Floor Statements

Madam President, I couldn't agree more with the comments of my colleague Senator Portman from Ohio.

We are here on the floor today to convey strong bipartisan opposition that exists in this Senate to Vladimir Putin's unprovoked aggression against our partner Ukraine.

Now, like everyone in this body, I have been closely following the deteriorating political crisis that has been fabricated by Russia because, as Senator Portman says, Ukraine has always been defensive. It has not been offensive going against Russia, but Russia intends to further undermine and threaten Ukraine's sovereignty.

This Senate has a long history of supporting an independent and democratic Ukraine. Since Russia's initial invasion in 2014, Congress has provided more than $2.7 billion in security assistance and supported its government in advancing critical reforms to help Ukraine on its journey to greater Euro-Atlantic integration.

I am proud to have been involved in a number of those bipartisan efforts to support Ukraine. As Senator Portman said, last month, we traveled with a bipartisan delegation of seven Senators--four Democrats and three Republicans--to meet with Ukrainian President Zelenskyy and other officials. We met with his national security team to discuss the Russian threat and how the United States can help our Ukrainian friends.

The message from the Ukrainians was clear. They see their future in

partnership with the West. They share our democratic values, and their people are proud of their hard-won independence.

So it is worth asking, if Ukraine has made its sovereign wish clear that it wants a future with Europe, why does Putin have more than 130,000 troops at its border?

As Senator Portman pointed out so well, it is not just its eastern border with Russia; it is its northern border with Belarus. So it has been said--but I think it is worth repeating--that this unprecedented Russian threat to Ukraine's sovereignty is on Putin. It is on no one else. He has designed this crisis to advance his own revanchist agenda. He wants to reconstruct the Soviet Union and recreate his own sphere of interest, and he wrongfully sees Ukraine as part of this authoritarian future.

But make no mistake, this isn't just about Ukraine. Putin wants to diminish U.S. presence in Europe and to rewrite the European security order for his benefit and in blatant disregard for previous international agreements and treaties that Russia has signed. Senator Portman talked about the Budapest Memorandum. There have been other efforts to try and reduce tensions between Russia and Ukraine by Europe, but Putin has basically thumbed his nose at all of those efforts. He has shown repeated attempts to subvert democratic institutions in the United States, to attack our infrastructure, and to compromise the sovereignty of our allies around the globe.

This is why what happens in Ukraine matters here in the United States. It is important that we stand up for our values; it is important that we stand up to protect our national security; and it is critical that we continue to uphold and protect the transatlantic security order that has given us peace and prosperity for over 70 years, since the end of World War II.

As Putin tries to dismantle and divide the very alliance that has kept us safe for more than 70 years, it is all the more important that we strengthen our resolve through a strong message of unbreakable unity.

It is critical that the Senate take up and pass bipartisan legislation that shows our support for Ukraine and our opposition to Russia and what Putin is doing. I have been working toward this goal. I especially want to commend Senator Portman for his work and leadership because he has also been working toward this goal. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman and ranking member, Senators Menendez and Risch, continue their efforts to find a bipartisan path forward. And I am sure Senator Portman would agree with me that when we say we are committed to doing our part to forge a path forward on this legislation, we mean that is what we want to do; that this is an opportunity for us to show the rest of the world that we are united.

That is why we are here today, to send a strong bipartisan message to Putin, to Ukraine, and to our allies. We must lead by example and convey, as we have done through our Ukrainian partners and our transatlantic allies, that we must not leave any space for Putin to sow further discord.

Therefore, the Senate doesn't really have a choice; we must send a message of strong, unequivocal bipartisan resolve. For many years, Senator Portman and I and others in the Ukraine Caucus have worked closely to support the Ukrainian people. We traveled to Kyiv to ensure the U.S. resolve for our Ukrainian partners was absolute. We teamed up to increase military assistance to Ukraine, and we have spoken to ensure, on the topic of Ukraine, that this Senate speaks with one bipartisan voice.

So today we stand united here on the floor of the Senate to send an unequivocal message to Putin: You will not divide the Senate; you will not divide the United States; and you will not divide the transatlantic alliance.

