this work for the last several decades. Before I mention any specific accomplishments, let me share a couple of numbers: 43 years of public service, 70 published scientific articles and chapters in books, and more than 4,500 employees working out of some 168 units or offices.

Dr. Uccellini--or Louis, as he urges people to call him--has been passionate about weather since he was a small child. A tremendous snowstorm caught his attention during his youth, and even now, he is still fascinated by winter weather, so much so that among the many offices, teams, and even organizations he founded is the Winter Weather desk at the Weather Prediction Center. Among his many scientific accomplishments, Dr. Uccellini co-wrote what has been deemed the most authoritative study on winter weather, appropriately called ``Northeast Snowstorms.''

There is no aspect of today's weather forecast that Dr. Uccellini didn't either pioneer, or improve, from models that focus on individual phenomena or areas, to the first ensemble models, to seasonal forecasting models and even space weather. Louis established unified workstations that let forecasters view and assimilate multiple data inputs, and he took an entire forecast division from analog to digital. His ability to look at and integrate multiple types of data inputs and computer systems is why we as a nation can look from a daily forecast to weekly to subseasonal to seasonal. He introduced and integrated ocean, wave, water, air quality, and space models with weather models and oversaw all nine of the NWS's National Centers for Environmental Prediction before being tapped to lead the entire National Weather Service.

Yet Louis is much more than a scientist. His leadership of NWS and pioneering cultural and organizational changes led the Federal contracting trade publication FCW to name him in 2020 as one of America's top 100 Government Executives, and he was selected to serve as a National Academy of Public Administration Fellow. The ability to lead and manage an organization is difficult even when administration is one's primary profession. It is a large secondary hat for a scientist to wear, and Louis wore it with aplomb, taking the National Weather Service to new heights of organization, service, and professionalism.

In 2013, Louis took the helm of the Weather Service. He improved the organization's financial management by creating a budget and organizational structure that mirrored the forecast process. All of NWS is now in alignment: the forecast process, budget portfolio and management structure, creating a stronger sense of mission, and delivering transparency both internally and externally. He truly righted the ship. He actually embraced external audits and advice from consultants and proactively circled back to review changes he was leading at NWS.

One event comes to mind when I think of what will define Uccellini's most lasting legacy. In April 2011, a dramatic and devastating tornado outbreak that struck our southern States killed 316 people even though the NWS had been warning partners and the community for days in advance. The tragic number of lives lost, despite multiple warnings, led Louis to lead the Weather Service into a new model for communication called Impact-based Decision Support Services, IDSS. The launch of IDSS was a sea change in NWS operations in which the forecast is not an end product but a starting point for forecasters to help emergency managers advise communities. By deepening Weather Service partnerships with emergency managers, IDSS has increased forecast effectiveness and saved lives. Louis led the NWS toward its goal of creating a Weather-Ready Nation, increasing community and individual readiness and resilience.

There are few public servants like Louis Uccellini. He has strengthened our Nation's research on and resilience to extreme weather events. On behalf of my constituents in New Hampshire, I thank Dr. Uccellini for his decades of excellent service to our Nation and wish him well in his retirement. He will be missed.

Mr. President, I rise today to salute John Dumais for his many years of dedicated service at the New Hampshire Grocers Association. John is retiring from his longtime role as president and CEO of a trade association that represents hundreds of retailers and suppliers and thousands of workers across the Granite State, and he leaves a legacy worthy of our praise and our gratitude.

John draws on a lifetime of experience and in-depth knowledge in his advocacy for the retail food industry. He grew up working in his family's grocery store in Franklin, NH--Surowiec's Market--and put aside a career track as a pharmacist to help run the shop when his father passed away in 1971. Three years later, he took a role with the New Hampshire Grocers Association. It was the start of an almost five- decade career in which John became one of the State's foremost authorities on the many issues that impact New Hampshire's chained grocery stores and independent retailers.

The Granite State is home to a growing number of retail food chains that offer their services in multiple locations. It boasts a number of independent, local corner stores and specialty shops that provide distinct services to their communities. It also has a number of food manufacturers, brokers, wholesalers, and distributers that serve and support the State's many retailers. Each of these enterprises are represented by the New Hampshire Grocers Association, and each of them has found a knowledgeable resource and skilled advocate in John Dumais. John and his hard-working team tap into their wealth of experience to respond to present needs and anticipate future challenges in this crucial industry.

In addition to his influential role and many achievements with the New Hampshire Grocers Association, John is incredibly generous with his time in a number of other community and charitable organizations. He is a past chairman and current board member of the New Hampshire Food Bank, the chairman of an anti-litter and pro-recycling campaign--New Hampshire the Beautiful--and the past chairman of a scholarship organization, the Asparagus Club. He is also a donor-adviser to

the Mary M. Dumais Memorial Fund, an endowment fund named for his wife that assists women who face challenges entering or advancing in the workforce. John's enthusiasm and desire to tackle serious community issues reveal a deep understanding of the true value of service and reflect the profound sense of community that defines our State.

I have known John for decades. As State senator, Governor of New Hampshire, and now U.S. Senator, I have crossed paths with him at many meetings and events around the State, including just last month at a supply chain event in Manchester. I always welcome his perspective and advice on ways we can strengthen the retail food industry. His wisdom was especially vital in the past year and a half as the industry navigated the challenges of a global pandemic and Granite Staters counted on grocery stores to keep food on their tables. We relied on this essential workforce, just as these retailers relied on John for guidance through tough times.

