Floor Statements

Mr. President, section 36(b) of the Arms Export Control Act requires that Congress receive prior notification of certain proposed arms sales as defined by that statute. Upon such notification, the Congress has 30 calendar days during which the sale may be reviewed. The provision stipulates that, in the Senate, the notification of proposed sales shall be sent to the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

In keeping with the committee's intention to see that relevant information is available to the full Senate, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the notifications which have been received. If the cover letter references a classified annex, then such annex is available to all Senators in the office of the Foreign Relations Committee, room SD-423.

Mr. President, section 36(b) of the Arms Export Control Act requires that Congress receive prior notification of certain proposed arms sales as defined by that statute. Upon such notification, the Congress has 30 calendar days during which the sale may be reviewed. The provision stipulates that, in the Senate, the notification of proposed sales shall be sent to the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

In keeping with the committee's intention to see that relevant information is available to the full Senate, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the notifications which have been received. If the cover letter references a classified annex, then such annex is available to all Senators in the office of the Foreign Relations Committee, room SD-423.

Mr. President, section 36(b) of the Arms Export Control Act requires that Congress receive prior notification of certain proposed arms sales as defined by that statute. Upon such notification, the Congress has 30 calendar days during which the sale may be reviewed. The provision stipulates that, in the Senate, the notification of proposed sales shall be sent to the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

In keeping with the committee's intention to see that relevant information is available to the full Senate, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the notifications which have been received. If the cover letter references a classified annex, then such annex is available to all Senators in the office of the Foreign Relations Committee, room SD-423.

Mr. President, I come to the floor today in defense of what in essence is the very essence of our democracy and the voting rights of all Americans.

Our dear friend, someone whom I had the privilege of serving with in the House of Representatives, the late John Lewis, took a beating on a bridge in Selma for the right to vote. Surely we in the Senate can muster a shred of his courage to protect that right.

There are no other rights without the right to vote. It is through the right to vote that freedom rings, that justice reigns and opportunity arises.

As we all know, this Monday was Dr. Martin Luther King Day, and we have to remember his words: He said:

The vote is the most powerful instrument ever--

Ever--

devised by human beings for breaking down injustice and

destroying the terrible walls which imprison people because

they are different from others.

That is what he called the right to vote--humanity's greatest instrument for advancing progress. Well, the time has come for us to defend it.

Now, my colleagues who oppose our voting rights legislation have had ample time to make their opinions heard. Soon, it will be time to end debate and hold a simple up-or-down vote on the Freedom to Vote Act and the John Lewis Advancement Act. After all, the State legislatures passing voter suppression laws across the country are doing so with simple majorities, conservative majorities that in many cases were born out of decades of partisan gerrymandering.

How about the Supreme Court? It was a simple majority vote of 5 to 4 that gutted the Voting Rights Act. That was the law that John Lewis and others risked their lives for on Bloody Sunday.

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 ended discriminatory tactics that not only blocked Black voters from their ballots but other minorities, too, including Latinos.

Shortly after the Civil War, Latinos held greater political power in States like California, Texas, and Arizona, but as Jim Crow spread throughout the South, they were pushed out of elected positions and threatened with violence for their continued participation.

The Voting Rights Act transformed our country for the better. It created the diverse, multiracial democracy we live in today. I know that my story--the son of first-generation refugees

who came from nothing and rose to become one of 100 U.S. Senators in a nation of 350 million people--is only possible because of the civil right giants who came before me.

The Voting Rights Act ended Jim Crow-era voting laws, and its preclearance provision stopped States from resurrecting them in the future. States and localities with ugly histories of discrimination had to get preclearance from the Justice Department before tampering with their voting laws. Yet, in 2013, the Supreme Court's 5-to-4 ruling in Shelby County essentially said that racial progress rendered the need for this oversight obsolete--obsolete--as if racism no longer exists in this country.

The late Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said it best. She said that ending preclearance when it is continuing to ``stop discriminatory changes is like throwing away your umbrella in a rainstorm because you are not getting wet.'' Indeed, that rule opened the floodgates for new voter suppression laws.

My colleague from New Jersey often cited Texas. Texas, home to millions of Black and Latino voters, resurrected a strict photo ID law that had been struck down just the year before.