Diplomacy remains an option, I hope, to deescalate this situation and to pursue a peaceful resolution, but if Putin decides to further invade Ukraine, he will only succeed in uniting us all--Democrats, Republicans, Americans, and the transatlantic alliance--in sending a message of unmistakable resolve against his belligerence. I hope he chooses peace rather than war, but we plan to be ready.

Would my colleague yield for a question?

Because as he points out, if Putin does invade Ukraine, as he said, it would be devastating for Ukraine, for those of us who believe in freedom, and the right of each individual country to determine their own future; but this would also be the biggest conflict in Europe since World War II; is that correct?

Absolutely.

Certainly, the Presiding Officer would agree with me that in the Democratic caucus we are also united with the Republican caucus in wanting to support Ukraine to ensure that they can determine their own future and to hold Vladimir Putin accountable.

As you say, hopefully, diplomacy will win out, and there will be some way in which we can work with Vladimir Putin to address some of his concerns. We are certainly not going to allow Putin and Russia to determine Ukraine's future--to say to Ukraine ``You can't join NATO'' or to say to Europe and NATO ``You can't expand into Europe if countries want to join.'' Hopefully, he will choose a path that is

going to be good not just for Europe and the United States and Ukraine but for Russia, because, as the German Chancellor said to us last week when he met with a number of Senators: In the long run, this will not be good for Russia--for its energy future--because Europe is going to get off Russian energy a lot faster if Russia invades Ukraine, and it is not going to be good for Russia's standing either in Europe or in the world.

So, hopefully, Putin will choose the reasonable approach, which is that he will choose diplomacy and not choose war.

It is our job--that of the transatlantic alliance and those of us here in Congress--to hold Putin accountable if he makes the wrong choice, to make sure that we put in place crippling sanctions, that we provide the assistance that Ukraine needs in fighting Russia, and that we make it clear to the world that the world order that we have defended for the last 70 years we are going to continue to defend.

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I come to the floor today to support three extraordinarily qualified Department of Defense nominees: Melissa Dalton, to be Assistant Secretary of Defense for Homeland Defense and Hemispheric Affairs; Dr. David Honey, to be Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering; and Dr. Celeste Wallander, to be Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs.

These three individuals have been nominated to serve in critical national security positions, and they are tasked with confronting those challenges of national security and securing U.S. interests at home and abroad.

As a senior member of the Armed Services Committee, I attended the committee nomination hearings for all three nominees, and I came away convinced that all three were qualified for their positions and deserving of swift confirmation.

Melissa Dalton previously served as a career civil servant in various positions at the Department of Defense--for a decade--under both President Bush and President Obama. So she had bipartisan support, clearly, in that position. She also was a senior fellow and director at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

If confirmed, one of Ms. Dalton's core responsibilities as Assistant Secretary for Homeland Defense would be overseeing the Department's ability to operate through impacts to critical infrastructure, an area in which we have increasingly seen our adversaries are trying to exploit, particularly through cyber attacks. As Ms. Dalton has said, the resilience of our capabilities and infrastructure at home strengthens deterrence of aggression abroad, and DOD must be able to demonstrate its resilience.

The recent news of increased threats from Russia's cyber attacks, associated with their unprecedented troop buildup near Ukraine, underscores the need for this position to be filled as quickly as possible.

I also want to express my support for Dr. David Honey, who has dedicated a lifetime of service to the defense of this country. Dr. Honey has served in various research and development positions at the Department of Defense, including roles at the Defense Advanced

Research Projects Agency, or DARPA, which is so important to our innovation. He has also served on the Air Force Scientific Advisory Board and as Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Research.

Today, more than ever, we need talented, qualified individuals like Dr. Honey at the forefront of DOD's innovation and technological efforts. Seemingly every few weeks we hear in the press about shocking technological breakthroughs made by the Chinese military that raise concerns about eroding our technological advantage. Former Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Hyten, described the Chinese test of a fractional orbital bombardment system last summer as ``stunning.''

Our technological advantage has been a foundational part of deterrence for decades, and if lost it would be enormously destabilizing for global security. But if we are truly committed to preserving our defense technological superiority, it is vital that we confirm Dr. Honey as quickly as possible.

