Floor Statements

Madam President, tonight, on the other side of the Capitol, President Joe Biden will tell the American people what a great job he has done. He will read a speech, and seated behind him will be Nancy Pelosi and Vice President Kamala Harris.

Not even the most extreme Democratic partisan can believe that the last 14 months have been a success. Joe Biden campaigned for President as a reasonable and centrist moderate, and he abandoned every one of those promises the moment he put his hand on the Bible. Instead, he has handed the agenda over to the most radical and extreme voices on the far left, and the result for the country has been disastrous.

In 14 months, we have seen trillions of new spending and trillions of new debt, the highest debt in the history of our Nation.

We have seen a war on domestic energy production. In his first week in office, Joe Biden shut down the Keystone Pipeline, destroying 11,000 jobs, destroying 8,000 union jobs. He halted new leasing on Federal lands and offshore drilling, and the predictable result of launching an assault on domestic energy production is that energy prices skyrocketed.

But for that matter, everything has skyrocketed--food, electricity, rent, home, lumber, gasoline, heat, every basic expense. Working families are suffering and especially seniors--especially those on fixed incomes.

Then we have our southern border--the absolute chaos and crisis on our southern border--over 2 million people crossing illegally into this country, the worst rate of illegal immigration in 61 years. And it is worth noting that Biden inherited, the year before, the lowest rate of illegal immigration in 45 years. So he turned success into failure because he implemented the radical leftwing ideas of open borders from the extreme left.

The crime and chaos of disease coming from 2 million illegal immigrants is compounded domestically by the extreme left's war on the police. We have seen the far left advocating abolishing the police, advocating defunding the police. We have seen George Soros' funded district attorney releasing violent criminals. And as a result, crime is up, murders are up, carjacking is up. And the Biden administration has embraced that radical agenda, nominating not one, but two of the leading advocates of abolishing the police to senior positions in the Department of Justice. Unfortunately, every single Democrat in this Chamber voted to confirm those leading advocates for abolishing the police.

We have seen Joe Biden implementing illegal and unconstitutional vaccine mandates; standing up and firing soldiers and sailors and airmen and marines; advocating that doctors be fired, that nurses be fired, that police officers be fired, that firefighters be fired, that airline captains and flight attendants be fired--an assault on our liberties. And as disastrous as the domestic policy has been and as disastrous as the economic policy has been, the foreign policy has been even worse.

We saw in Afghanistan the catastrophic withdrawal--the surrender to the Taliban, leaving Americans behind. And unfortunately, when that happened, every enemy of America, they looked to Washington, they looked to the Oval Office, and they took the measure of the man in the Oval Office; and they all concluded that the President was weak and feckless and ineffective.

As I said at the time when we withdrew from Afghanistan, the chances of Russia invading Ukraine have increased tenfold. As I said at the time, the chances of China invading Taiwan have increased tenfold.

When the President is weak, when he is ineffective, our enemies are on advance and every region of the world you look at is worse for America.

Russia has launched the largest war in Europe since World War II. China is more aggressive--is running concentration camps with a million Uighurs, is

murdering and torturing innocent people in China.

And mind you, when I brought a vote to the Senate floor that said the U.S. Government should not purchase goods manufactured using slave labor in Chinese concentration camps, every Democrat but one voted no.

These are extreme positions. This is not the mainstream. This is not the center. This is the radical and extreme left. Nancy Pelosi will not portray it on her face, but she knows in January she will no longer be Speaker of the House. And I will say, Joe Biden's becoming President was the best thing that ever happened to Vladimir Putin.

Biden began his Presidency by surrendering to Putin, waving the sanctions on Nord Stream 2; sanctioned bipartisan sanctions that I authored that had stopped that pipeline, that had stopped an invasion of Ukraine; and Biden decided surrendering to our adversary was a better policy. As Neville Chamberlain has demonstrated, appeasement doesn't work.

The state of America is strong, but the state of the Union and the state of the Federal Government in Washington is disastrous. Yet the one bit of bright light on the horizon that I am confident President Biden will not point to is that the American people will vote in November, and I believe they will change the path we are on.