Then North Carolina slashed early voting and ended same-day registration with a law that the Fourth Circuit found was ``intentionally''--intentionally--written to disenfranchise Black voters.

Other States, like Alabama, started reducing polling locations in minority communities.

These measures may not look like poll taxes or literacy tests, but they are the tools of oppression just the same. Their intent is the same--to depress turnout among minority voters--and they threaten the promise of our vibrant, multiracial democracy.

Now, throughout this debate--I have tried to sit here several hours-- I have heard our Republican colleagues question, well, why, after record turnouts in the last Presidential election, would we feel the need to revisit voting rights legislation. Well, the answer is pretty simple: If Republicans systematically were not tearing down the laws that gave rise to the record turnouts, then maybe this wouldn't be necessary. But that is exactly what they have done in State after State.

Voting rights used to enjoy broad bipartisan support here in the Senate. Indeed, Republicans and Democrats stood together for decades to reauthorize the Voting Rights Act, most recently in 2006. In fact, I want to quote one of my colleagues on the day of the last reauthorization. He said:

America's history is a story of ever-increasing freedom,

hope, and opportunity for all. The Voting Rights Act of 1965

represents one of this country's greatest steps forward in

that story. . . . Every American must have freedom of

political expression--including the free, unfettered right to

vote.

Those words were from Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, who spoke those words on that day. He was 1 of 16 Republicans who proudly voted for the 2006 reauthorization but stand in the way today, 16 Republicans who still are present in the U.S. Senate, including not only him but Senators Grassley, Shelby, Crapo, Collins, Burr, Inhofe, Graham, Thune, Cornyn, Blackburn, Blunt, Boozman, Capito, Moran, and Wicker.

That is right--16 Republicans who supported the reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act still serve in this body today. So to them, I say: Join us. Join us. What has changed? What was right then is clearly right now. Join us, and we could pass the Voting Rights Advancement Act with a bipartisan supermajority--no change to the rules necessary. Just join us, as you did in 2006.

Well, we know that won't happen, not today, not since our democracy has been flooded by a torrential downpour of lies.

Earlier this month, we observed the 1-year anniversary of the January 6 insurrection. A defeated President's violent mob nearly overturned a free and verifiably fair election and tried to overthrow the U.S. Constitution. Shots rang out in the Capitol. The Confederate flag waved through its hallowed halls. That never even happened during the Civil War.

A New Jerseyan and Capitol Police officer named Brian Sicknick was drenched in bear spray and later died. Imagine using a toxic substance intended to fend off bear attacks on fellow human beings, beating officers within inches of death, and inflicting such painful trauma that multiple officers have since ended their own lives, all because one man could not accept defeat--a man with an ego so big, he could not fathom losing by 7 million votes; an ego so big, he manufactured a lie to match it--a lie so big, it inspired violence and nearly brought down the Constitution.

That lie should have died within minutes of the former President speaking it. Instead, it lived. The Big Lie lived to grow even bigger thanks to a Republican Party that is no longer a party, I believe, of principle but a party of fealty to a wannabe despot.

Since the insurrection, the most anti-democratic laws since Jim Crow have taken the Nation by storm. Last year, 19 States passed nearly three dozen laws undermining access to the ballot box. It is as if they are trying to codify the Big Lie into law.

In Arizona, Georgia, and other States, they made it harder to vote by mail, something that my colleagues have talked about that Americans have been doing for decades and that Republican GOTV efforts one time long embraced it as a way to succeed.

They are also removing drop boxes in minority communities under the bogus claim that they invite fraud. So when it is in Reverend Warnock's community or Senator Padilla's community or Cory Booker's community or my community, somehow that drop box invites fraud just simply because it is in our community? Another lie straight from the mouth of a defeated President.

And many States are reducing early voting days.

When you add up all of these restrictions, what do you get? Longer lines at the polls, people giving up, folks who have to get home to their kids, workers who can't afford to take a day off. To the partisan architects of these laws, their sigh of resignation is music to their ears. They want to make voting so inconvenient for working people and communities of color that they don't even bother.

The Georgia State legislature gave itself the power to remove election officials that were elected by the people if they don't like what they see. Simply put, these laws gave State legislatures new tools to disregard--disregard--the will of the voters.