Finally, I want to speak to support Dr. Celeste Wallander, who is the nominee to serve as Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs. And as part of that role, she is responsible for defense policy toward Europe, NATO, the Middle East, and Africa--all places right now which are hotbeds of potential conflict.

In light of the ongoing and unprecedented Russian threat to post-Cold War European stability and Ukrainian sovereignty, Dr. Wallander's nomination comes at a particularly critical time. Dr. Wallander has demonstrated a history of expertise on Russia. As former President of the U.S.-Russia Foundation, top Russia expert on the National Security Council, and former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Russia, Ukraine, and Eurasia, Dr. Wallander is highly respected on both sides of the aisle.

With a bipartisan delegation, I traveled to Ukraine several weeks ago. We met with Ukrainian President Zelenskyy and his national security team to discuss the Russian threat and how we can do everything possible to help our Ukrainian friends. You can't turn on the radio, read a paper, or watch the news at night without seeing the Russian troops that are massed on Ukraine's border.

The message from the Ukrainians was clear when we met with them. They see their future in partnership with the West. They share our democratic values, and the people are proud of their hard-won independence.

And every step that Putin takes toward escalating the situation at the border is a step closer to threatening not only Ukraine's future but the liberal democratic system that he fears and that we all have benefited from.

I can think of no one more qualified for this position at DOD at this time of immense instability than Dr. Wallander.

So, for these reasons, I believe we must move to confirm these three nominees as quickly as possible so they can fulfill the duties of these crucial positions that are so vital to our national security.

So with that, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of the following nominations en bloc: Calendar Nos. 476, 692, and 694; that the Senate vote on the nominations en bloc without intervening action or debate; that the motions 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; that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

Mr. President, I appreciate my colleague's grandstanding on Afghanistan when he knows that in the NDAA, we passed a provision to create a Commission to look at Afghanistan. And I want those answers just as much as he does. I stood up and said, when the President announced the withdrawal, that I didn't support that withdrawal.

But that is beside the point that we are dealing with now because what we are dealing with now and what my colleague from Missouri is doing is making us less secure because he is holding nominees--he is complaining about the problems we have in Russia and Ukraine, and he is making it worse because he is not willing to allow those nominees who can help with that problem to go forward.

He is absolutely incorrect about Nord Stream 2. I opposed Nord Stream 2. I authored the legislation with Senator Cruz to sanction Nord Stream 2. For the 4 years that the previous President was in office, they didn't take any action to sanction Nord Stream 2 until the day Donald Trump left office.

The fact is, that pipeline is not operating now because it hasn't been certified, and so Russia is not making any money from the Nord Stream 2 Pipeline. So he needs to get his facts correct.

He sits on the Armed Services Committee with me, where he has access to the same information about our pressing national security challenges. Yet he is holding up these nominees. He is disregarding the threats that we face because he would rather stand here and grandstand on Afghanistan. Well, we do need to get answers, and I am willing to work with him on that, but this is not the way to do it.

So let's remember that Senator Hawley declared China as the biggest threat to American security, and that is a quote. Yet he is blocking the confirmation of Dr. Honey, whose job would be to ensure that our defense research and development efforts are continuing on par with China's. So if his goal is to ensure that China's technological capabilities surpass ours, I can think of no better way to do that than to refuse to confirm Dr. Honey.

On Russia, my colleague has claimed that the Biden administration has coddled Russia. We heard him say it just now--that they failed to aid Ukraine. But in a recent op-ed, my colleague made his views clear on the current Russian-created crisis. In it, he suggests that the United States is better off closing NATO's doors to Ukraine and stating that our Nation's history of promoting and defending liberal democratic values across the globe has been a failure. Well, I am not going to agree to that.

We have an international order that developed after World War II that has had as a large part the containment first of the Soviet Union through NATO and now of Russia. Part of that world order says that a sovereign nation should be able to help determine their own future.

So I am not going to be part of some agreement that says we are going to turn our backs on NATO, we are going to turn our backs on Ukraine, and we are going to say to Russia: You go ahead; you go into Ukraine.