We have seen the disaster of the extreme radical left. If Biden could remember the Joe Biden who swore me into office, the Joe Biden who swore many of my colleagues into office, the Joe Biden whom we served with--if he could remember that Joe Biden--it would be a very different administration. Sadly, this White House has decided the radical, extreme, socialist left sets the agenda, and the results of that agenda are playing out for families all across the country.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 4927 and ask that it be reported by number.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak in opposition to the abuse of power we have seen with vaccine mandates.

Let me say that I emphatically support Senator Lee's amendment about which he just spoke.

President Biden's vaccine mandates are illegal. They have, in significant part, been struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court, and they are abusive.

When this pandemic began, Senators on both sides of the aisle gave passionate speeches about the heroes in our society--about the doctors and nurses risking their lives to keep us safe. Well, now, under this vaccine mandate, Democrats are firing doctors and nurses and then complaining that we have a shortage of doctors and nurses.

We have heard speeches about the heroes of our military men and women, and they undoubtedly are heroes. Yet, under President Biden's illegal vaccine mandates, this administration is preparing to fire soldiers and sailors and airmen and marines. This administration is preparing to fire Navy SEALs, who have spent decades training and fighting to defend this Nation, but because they will not submit to an arbitrary and illegal mandate, Democrats are preparing to fire them.

We have heard Members from both sides of the aisle give speeches about police officers and firefighters--the heroes of 9/11--who, on that tragic day, ran into the building while it was on fire instead out of the building while it was on fire. Yet, under these illegal vaccine mandates, Democrats are firing police officers and firefighters.

We are seeing airline flights canceled all over the country. Yet, under these illegal vaccine mandates, airline pilots and flight attendants and mechanics and ticket agents are being fired from their jobs.

Typically, when I fly back and forth to Houston, I fly either United Airlines or Southwest. United, the company, has an arbitrary policy wherein they are firing or putting on involuntary and unpaid leave any employee who refuses to get the vaccine. United is different from other airlines in that regard. They have done so because they want to curry favor with the Biden White House because United's CEO believes that making Democrats at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue happy is somehow in its best interests.

Without exaggeration, every single time I board a United plane, a pilot, a flight attendant, a ticket agent pulls me aside and says: Thank you. Thank you for standing up and fighting for my rights. Why the heck won't my CEO fight for my rights?

We are seeing blue State Governors and blue State mayors who realize that firing American heroes and forcing people to make healthcare decisions against their wishes is bad politics. We are seeing blue State Governors and blue State mayors backing down. Yet I fear we will see blue State Democrats in the Senate--many of whom are not on the ballot, two-thirds of whom are not on the ballot this November-- believing they can arbitrarily ignore the will of the people.

Just yesterday, the people of San Francisco--bright blue, leftwing San Francisco--voted out three members of the school board over their arbitrary and tyrannical COVID policies that shut down schools for a year. The vote was nearly 80 percent to throw them out. I would note, by the way, that their defense was, they said, that everybody voting against them was a White supremacist. These were closet Republicans, they said, in San Francisco. San Francisco voted 85 percent for Joe Biden, but apparently there are a bunch of closet Republicans there.

My Democratic colleagues are ignoring the will of the people and giving in to extreme partisan positions on COVID.

Any Democrat, particularly any Democrat on the ballot in November, ought to look to San Francisco, ought to look to the Virginia Governor's race, ought to look to the New Jersey Governor's race and realize the Democratic Party is out of step with the American people.

Senator Lee's amendment repeals the illegal and abusive vaccine mandates from President Biden.

My amendment is focused on an area that people, understandably, rightly, are deeply passionate about, which is stopping the vaccine mandates on children.

We have seen jurisdictions all over the country impose vaccine mandates and say to parents: If you want your child to go to school, either give the child the vaccine or you can't send your kid to school.

That is an absolute abuse of power.

The choice of the healthcare your kid gets ought to be the choice of the parents. If you want to vaccinate your children, that ought to be your choice; you ought to have the right. Yet we are seeing arrogant blue State Democrats across the country say to moms and dads: I don't care what your views are.