So I have come to the conclusion that since Republicans cannot win elections with the power of their ideas, they are doing everything they can to change the rules of the game so they can win anyway. In doing so, they are taking us back to a time and place where injustice prevailed, a time and a place that I certainly don't want to go back to nor do I want my children or grandchildren to go back to or those whom I represent to go back to.

Finally, as chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, I would note that when we see an attempted coup or creeping authoritarianism abroad, we call it democratic backsliding. Now other countries are wondering: Is that happening to the United States? Dictators around the world are jumping for joy. This is what they want to see, democracy in disarray. In fact, last November, the Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance added the United States to a list of ``backsliding democracies'' for the first time ever--ever.

Look, democratic self-government only works when all parties consent to be governed by whoever wins the most votes. That is how elections work. We can debate corporate tax rate. We can disagree about financial aid funding. We can differ over healthcare policy. But the outcome of a fair and free election, the sanctity of the right to vote--these are not up for debate.

Voting rights are the foundation of this entire democratic enterprise, this great American experiment. It is time every Senator looks into their souls and decides how they want to be remembered when future generations remember this perilous moment in our history.

This legislation will protect the rights of all of our voters--young and old; rich and poor; Black and White; Latino and Asian; indigenous; immigrant; Republican; Democrat; Independent; the single mom, exhausted but relieved her neighbor could watch the kids so she could make it to the

polls; the warehouse worker who can't afford a day off but winds up taking one anyway; the elderly African-American woman, her hand shaking with determination as she signs her name on a mail-in ballot--she remembers life before the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and she will never forget the sacrifices of those who marched for it, who bled for it, and even died for the right to vote.

Now, I will just say one final thing. We all take an oath to the Constitution. It is required under the Constitution to be sworn in as a Member of Congress. And in that Constitution, an amendment that is seen only as it relates to a different time in history, but it is very clear and very powerful:

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall

not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any

State on account of race, color, or previous condition of

servitude.

[And] the Congress shall have power to enforce this article

by appropriate legislation.

These rights enshrined in the Constitution under the 15th amendment, they are certainly being abridged. They are certainly being affected in a way that we could not fathom in the year 2022. How shameful it would be if we let it slip through our fingers and be buried under an avalanche of one sore loser's life. How shameful it would be to violate our oath to the Constitution, to that 15th amendment, in order to preserve some rule that is not in the Constitution and certainly is not as enshrined as that right to vote.

I hope that those who joined us in 2006 will be there today to vote with us on the Republican side, and if that fails, then I hope we will change the filibuster into a talking filibuster so the Nation can see who stands on the side of ensuring the franchise of that right to vote for every American.

I yield the floor.

Reserving the right to object, I am sorry, I didn't hear the unanimous consent request.

And I object to that.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to complete my remarks before the vote begins.

Mr. President, this is a pivotal week for the security of Ukraine. Talks are ongoing to test whether the Kremlin wants to engage in diplomacy or is intent on war, to see if the United States and our allies can pull Putin back from the brink. And if the headlines are any indication this morning, it is clear that this is an open question.

This is a critical time. There still may be a window to deter the Kremlin from deciding to invade. But we must be clear and united about what awaits Russia if it chooses the unwise path. We must send an unequivocal message: that, should Putin invade, the consequences would be devastating; that there would be steep costs to the economy and to the people of Russia if he further tramples on Ukraine's territory and independence.

That message should be sent through every channel, at every level, including by this body. And we have a chance to do just that.

The Defending Ukraine Sovereignty Act, which has in just 2 short days 39 cosponsors already, is a comprehensive response to the threat facing Ukraine. It would impose massive, crippling sanctions on multiple sectors of Russia's economy. It would impose the harshest sanctions on Putin and senior Kremlin officials themselves. It would effectively cut Russia off from the international financial system. That is the sanction that I helped devise that ultimately brought Iran, years ago, to the negotiating table.

This act also makes clear that the United States will make every effort to expedite security assistance and defense articles to help support Ukraine. And it expands our efforts to counter Kremlin aggression across the region. It says the United States will not stand for this bullying. And it makes clear that Putin has a choice to make.

But we are not voting on that comprehensive response. We are not voting on how severe the consequences should be if Putin goes down the path of invasion. Instead, we are voting on whether to sanction Nord Stream 2--as if that alone would deter Putin from reinvading, as if that alone would stop him.