He argues that we should reduce our commitments to places like Europe because, he claims, Russia poses a greater threat to our European allies than to the United States. Well, the last time I looked, when the United States got attacked in 2001--and maybe he doesn't remember 9/11 because he was too young--the countries that came to our aid were our NATO allies.

So, with all due respect, I find my colleague's assessment both disturbing and shockingly uninformed. As members of the Senate Armed Services Committee, my colleague and I have been briefed on the multitude of evidence of Russia's attempts to subvert democratic institutions--including right here in the United States, by the way--to attack our own infrastructure, and to compromise the sovereignty of our allies around the globe.

In 2018, Russian private military contractor forces even assaulted an outpost of Americans in Syria. They were forced to defend themselves, and, of course, they did, and they ultimately routed the Russian force.

So my colleague's stated sentiments do just what Vladimir Putin wants. He wants to divide the United States from our NATO allies and other democracies. He wants to diminish U.S. presence in Europe and to rewrite the European security order in a way that favors his authoritarian interests. We simply cannot allow that to happen.

I could not disagree with my colleague any more on how he has chosen to associate himself. Continuing to block qualified leaders such as Dr. Wallander, Dr. Honey, and Ms. Dalton does not make us stronger, it does not contribute to productive discourse over our national priorities, and it doesn't accomplish what he is trying to accomplish.

If what he wants is answers on Afghanistan, then work with us. Let's work together. Let's make this Commission that we passed in the NDAA-- let's make it work. What he wants casts us an unreliable partner to our allies, and it forces the Department of Defense to operate with one hand tied behind their back.

So I am disappointed to hear my colleague--and he talks about regular order. Well, in the last 24 hours, we have confirmed three nominees by regular order. We held up the Senate to get cloture votes. Then we passed Alexandra Baker, the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, 75 to 21. We passed Douglas Bush, Assistant Secretary of the Army, 95 to 2. I don't know if Senator Hawley was one of those two. I assume he was. We passed Patrick Coffey, general counsel for the Navy, 79 to 17. Then on February 2, by unanimous consent, we passed Gabriel Camarillo, Under Secretary of the Army, and Andrew Hunter, Assistant Secretary of the Air Force, by unanimous consent.

So this is not about regular order; this is about trying to use the Senate process for his own personal ambitions, and that is unfortunate. It is unfortunate because it doesn't get us the individuals we need to get confirmed to make government run, and it is unfortunate because it doesn't accomplish what he says he wants.

So I am disappointed to hear that we are not going to move these nominees forward, and I hope at some point my colleague will reconsider.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I would ask unanimous consent that the Senate resume consideration of the MacBride nomination until 6 p.m. and that at 6 p.m. the Senate vote on confirmation of the Baker and Lewis nominations.

For the information of the Senate, we expect to line up to three additional votes this evening. Therefore, Senators should expect a series of up to five rollcall votes beginning at 6 p.m. Senators are asked to vote from their desks after the first vote so we can move these along and not spend all night here.

Madam President, I am actually on the floor to speak to a different issue, even though I think expediting votes is an important one, and I support that.

But I am really here to highlight the negative consequences for our country of continuing to fund our government through continuing resolutions.

One of the most basic constitutional duties of Congress is the appropriations process. The Nation relies on this body to provide Federal funds for programs that support national defense, small businesses, our border defenses, conservation of public lands, food assistance for low-income families, and so much, much more.

And as a long-serving Member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, I am extremely disappointed that Congress is about to pass yet another CR that is going to take us to March 11, nearly 5 months past the start of the fiscal year.

Now, on a positive note, I understand that there is a tentative agreement on top-line funding, so that we should have budget numbers for an omnibus that would fund the remainder of the fiscal year. And that is good news. But the fundamental problem remains; long-term CRs create uncertainty and inefficiencies inside and outside of the Federal Government.

CRs prevent Agencies from issuing new grants or expanding programs. They curtail hiring and recruitment. And moreover, those who rely on government programs and Federal resources--and that could be either SNAP recipients or defense contractors, but everyone is forced into a budgetary limbo.

And simply put, when Congress refuses to act, people can't do their jobs, and this is especially true for our military men and women who are serving.