Indeed, the Democratic candidate for Governor of Virginia said quite brazenly: Parents should have no say in what is taught to their kids.

By the way, this is applying to children as young as 5 years old. We are, right now, in the District of Columbia. If a Member of Congress has children in the schools in DC, the District of Columbia is mandating you must vaccinate your 5-year-old whether you want to or not.

That is wrong.

My amendment is very simple. It cuts off Federal funds for any institution that forces a vaccine mandate on kids. There are nearly 81 million kids in America whose rights are in jeopardy.

The arrogance of these petty authoritarians' at-a-time-of-crisis character is revealed, and we are seeing petty authoritarians who say: Mom, you don't have the right to decide whether or not your 5-year-old, your 6-year-old, your 7-year-old will get this vaccine.

Who the heck do they think they are?

I repeat: If you want to vaccinate your kids, that is your right, and you

should do so, but these petty tyrants have no right to force parents to vaccinate children with a new and untested vaccine.

Let me be clear. I am vaccinated--I am pro-vaccine--but I believe in individual choice. If you want to be vaccinated, fantastic, but it ought to be your choice in consultation with your doctor, and if you have kids, you ought to talk to your doctor and say: Hey, Doc, what does the evidence show about the impact on kids? You ought to have a real and candid conversation with your doctor, not with some political bureaucrat in Washington, DC, or in the State capitol or at city hall.

These mandates are wrong. They are wrong in every capacity but especially as it concerns kids.

I say to the petty tyrants--the same people, by the way, who shut down schools for a year. I mentioned a second ago the San Francisco school board. One of the school board members voted out by nearly 80 percent of the voters in San Francisco said--and I mentioned this--the people who voted against me and the people who want to open schools are White supremacists.

The millions of kids who have been hurt by school closures will be academically behind for the rest of their lives, and that harm has fallen disproportionately on low-income kids. It has fallen disproportionately on African-American kids. It has fallen disproportionately on Hispanic kids, and we have got a bunch of rich, White liberals saying to low-income minority kids: Well, tough luck. You don't get to go to school.

Mind you, many of those rich, White liberals can afford to send their kids to private schools so their kids keep getting educated, but the low-income kids are out of luck.

Then, in this ``Alice in Wonderland'' world we live in, arrogant leftists say: If you want schools open--if you want African-American kids and Hispanic kids to be able to go to school and learn to read and learn to write and learn math and history and science and art and climb the economic ladder and have a chance at the American dream--and if you want minority kids to have a chance to succeed, you are a White supremacist.

Anyone listening to those words understands why the American people are angry.

I pray that, in just a few minutes, the Senate does the right thing and rational thing. These votes, in any sane world, should be 100 to nothing. We should stand for people's individual rights, individual liberties. We should stand against petty tyrants trampling on our rights. In just a few minutes, we will see where every Senator in this body stands. I pray that we stand with the people.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, there is a gathering storm in Europe. I rise today to discuss the brewing crisis posed by Russia's aggression and, tragically, how the reckless actions of President Biden have enabled it.

This morning, all 100 Senators participated in a classified briefing, where we heard from the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of State and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. We heard about the magnitude of the threat from Russia.

We stand here today with Europe facing the greatest peril it has faced since 1945. These are ominous and chilling times, and we did not arrive here by accident. Right now, 150,000 Russian troops are directly on the border of Ukraine, poised to invade, with more troops and more tanks arriving each and every day. It was also reported this week that Russia has sent additional blood supplies to its military equipment on the Ukraine border, another ominous signal that Russia plans to invade.

Ukraine, and indeed the region and the world, find ourselves in this crisis because of President Biden's weakness, because of his appeasement, because of his surrender to Putin over the last year. And now, instead of rising to meet this moment with strength and resolve, President Biden continues to shrink from it with more weakness than appeasement.

One question that was raised in the briefing this morning is, Why didn't this happen in 2017? Why didn't it happen in 2018? Why didn't it happen in 2019? Why didn't it happen in 2020? What changed?