On behalf of the people of New Hampshire, I ask my colleagues and all Americans to join me in thanking John Dumais for his years of service and advocacy and wishing him all the best in the years ahead.

Mr. President, I also originally planned to come to the floor this afternoon to ask unanimous consent to support the nomination of Mark Gitenstein to be U.S. Ambassador to the European Union.

Mark is a qualified candidate to represent the United States with our most important trade and security relationship. He has already served our Nation as U.S. Ambassador to Romania. He is deeply familiar with the geostrategic needs of our Central and European allies, and he has spent over 25 years working on energy issues. This experience is going to be critically important in responding to Russia's weaponization of gas flows to Europe.

As the United States confronts the challenges around the world, we need to convey our firm commitment to our partners and our alliances.

Now, unfortunately, I am not going to be able to move forward with this unanimous consent request because our colleagues on the other side of the aisle can't seem to muster anyone to come down and object to my unanimous consent request.

It is hard for me to understand why they have an objection to Mr. Gitenstein when they are not even willing to come to object, and we know they are here.

His confirmation would be important to advance our bilateral conversations on shared national security interests, such as this week's dialogue between the United States and the EU on China. But for these conversations to make meaningful progress in addressing our national security interests, we need our diplomats and State Department officials at the table.

I had the privilege of leading a bipartisan delegation to the Halifax Security Forum 2 weeks ago. We had three Republicans and three Democrats.

One of the things we heard from our allies was that there was a real impact by having a lack of ambassadorial confirmations in countries, particularly in our ally countries. In the absence of U.S. representation, they are really questioning our commitment to our bilateral relationship.

In addition to Mr. Gitenstein, there are over 50 other State Department nominees waiting confirmation on the floor.

Now, if our colleagues on the other side of the aisle really shared the concerns about Russia and China's growing malign influence in the world that threatens the values we have fought so hard to advance, they would lift those holds without delay. They would understand that it is important for our national security to have Ambassadors in these critical posts around the world.

I am deeply disappointed that our Republican colleagues have opposed the confirmation of Mr. Gitenstein's appointment to the European Union, and I find it strange that at a time when we should be swiftly confirming our Ambassadors so that we can engage with our allies and address challenges like China and Russia, that what we are hearing from our colleagues on the other side of the aisle is they want to hamstring our national security and play into the hands of our adversaries.

Now, I understand that some of my Republican colleagues have decided to hold up dozens of ambassadorial nominees because of this administration's handling of Nord Stream 2. I don't think I need to remind anybody that I have long been opposed to Nord Stream 2. But this opposition is precisely the reason that we should be appointing an ambassador to the European Union because without an ambassador, we have been absent in critical conversations on sanctions, on trade, on security, and on energy. And without an ambassador, we are limited in our ability to push for further sanctions to address Russian aggression, especially with our European allies.

Without an ambassador, we can't effectively engage our allies. We are actively playing into Putin's hands by creating opportunities to sow division and discord within the transatlantic community.

Partisan politics should end at the water's edge, as it has for decades in the United States. I urge those few Republicans on the other side of the aisle who are holding things up to stop this needless obstruction.

The U.S. is stronger and safer when our diplomatic corps--those individuals who support Americans and U.S. foreign policy around the world--are supported by capable, Senate-vetted, and confirmed Ambassadors.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, just to respond to Senator Cotton--and I know that he shares my view about Nord Stream 2. But I think, sadly, at this point we are in a position where, by refusing to allow our diplomats to be in place, we no longer have an ability to negotiate.

And, in fact, the gas has not started running in Nord Stream 2; the certification of that pipeline has been delayed; and we have a new administration in Germany that we have heard a number of members of that administration express serious reservations about Nord Stream 2.

So I am not sure that right now--given the need for transatlantic unity, the need for us to be able to work with our European allies on whatever Russia might do on Ukraine--is the best time for us to send a signal that we don't really care what the administration is doing on this issue and we don't really care what the Germans say about it, all we care about is making a point on Nord Stream 2, when what we really need to be doing is working together with our European allies because what Putin wants more than anything else is to sow dissension between the United States and our European allies. And, by this action, he is doing exactly that.

Mr. President, I just have to take real umbrage at your suggestion, Senator Cotton.

I am the one who Vladimir Putin refused a visa to get into Russia because of my opposition to Russia and to what Putin was doing. He didn't deny you a visa to get into the country. So don't talk to me about how I have not been tough enough on Russia because that dog won't hunt.

The fact is, during the Trump administration, he spent 4 years before he would sanction Nord Stream 2. Finally, right before he left office, he put sanctions on.

The only reason the western companies that were working on Nord Stream 2 stopped their work is because of the threat of sanctions, not because Trump did anything to enforce those sanctions.

So there is plenty of blame to go around, and it doesn't help for you or me or anybody else to start throwing personal insults over what is going on around Nord Stream 2.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my Defense fellow, Ashley Carline, and Pearson fellow, Megan Tetrick, be given floor privileges for the remainder of the 117th Congress.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session to consider Executive Calendar No. 437, Julianne Smith, of Michigan, to be United States Permanent Representative on the Council of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, and that the Senate vote on the nomination without intervening action or debate.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, all without intervening action or debate; that no further motions be in order to the nomination; that any statements related to the nomination be printed in the Record; that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action; and that the Senate resume legislative session.