From Russia's efforts to undermine democracies in Europe to China's rapidly expanding sphere of influence, to the unpredictable threat of rogue actors like North Korea and Iran, the threats we face today are varied and numerous. And nothing hinders our national security more than funding our national priorities in piecemeal fashion.

Make no mistake, as we are engaged in this crisis right now in Europe, where Russia is on the borders of Ukraine, threatening to invade, we can bet that Vladimir Putin is watching our Congress to see if we can actually get an agreement to get a budget funded for the rest of this year.

Recently, several of my colleagues from the Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense and the Armed Services Committee met with Marine Corps Commandant General Berger to discuss the challenges that are facing the Marines. The message from General Berger was clear: If we continue to fund our government through CRs, it will erode our military readiness, and it will cut training time and impede the maintenance processes we rely on to keep our soldiers safe.

The impact of continued CRs on our military would be wide-ranging, and the negative effects would continue to ripple for years. And we had this experience since I have been here. In 2012 and 2013, when we had the budget cliff, we saw what happened to our military. We saw readiness of our men and women in uniform erode.

Thousands of pilot flight hours would be lost. Critical exercises within our national allies would be canceled. Our overall global presence diminished at a time in which our adversaries are seeking to outcompete us in multiple theaters.

Aircraft like the brandnew KC-46 tankers that we are so proud to have stationed at Pease Air National Guard Base in New Hampshire, they are such a point of pride. They are an invaluable strategic national asset, but they would spend more time on the ground rather than flying the missions that they were designed for.

And submarines, the backbone of our nuclear deterrence and technological overmatch against our adversaries and, by the way, the ships that China is most concerned about, are an instantly recognizable symbol of American military might and the values of our country, they would be sidelined due to maintenance disruptions.

That would have significant impact not just for our readiness but also for places like the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard, which has as its responsibility the maintenance and repair of our attack submarines.

So what kind of a signal does it send to adversaries like Russia, as they continue amassing troops on the Ukrainian border and threaten the stability of Europe, when we can't get a budget?

Long-term efforts to recruit and retain the best and brightest to serve in our military would be undone as bonus and incentive pays are cut and overall end-strength numbers decrease by thousands.

Military families would be forced to bear the burden of greater financial uncertainty on top of the many sacrifices that they already make for our country. We would be left with a smaller, less capable force that is demoralized from pay cuts and forced to shoulder greater risks for their safety.

Now, in addition to the harm to our servicemembers and military families, we would also be undermining the critical modernization efforts that we need to keep pace at a time when competitors like China are experiencing technological breakthroughs.

Just 8 months ago, I am sure we all remember that China tested an advanced hypersonic missile that was launched into space before reentering the atmosphere and nearly hitting its target.

This test should serve as a wake-up call about the urgent threat that China's military breakthroughs pose. And if the U.S. research and development efforts are slowed down due to the constraints of operating under a continuing resolution, we will not be able to drive the innovation needed to keep pace with China, let alone regain a convincing advantage.

And make no mistake, Putin isn't the only one watching to see if we can get a budget agreement in this Congress. Xi is also watching from China.

The development of our next-generation fighter to ensure we maintain air superiority in the air will be slowed.

Our efforts to defend against cyber attacks that could cripple critical infrastructure or expose national security secrets would be hamstrung.

Simply put, for all the might and selfless service of our service men and women, we would be asking them to defend us while tying their hands behind their backs simply because we in Congress can't find the courage of compromise.

I would say to my colleague Senator Cornyn from Texas, who talked about the narrow focus of Democrats--who are in the majority in this body right now, very slim majority--worrying only about our own parochial interests, that this is an opportunity for us to work together. Let's work across the aisle and see if we can't find some agreement on budget that will get this done not just for the remaining months of this fiscal year but next year and the next year and the next year.

China doesn't just compete with us on military technology; China and our other economic competitors are pouring resources into scientific and technological innovation. And if we want to sustain our global prosperity, global leadership, and national security, we cannot afford to be caught flatfooted.