I will suggest what changed. What changed is the occupant of the Oval Office, who has demonstrated weakness and appeasement virtually from the moment he rested his hand upon the Bible. It is a pattern.

As a result of President Biden's weakness and appeasement, this administration gave Afghanistan to the Taliban and 13 American servicemembers were tragically murdered.

As a result of President Biden's weakness and appeasement, this administration is ramping up to give a nuclear arsenal to the Ayatollah in Iran. The very same Ayatollah who chants ``Death to Israel'' and ``Death to America,'' the Biden administration is preparing to facilitate that Ayatollah having the weapons of mass murder to carry out those pledges.

As a result of President Biden's weakness and appeasement, the Biden administration is in the process of ceding Taiwan to Xi. President Biden has even banned any Taiwanese official from displaying a Taiwanese military uniform or displaying a Taiwanese flag on U.S. Government property. Why? Because it offends the communist Government in China.

And, again, right now, today, as a result of President Biden's weakness and appeasement, the Biden administration is in the process of abandoning Ukraine to Vladimir Putin.

Putin didn't just wake up one day and decide to invade Ukraine. He has wanted to invade Ukraine for years. And he did so in 2014, but he stopped short of a full invasion then because he couldn't endanger Ukraine's energy infrastructure, which Putin needs to get Russian natural gas to Europe. So Russia formed a consortium to build Nord Stream 2, a pipeline stretching directly from Russia to Germany under the sea so that Russian gas could circumvent Ukraine altogether.

We have long known about the dangers Nord Stream 2 poses. That is why, in the last few years, Democrats and Republicans here in the Senate have come together repeatedly and taken bipartisan actions, passing sanctions on Nord Stream 2 with overwhelming majorities.

I led that effort, drafting the Cruz-Shaheen sanctions. They were supported by every Democrat in this Chamber. They passed overwhelmingly, and they worked. They succeeded. They stopped the pipeline literally the day they were signed into law.

The story of how that happened is well known to every Senator in this Chamber, as is the story of how the new President--President Biden-- inexplicably and catastrophically decided to squander that hard-fought geopolitical victory and turn a victory for America into a loss for America and our allies.

Many a Democratic Senator standing on this Senate floor has quietly expressed frustration, confusion, anger why the Biden administration would surrender to Russia and give away the victory we had won.

It is not only the decision to surrender on Nord Stream 2 and give

Putin the pipeline that enables him to invade Ukraine that led to this day. Also, for the past year, President Biden has repeatedly systematically undermined our Ukrainian allies in the face of Russian aggression to placate Putin.

And it is worth noting, Biden does this for the same reason he undermines Taiwan. He undermines Taiwan to placate the Chinese communists. He undermines Ukraine to placate Putin. To placate Putin, the Biden administration has repeatedly withheld military aid packages to Ukraine. Other times, he has withheld diplomatic support to pressure our Ukrainian allies into supporting his misguided Nord Stream 2 surrender to Putin. Biden's actions for the past year have emboldened Putin, who acted on that weakness and has put Europe on the brink of war.

So what can we do right now today to promote peace and stop an invasion?

Well, our Ukrainian allies have told us again and again what we can do and what we should do. All we have to do in the Senate is listen to our friends in Ukraine who are on the frontline: No. 1, sanction Nord Stream 2 immediately, right now, today; No. 2, give the Ukrainians weapons so that they can defend themselves.

Just last week, the chairman of Ukraine's Parliament wrote a letter to the Senate about exactly this. If you have not read the letter from the Ukrainian Parliament, I commend it to you. It is an extraordinary letter from a nation on the brink of annihilation at the hands of Russian aggression. I am going to read parts of that letter right now because it is worth quoting extensively.

The chairman of Ukraine's Parliament writes:

Nord Stream 2 is a source of multidimensional security,

political and economic threats to Ukraine and Europe as a

whole. It is not an exaggeration that Nord Stream 2 is no

less an existential threat to Ukraine's security and

democracy than the Russian troops on our border. This

pipeline must be stopped and the only way to prevent the

completion is to use all the tools available to do that.