Instead, sanctioning Nord Stream now at this pivotal moment would have the opposite effect of deterring Putin. It might even be the excuse Putin is looking for. Right now, the one thing we know Putin wants is for Nord Stream 2 to be operational.

Now, let's be clear. If we don't sanction Nord Stream now, that does not mean the pipeline goes online. It does not mean that Putin get his way. What it does mean is that there is leverage.

Right now, we have a new German Government that has blocked the pipeline from moving forward. Right now, that German Government is a productive partner with us on this critical issue. They are where we need them to be--working to coerce Putin not to reinvade Ukraine; making clear that if Putin advances into Ukraine, there will be no Nord Stream; working with us to strengthen and support strong deterrence; coordinating with us to enhance the impact of devastating sanctions, if we need to pull that trigger. That is where we need the German Government to be.

Sanctioning Nord Stream now, in the way that the Cruz bill would do, would not just be a sanction on Nord Stream 2 AG. The bill would sanction ``any corporate officer of an entity established for or responsible for the planning, construction, or operation of the Nord Stream 2 pipeline'' or a successor entity.

This broad scope would have a clear ripple effect on the entities, many of them German, and individuals, many of them German citizens, who work on the pipeline. That includes German companies involved in the pipeline, industrial sites, rail operators, port operators, and any entity associated with that deal.

So for an ally that is with us in this fight against Putin's aggression, for an ally that is standing up with us when we need them to be strong, this would be akin to a sanction on them. They have made that clear to us. Now is not the time to take that step.

Again, the pipeline today is paused. They basically stopped the regulatory process on it. At the earliest, it could be months before anything happens, depending upon what Putin does--depending upon what Putin does--and even if they allow it to move forward. Now is not the time to take off the table a key piece of leverage.

I have to address some other points I have heard some of our colleagues mention.

I listened to the Senator from Texas attempt to lay blame time and time and time again at the feet of President Biden. He has tried to blame President Biden for Nord Stream, and now he is trying to blame him for Putin's illegitimate power-grabbing and military aggression. Do you know what? I suggest he look back and review just how and when Nord Stream came to be because it wasn't President Biden who could have imposed sanctions back in 2017. It wasn't President Biden who did nothing for years while 94 percent of the pipeline was being built. It wasn't President Biden who waited until his last day in office to impose sanctions on Nord Stream. There was someone else who could have used his authority to put a stop to this malign influence project but didn't. There was someone else who could have made the Kremlin's weaponization of energy a priority but didn't.

The Senator already knows this, but how can I be so sure? Because he said so at the time. In December of 2019, he said:

I want this to be very clear, if the pipeline is completed,

it will be the fault of the members of this [Trump]

administration who sat on their rear ends and didn't exercise

the clear power.

The fault of the Trump administration--his words--but now, magically, it is President Biden's fault. Please. A pipeline that was 94 percent complete by January of 2021--to me, that is a Trump-Putin pipeline.

It may be convenient to say that work on the pipeline stopped until Biden became President, but that is just not the case. In fact, work stopped on the pipeline for 6 months--6 months--from December of 2019 until the spring of 2020, because a company backed out of the project. But did Russia stop? No. It was working furiously to finish the job by retrofitting ships that could complete the pipeline. The moment that was done, the moment the ships were ready, pipeline construction started again.

A retrofitted Russian ship, the Cherskiy, showed up in Germany in May of 2020, awaiting a permit by Danish authorities. The permit was approved in October of 2020. The fact that it received a permit was sanctionable

by the then Trump administration. The Trump administration failed to act.

On December 11, Nord Stream 2 AG said that the Fortuna resumed offshore construction activities in shallow German waters. Nord Stream 2 AG was not waiting for Biden to be in office; it was acting. The Trump administration could and should have imposed sanctions under CAATSA at that point. As a matter of fact, it didn't need CAATSA; it had IEEPA sanctions it could have imposed and chose not to.

Now, look, my position on Nord Stream has been clear. I have been and remain strongly opposed to the pipeline. I supported sanction measures on the project when they could have had an impact during the Trump administration, before hundreds of miles of pipe had been completed. And President Trump had those tools. He had them. We passed them overwhelmingly, and then we gave him more tools and more sanctions. What did he do? Nothing. Not until his last day in office did he impose sanctions on Nord Stream--his very last day. So let's stop with the games. By the time the Biden administration took office, the pipeline was 94 percent complete--94 percent.