That is why last week the House of Representatives passed the America

COMPETES Act, which is a companion to the Senate-passed U.S. Innovation and Competition Act, which passed the Senate months ago with a very strong bipartisan vote.

These bills will soon be in conference, and, if passed, they will bolster innovation and international trade, but the investments to meet the authorizations that are contained in these bills can't be made under a continuing resolution.

I chair the Commerce, Justice, and Science and Related Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee, the CJS Subcommittee. Our bipartisan CJS bill included a $1 billion increase for the National Science Foundation to keep pace with scientific discoveries that can power the economy in fields like artificial intelligence, quantum computing, microelectronics, and advanced communications.

Under a CR, we would forfeit the chance to fund 2,300 additional research and education grants that will support 27,500 more scientists, technicians, teachers, and students compared to fiscal year 2021.

That means a lot of innovative research projects, and therefore potentially new discoveries, technology, and industries would never get started. It also would diminish our ability to train the next generation of innovators.

It isn't just the National Science Foundation; under a CR, NASA wouldn't have the needed increases that will help us return humans to the Moon--the high ground that China is also eyeing. We will lose out on the opportunity to provide the Department of Commerce additional funding to build next-generation climate and weather satellites, help small- and medium-sized manufacturers, enforce export and trade laws, and invest in economic development.

Furthermore, a CR would delay implementation of the bipartisan infrastructure bill.

Last year, along with nine of our colleagues, we drafted the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, which is bipartisan legislation to make historic investments in our Nation's infrastructure. The legislation provides $550 billion in new Federal investment to respond to the needs of the country, from rebuilding crumbling roads and bridges to providing clean drinking water and addressing harmful contaminants, to expanding broadband coverage to even the most rural parts of our country. The Senate passed that infrastructure bill by an overwhelmingly bipartisan vote of 69 to 30.

When President Biden signed the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act into law, it became the single biggest infrastructure investment in U.S. history. It is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for us to invest in this country. But if we continue with CRs, the implementation of this bipartisan infrastructure law could be delayed.

In addition, as a result of its flat obligation limitations, a CR would prevent State departments of transportation from accessing higher amounts of formula funding provided by the highway trust fund.

The CR would also prohibit new starts for new formula programs authorized by the bipartisan infrastructure law, including the fiscal year 2022 portion of the carbon reduction program that supports emission-reducing transportation projects and the PROTECT formula funding to States to support transportation infrastructure resiliency.

Now, in addition to slowing meaningful infrastructure investments, a CR also fails to address urgent needs in our communities.

Americans want to be safe from international threats to our national and economic security, but more important, they want to be safe in their communities. Yet, in 2020, murders rose by 30 percent.

The Senate Commerce-Justice-Science bill includes significant funding to help local police departments fight crime and put officers on the street. It also includes a new Community Violence Intervention Initiative to implement strategies to reduce homicides and gun violence. But with a CR, we wouldn't have funding for this promising strategy.

We would also lose the chance to provide historic levels of funding for the Office on Violence Against Women. Today, it is particularly important because a bipartisan group of Senators will introduce a reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act. But without a CJS appropriations bill, we can't provide additional funding for the Sexual Assault Services Program, which is a formula grant released to States, Tribes, and other coalitions in order to provide support services like medical services, counseling, and crisis intervention for victims of sexual assault, and we cannot start new programs like Restorative Justice, a growing area in criminal justice to repair and address the harm experienced by victims.

Continuing to rely on last year's funding levels and last year's programs undermines our chances to improve our military readiness, to invest in our economy, and to address emerging challenges.

This week, instead of enacting funding bills for the fiscal year that began on October 1, 2021, Congress will instead extend the deadline again, passing another CR through March 11. Now, don't get me wrong, I am glad we are continuing to keep the government open, and I understand that Senate leadership--Chairman Leahy and Vice Chairman Shelby, along with their House counterparts--has reached a tentative agreement on total spending levels to allow us to use the next month to finish our work and enact a remaining year appropriations bill, but it is way past time to have made that happen. The American people deserve no less, and we need to do better next year.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, first, I would like to ask unanimous consent that my Defense fellow, Leslie Cornwall, be given floor privileges for the remainder of the 117th Congress.

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.