The letter continues:

So far, the decision to waive sanctions against Nord Stream

2 in May 2021--

That was a decision by President Biden--

has emboldened Russia and caused Moscow to conclude that the

United States may accommodate its hostile intentions.

The letter continues:

After a clear majority of the U.S. Senate voted 55-44 in

favor of imposing immediate sanctions on Nord Stream 2 AG, on

January 13, 2022, it is essential that Congress include

immediate sanctions against Nord Stream 2 AG in any new

legislation to undercut options for Russia's aggressive

actions on Ukraine.

The letter goes on, asking for a ``clear trigger for the instant and unqualified imposition of any sanctions that are not imposed immediately upon enactment of the legislation,'' arguing that ``while some sanctions--like sanctions against Nord Stream 2--should be imposed immediately to demonstrate to Moscow that the United States is, indeed, serious about serious measures, including removing Russia from SWIFT, the trigger of these future sanctions must be clear in order to be effective.''

The letter continues:

A ``significant escalation in hostilities,'' whose ``aim or

effect of undermining, overthrowing, or dismantling the

Government of Ukraine, occupying the territory of Ukraine, or

interfering with the sovereignty or territorial integrity of

Ukraine'' is too high of a threshold to deter Russian

aggression or affect the Kremlin's cost-benefit calculus.

The Ukrainians are crystal clear in this letter. The sanctions on Nord Stream 2 that Biden waived last year, in the words of the Ukrainians, ``emboldened Russia'' and allowed Putin to think ``the United States may accommodate its hostile intentions.'' In other words, because of Biden's weakness and appeasement on Nord Stream 2, Putin thinks there are no serious consequences to invading Ukraine.

So the Ukrainians are asking--they are begging of the U.S. Senate-- for immediate sanctions on Nord Stream 2. Do not abandon them. They cry at their hour of need.

And they also state in the letter that ``expedited and higher-impact security assistance, including air defense, anti-ship, and anti-armor capabilities'' is what they need.

That is what the Ukrainians have asked for, but President Biden and most of the Senate Democrats aren't doing what our Ukrainian allies have called for. Instead, they are looking to pile appeasement on top of appeasement, and they are doing it in secret. The Biden administration has offered Putin sweeping concessions on NATO when it comes to troops, when it comes to missiles, when it comes to military exercises. They transmitted this appeasement to Putin in secret and refused to let Americans see the details.

I have seen the details, and I can tell you, they are deeply worrying. The reason the public hasn't seen them is the administration has placed them in a secure SCIF. They are not classified, mind you. They are merely ``confidential,'' which is Washington speak for politically embarrassing, and the administration doesn't want to defend the substance of it.

That is why I am introducing legislation called the PARTNER Act, which would prevent President Biden from endangering our longtime allies and frontline countries in NATO by prohibiting him from removing American troops from the countries that border Russia--meaning Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Bulgaria, Romania, and Poland--longtime allies. My legislation will prevent President Biden from offering yet more appeasement to Russia, from offering for America to abandon Eastern Europe to Russia, and from allowing President Biden to fatally undermine NATO.

I also want to address the fact that some think we should stand down and not resist Russian aggression because they say Biden will send American troops into Ukraine and start a shooting war with Russia if Putin invades. I want to be clear and unequivocal: We should not have American soldiers in Ukraine. Under no circumstances should we send our sons and daughters to die to defend Ukraine from Russia. If the Biden administration proposes that because their foreign policy is collapsing around that, I will vigorously oppose such a move and the vast majority of Americans do, as well.

But, critically, the Ukrainians aren't asking for that. Ukraine is not asking for a single American soldier. Ukraine is saying, Do two things: Sanction Nord Stream 2, the pipeline that enables the Russian aggression; and provide them with the military weapons so that they, the Ukrainians, can fight to defend their own Nation from the invading Russian Army.

So Americans are asking: Why should we care what happens to Ukraine or what happens to NATO countries that border Russia?