Senator Cruz wants to stop the pipeline, and so do I, but it is far from clear that sanctions at this point, when the pipeline is already built, will do just that. In fact, it isn't clear to me at all that the Senator's proposal would even change the status quo. Instead, it would most certainly tie up this body and this floor so that we would be voting time and time again on resolutions of disapproval related to Nord Stream.

Now, of course, I get it. I get it. I understand why the Senator would rather tie up this floor and hamstring the President's agenda instead of voting on nominees or voting rights or Build Back Better or judges or a whole host of other critical elements before the country. But that is the reality of the Senator's proposal.

So I ask my colleagues, what is the urgent threat that needs addressing? Is it attempting to score political points and tie this President's hands intentionally and internationally or is it addressing the very real and potentially imminent threat amassing along Ukraine's border?

I believe we need to address the real threat and the whole threat facing Ukraine and the region, and that is why I drafted the Defending Ukraine Sovereignty Act.

I have stood up for and alongside Ukraine time and time again in the face of Ukraine's aggression. In 2014, I was in Ukraine right after Russia's invasion took place. After Russia's illegal occupation of Crimea, I drafted the Ukraine Freedom Support Act, which passed into law, to impose sanctions on Russia and increase support for Ukraine. In 2016, I introduced the STAND for Ukraine Act to help restore Ukraine sovereignty and territorial integrity in the face of Kremlin aggression.

I will continue to ensure that the United States does all it can to help Ukraine defend itself against Putin's bullying, to provide the assistance it needs, to support its integrity, and to bolster its security in the region, and I urge this body to do just that.

Finally, Senator Cruz would like to suggest that partisan loyalty is why we believe his approach at this time is wrong. What is wrong is to break the coalition we now have against Putin at one of the most critical times of Ukraine's history. Germany is a critical part with us and ally with us to deter Putin. If you end Nord Stream today--not that this legislation would--one less reason for Putin to say: Well, that is gone. Why shouldn't I invade anyhow?

I urge my colleagues to address the actual imminent threat amassing along Ukraine's border, to make clear to Putin what the massive cost of his actions will be. We might still be able to turn Putin back, but we must be laser-focused on what it will take to get him from taking one more step towards Ukraine's border.

I urge my colleagues to actually address the threat at hand, one that extends far beyond a pipeline but threatens an entire country's borders and the security of a region. It is a threat that demands a comprehensive, resounding response. That is what we will be offering in short order.

So I urge my colleagues to vote no on this approach, to make sure we keep the unity that is essential at this time to deter Putin, and to work with me to make sure that this body sends the united, strong message to deter Putin, stand with our allies, and support Ukraine.

I urge a ``no'' vote on the Cruz legislation.

I yield the floor.

Vote on S. 3436

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, let me first say that I rise, in the first instance, before having heard the Senator's remarks, to say that I have serious concerns about the junior Senator from Florida's lack of respect for the regular order of the Senate.

On July 11, 2021, the Cuban people took to the streets in unprecedented protests, demanding democracy and the end of decades of dictatorship. Subsequently, the Senate came together in unanimous consent to pass my S. Res. 310. My bipartisan legislation expressed our unwavering solidarity with the Cuban people and called for the release of all political prisoners detained unjustly by the Diaz-Canel regime.

My legislation was the result of bipartisan negotiations, and it was approved unanimously by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. That is what regular order looks like, and it is a process that strengthens the impact of our work on foreign policy when we can speak together in one voice to promote that foreign policy, whether it is to the Cuban regime or whether it is in any other place in the world.

Now, I need to make the point that the junior Senator from Florida routinely disregards this process. In this particular case, not only has this resolution not been marked up by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, not only is it not bipartisan--as far as I know, nobody has been offered even the

opportunity to join it--but it hasn't even been introduced so that the Parliamentarian would decide where it would be sent to committee for referral for consideration. It hasn't even been introduced. It has not received the review it deserves. In fact, it has not received any formal review.

As I have repeatedly said as the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, I stand ready to work with any Member--and have done so--on initiatives that advance the national security interests of the United States and the defense of democracy and human rights. While there may be some urgent moments that require us to move legislation directly to the floor, regular order exists for a reason--to facilitate consensus and ensure that the legislation we consider on the floor reflects the input and expertise of Senators who sit on the relevant committees of jurisdiction.

Now, I have spent the last several days listening to my Republican colleagues talk about the fullness of legislative debate, of not preempting legislative debate, of not preempting prolonged legislative debate in the context of the filibuster. Here is a piece of legislation that hasn't even been introduced, but it is being brought directly to the floor. How does that promote legislative debate? It doesn't. It doesn't.

I happen to agree with the Senator about his focus here as it relates to those who are struggling inside of Cuba to create freedom, but I want to send a clarion message that I will not simply allow legislation that is in the purview of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to come directly to the floor without even an introduction, without review, without any debate, and then believe that one will just allow it to go through on unanimous consent. That is not how the Senate works.

I would urge the junior Senator from Florida to consider this for future legislative endeavors, especially as we are also concerned about the filibuster and extended debate. Well, this is the worst example of not having extended debate.

Lastly, I deeply disagree with the Senator's characterization--I wasn't even going to reference it--in having listened to his remarks, about the Biden administration. The Biden administration sanctioned individuals in Cuba, high-ranking individuals of the Cuban military, who have never been sanctioned before. The Biden administration led a multilateral effort for the condemnation of what happened in Cuba as a result of the citizens of Cuba seeking to simply redress their grievances against the dictatorship that exists there, and brought in countries that have never ever expressed themselves in such a way before. The Biden administration worked with the Secretary General of the OAS to take the strong position that the Senator referred to.

So I hate to say it, but this almost comes across as a naked, political, partisan effort to try to promote some perspective when, in fact, we should be embracing this together through regular order, in a bipartisan process, which the Cuban people, particularly those suffering inside of Cuba, deserve. However, because of this particular moment and at this particular time and having given the Senator good notice about other future endeavors--this is not the first time--I will not object.

Mr. President, for the Committee on Foreign Relations I report favorably the following nomination lists which were printed in the Record on the dates indicated, and ask unanimous consent, to save the expense of reprinting on the Executive Calendar that these nominations lie at the Secretary's desk for the information of Senators.

Mr. President, I rise to express my support for a number of foreign affairs nominations that should receive not just cloture votes today but should receive votes on their nomination.

It is a long list, including Dr. Atul Gawande to be the Assistant Administrator for the Bureau of Global Health at the U.S. Agency for International Development; Mark Gitenstein to be the U.S. Ambassador to the European Union; Julissa Reynoso Pantaleon to be the Ambassador to Spain; Rahm Emanuel to be the Ambassador to Japan; Governor Jack Markell to be the U.S. Representative to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development; Marcela Escobari to be Assistant Administrator for Latin America and the Caribbean at USAID; and Marc Knapper to be the Ambassador to Vietnam.

Just think about it. Think about these assignments. Think about these assignments and what they mean to the United States. These are quality nominees, people who will represent the United States at home and abroad with skill and dignity.

I appreciate that the majority leader has made it a priority to confirm them prior to the end of the session, and I encourage all of my colleagues to support their nominations. But let's face it--there is little to celebrate when it comes to nominations in the Senate. The truth is that some Republicans' unprecedented obstructionism is straining the system to the breaking point, leaving the President without a team on national security positions that are critical to the national security and interest of the United States and the American people, leaving our Nation weakened--weakened. I will talk a little bit about that as it relates to these nominees.

I am thrilled that we are voting today on the nomination of Dr. Atul Gawande. His medical background and track record in public health are impressive, and he is clearly superbly qualified for the role of Assistant Administrator for the Bureau of Global Health at USAID. But it should not take this long. Dr. Gawande was nominated 5 months ago.

We are in the middle of a pandemic, a global pandemic, and he will be key to helping us fight COVID internationally. Do you think that our Republican colleagues would think it is urgent to get someone in a position that can help us to deal with the global COVID challenge? Republicans should have been pressuring us to move his nomination at lightning speed instead of slowing it at every turn.

Similarly, I am pleased to support Ambassador Gitenstein to be our point person in Brussels. He has a long and distinguished career in both the public and private sectors, including previously as U.S. Ambassador to Romania, and is deeply committed to strengthening transatlantic ties.