Let me be clear. There are some who justify American foreign policy and say we have an amorphous obligation to protect democracies; we have an obligation to protect international norms.

I think all of that is bunk. We have an obligation to protect the national security of the United States of America. The Commander in Chief's obligation is to keep Americans safe.

What does that mean in this context?

Well, I want to make four points. No. 1, what Putin is trying to do is reassemble the USSR. If he succeeds in doing so, it would be catastrophic for global stability and American security. Putin and Russia are an enemy of America. When the Soviet Union was bigger, stronger, mightier, and with a bigger military, the lives of Americans and the lives of our allies were in far greater jeopardy. It is overwhelmingly in America's interest to prevent Putin from reassembling the Soviet Union because we do not wish for our enemies to become stronger and use that strength against us.

No. 2, Putin is trying to seize control of energy. If he is successful, it will be felt by Americans filling up their cars with gas or trying to heat their homes in the winter. We have already seen what Putin has done with Nord Stream 2, and he is not going to stop there.

No. 3, we have a formal obligation--a commitment the United States made--to help the Ukrainians defend themselves. Why is that? Well, after Ukraine successfully declared independence from the USSR in 1991, the United States signed an agreement, an agreement called the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances. With the Budapest Memorandum, under the terms of it, Ukraine agreed to give up its nuclear weapons. Ukraine had the third largest stockpile of nuclear weapons on the face of the planet. America

agreed, quite reasonably, that the world would be safer if Ukraine did not have nukes, and the brandnew Ukrainian Government agreed and gave up their nuclear weapons, making America safer and the world safer.

But the Ukrainian Government did not do so for nothing. It did so in exchange for explicit assurances that the United States would protect Ukraine's territorial integrity. Let me reiterate that. The United States made a formal commitment to the Ukrainians that if they gave up their nuclear weapons, we would help them protect themselves. The Ukrainians are asking us to honor our commitment in the form--and they are very specific about what they are asking--in the form of immediate sanctions on Nord Stream 2 and weapons so they can defend themselves.

We need to send them that lethal aid, the kind of firepower the Ukrainians need to defend themselves, not the blankets and teddy bears and meals that the Obama administration sent the last time Russia invaded Ukraine.

No. 4, we have treaty obligations to NATO countries on the frontlines of Putin's aggression. Putin wants NATO to withdraw foreign forces, including American forces from the countries that border Russia--from Bulgaria, from Poland, from Romania, from Estonia, from Latvia, from Lithuania. But to withdraw American forces from NATO would be seen as-- in fact, it would be--an abdication of our commitment to NATO. It would either shatter the NATO alliance, the most successful alliance in modern history, or it would put into motion dynamics that would ultimately shatter NATO, which is why, as I mentioned, I am introducing the PARTNER Act, to prevent the Biden administration--their weakness and appeasement--from destroying NATO and undermining American security.

On every one of these four points, Biden has demonstrated weakness and appeasement to Putin. And I would note that you might ask: Why should America honor our commitments? Why should we honor our commitment in the Budapest Memorandum, honor our treaty commitments to the NATO countries? Because one of the ways we protect American national security is when we make an agreement with a country--when we make a formal, legal agreement--we honor our commitments. And we want countries to know that we stand by our friends, that we stand by our word, that our treaties mean something, because if countries learn that under weak and feckless Presidents, our treaties--our formal, binding, legal documents--aren't worth the paper they are written on, it undermines the ability of any President of the United States to negotiate agreements with our friends and allies that keep Americans safe.

When Ronald Reagan was standing up and confronting the ``Evil Empire,'' we saw the virtues of peace through strength.

Biden's foreign policy seems to invite war through weakness. There are actions we can take today, like sanctioning Nord Stream 2, like sending lethal aid to Ukraine, like committing to keep our NATO forces in countries that border Russia.

All of these actions would show Putin that the United States will stand up to aggression and defend our national interests. We should take these actions without delay. We should stand in bipartisan unity in support of American national security, in opposition to Russian aggression. If we do not, if the Senate acquiesces to Biden's weakness and appeasement and Russia invades Ukraine and, weeks from now, there are Russian tanks in the streets of Kyiv, Ukraine and Europe and America and the world will reap the whirlwind.