He should have been in Brussels weeks ago, as the President is working tirelessly to ensure a strong and unified European reaction if Russia dares to invade Ukraine. He has to do so without an Ambassador to the European Union. We want the European Union to be on our side and join with us in multilateral efforts to give Russia the consequences of any action militarily against Ukraine, but, you know, you need to have someone at the EU making the case.

Marcela Escobari--her experience and knowledge are deeply needed at USAID, where she would be leading our efforts in Latin America and the Caribbean, regions that are facing immense challenges, from Haiti to Venezuela to the Northern Triangle. She was confirmed by voice vote for this very same position in 2016. Yet, this time around, her nomination has languished due to Republican holds.

Now, we are worried about immigration, right, undocumented immigration coming to the country? Well, if you don't have somebody to help create stability in Haiti, guess what. You are going to see a lot more people at that southern border. If we don't deal with the Northern Triangle, we are going to continue to have a challenge. If we don't deal with the humanitarian challenges of the dictatorship in Venezuela, we are going to continue to see a challenge there. Shouldn't we have the person in charge of dealing with these challenges so that we, in our national interest--forget about being a good neighbor--in our national interest, are protected?

Look at the other nominees. Look at the other nominees. Spain. Spain happens to be the head right now--one of the Spaniards happens to be the head of the EU's--basically their Secretary of State, their Foreign Minister. Wouldn't it be great to have an American Ambassador in Spain pressing both the Spanish and that Foreign Minister on the questions of Ukraine, on the questions of Venezuela, on the questions of Cuba? And I could go on and on. But we have nobody in Spain. Spain hasn't been the most forward-leading, as we would like to see them, even though they are involved heavily in our hemisphere, but we have no one in Spain to make the case.

How about Japan? As we are trying to meet the challenge of China in that part of the world, we have no one in Japan to help galvanize the challenges that we want to meet as it relates to China--no one. We have a new Prime Minister in Japan. It would be great to have somebody on the ground already engaging with the Japanese in coordination with the QUAD as we deal with the challenges of China. I hear a lot of talk here about China, but here we are, when we could do something about it, and we have nothing.

Marc Knapper to be the Ambassador to Vietnam--a country that is feeling the pressures and coercion of China economically and elsewise. Wouldn't it be great to have a U.S. Ambassador there to help proselytize Vietnam into our orbit as they meet the challenges of China in the days ahead?

So, supposedly, these people are being held up in pursuit of some national security initiative. Yet we are putting all these other national security initiatives at risk in order to deal with one person's vision of the world and what should be done. I don't understand that logic. I don't know how, supposedly to promote the national interests of the United States and its security, you then create a series of risks for the United States and its national security across the globe. That is what is happening. That is what is happening. It is pretty outrageous.

Now, I am in pain here, but these nominations have to get done. They have to get done. So if we are going to stay here, we are going to stay here, but these nominations have to get done. These people need to be in their positions so that we are not going to be in pain across the globe. Something is going to happen in one of these places, and we will not be there to ultimately have someone to promote our interests to protect ourselves.

Let me close by saying that I didn't come to the Senate to fight about nominations--certainly not what I did when I aspired to come to the Senate. I don't think most of our colleagues did as well. We came here to work for our constituents, to find solutions that move this country forward, to make a positive difference. We need to rededicate ourselves to making the Senate work, to fulfilling the constitutional duty of advice and consent. We are not fulfilling our constitutional duty of advice and consent in this manner.

Giving the President--I didn't agree with President Trump on a lot of his foreign policy decisions, but I voted for a lot of his nominees, and I didn't hold them up in any way, shape, or form, as we are seeing in this unprecedented fashion. He needs qualified people to help the Nation confront the challenges we face.

I urge my colleagues, let's move forward. Let's expeditiously get these nominees out. If you don't want to vote for them, don't vote for them. That is fine. But don't stop the process of the advice and consent that ultimately is needed to put these people in the positions that are critical to the national security of the United States.

With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise to express my support for the nominations of Ambassador Nicholas Burns to be Ambassador to China, Mr. Ramin Toloui to be an Assistant Secretary of State for Economic and Business Affairs, and Mr. Rashad Hussain to be Ambassador at Large for International Religious Freedom.

These are a superb group of highly qualified nominees, deserving of the positions for which they have been nominated, and I will speak briefly about them.

Ambassador Burns is an outstanding public servant, one of the Nation's best, and I am pleased to support his nomination as the next Ambassador to China. He has a long and distinguished record in public service, including as Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs under the Bush administration and U.S. Ambassador to NATO.

If there is a place that we need an Ambassador, it is China. We have spent so much time, both in committee and on the floor, hearing about the challenges of China, but we don't have a U.S. Ambassador to help us meet those challenges.

It is no secret that the China of today is challenging the United States and destabilizing the international community in almost every dimension of power--political, diplomatic, economic, military, and even cultural. That is why Ambassador Burns' experiences and skill will be crucial as he confronts the monumental task ahead of him.

I am also pleased to be supporting Mr. Ramin Toloui's nomination to be the Assistant Secretary for Economic and Business Affairs at the State Department. His experience and skill set, including as a former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for International Finance, where he represented the United States in forums like the G7 and the G20, will be necessary in order to be an effective Assistant Secretary, especially one who will play such a critical role in our economic diplomacy vis-a-vis China and as we must reinvigorate the instruments of our economic diplomacy at home. I believe Mr. Toloui represents the importance of getting our economic statecraft right.

Lastly, I am also pleased to support Mr. Rashad Hussain to be our Ambassador at Large for International Religious Freedom. Throughout his impressive public service, Mr. Hussain has demonstrated his strong commitment to protecting the rights of religious and ethnic minorities, including as the U.S. Special Envoy for Strategic Counterterrorism Communications, where he led efforts to counter anti-Semitism and protect Christian minorities in Muslim-majority countries.

Religious freedom, like every human right, is universal, but for many people around the world, this right is out of reach, and religious persecution is on the rise. That is why it is important that we confirm Mr. Hussain.

While it is positive news that we are confirming these three nominees today and a few more, I hope, in the next day, I am deeply concerned that we have more than 50 nominees who will remain pending on the Senate floor, having passed the committee, almost all of them by strong bipartisan votes, who are subject to delays and obstacles.

We are less safe when our national security Agencies are so short- staffed. We owe it to the American people to fix this problem so that we can be represented abroad.

With that, I yield the floor.

We yield back any other time we had.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, for the Committee on Foreign Relations I report favorably the following nomination lists which were printed in the Records on the dates indicated, and ask unanimous consent, to save the expense of reprinting on the Executive Calendar that these nominations lie at the Secretary's desk for the information of Senators.

Madam President, section 36(b) of the Arms Export Control Act requires that Congress receive prior notification of certain proposed arms sales as defined by that statute. Upon such notification, the Congress has 30 calendar days during which the sale may be reviewed. The provision stipulates that, in the Senate, the notification of proposed sales shall be sent to the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

In keeping with the committee's intention to see that relevant information is available to the full Senate, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the notifications which have been received. If the cover letter references a classified annex, then such annex is available to all Senators in the office of the Foreign Relations Committee, room SD-423.

Madam President, section 36(b) of the Arms Export Control Act requires that Congress receive prior notification of certain proposed arms sales as defined by that statute. Upon such notification, the Congress has 30 calendar days during which the sale may be reviewed. The provision stipulates that, in the Senate, the notification of proposed sales shall be sent to the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

In keeping with the committee's intention to see that relevant information is available to the full Senate, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the notifications which have been received. If the cover letter references a classified annex, then such annex is available to all Senators in the office of the Foreign Relations Committee, room SD-423.

Mr. President, section 36(b) of the Arms Export Control Act requires that Congress receive prior notification of certain proposed arms sales as defined by that statute. Upon such notification, the Congress has 30 calendar days during which the sale may be reviewed. The provision stipulates that, in the Senate, the notification of proposed sales shall be sent to the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

In keeping with the committee's intention to see that relevant information is available to the full Senate, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the notifications which have been received. If the cover letter references a classified annex, then such annex is available to all Senators in the office of the Foreign Relations Committee, room SD-423.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have an NJ.com article by Roland Armando Alum, titled ``Opinion: Six Decades After Dictator's Assassination, Dominican Republic Flourishes While Cuba Is Miserable'' be printed in the Record.