This is our opportunity to act. I pray that we take it.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, the eyes of history are upon us today. Each of us will be faced with a momentous question: Can we put petty differences aside, and can we come together to defend our friend and our ally Ukraine against imminent Russian aggression?

This isn't theoretical. Russian tanks and troops are, right now, massed on the Ukrainian border, and they are preparing for invasion. The Senate, in just a few hours, will vote on a bill that represents the best way to deter Putin from invading Ukraine by sanctioning the company that is racing to finish and make operational the Nord Stream 2 Pipeline, which Putin desperately wants completed so that he can use it as a cudgel against our European allies. If we don't come together today, Ukraine risks getting wiped off the map altogether.

Putin didn't just wake up one day and decide he wanted to invade Ukraine. He has wanted to invade Ukraine for years. He did so already in 2014, but he stopped short of a full invasion because he couldn't endanger Ukraine's energy infrastructure, which he needs to get Russia's natural gas to Europe. That stopped Putin from marching all the way to Kiev. The next year, in 2015, Putin began the Nord Stream 2 project--to build a pipeline to go around Ukraine so that he could get his gas to Europe and invade Ukraine with no risk to the billions he relies on every year.

Nord Stream 2, as we know and as we have heard from Republicans and from Democrats--literally hundreds of times over the past years on this floor, in committees, in briefings--Nord Stream 2 was designed to circumvent Ukraine. It is why the Senate has worked together for years, in a bipartisan manner, to stop Nord Stream 2 from coming online.

In 2017, Congress came together and passed the Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act, or CAATSA, which sanctioned investments in Russian energy export pipelines.

In 2019, Congress passed Protecting Europe's Energy Security Act, or PEESA, which sanctions Nord Stream 2 directly. I authored that bill, along with Democratic Senator Jeanne Shaheen.

And, in 2021, Congress expanded those sanctions in the Protecting Europe's Energy Security Clarification Act. Again, I authored that bill, along with Democratic Senator Jeanne Shaheen.

For the next several hours, this body will revisit and debate this issue once again. We will revisit our successes from 2019 to 2021 in using targeted sanctions to end construction of the pipeline.

When President Trump signed our bipartisan sanctions into law, Putin stopped construction of the pipeline literally 15 minutes before the law became effective. Sanctions worked. They succeeded. Together, we won a bipartisan foreign policy and national security victory.

But we will also revisit in this debate the catastrophic decision President Biden made in May of this year to waive those sanctions. The sanctions that had worked, the sanctions that were successful, President Biden waived them nonetheless.

When this debate is over, each of us will have to decide whether he or she will vote to finally and definitively put an end to this pipeline through mandatory sanctions.

Our Ukrainian allies are crying out for us to do so. Ukraine's President and Prime Minister and Speaker of the Parliament have all explicitly and passionately done so in recent days. Ukraine's Prime Minister said last week that Nord Stream 2 is ``no less an existential threat to [Ukraine's] security & democracy than Russian troops on our border.'' That is the Prime Minister of Ukraine begging this body, the U.S. Senate, to help him.

Just this week, a public letter from leaders in Ukrainian civil society said--and I want to quote this at length. They said:

Since late October 2021, Russia has amassed more than

120,000 troops close to the Ukrainian border along with the

logistical support for a major new offensive. This menacing

build-up had been accompanied by increasing belligerent

rhetoric from senior Russian officials. We believe the green

light given to the Nord Stream 2 pipeline in May 2021 served

as one of the key triggers for the current crisis and must be

urgently revised.

In ordinary times, that open letter from Ukrainian civil society would resonate with both Democrats and Republicans. This is a plea for help.

Opponents of our legislation are clutching at pretexts to avoid doing what we have done many times before, and I want to address those pretexts one at a time.

One argument we have heard again and again is that imposing sanctions on Nord Stream 2 AG, the Gazprom-owned cutout that runs Nord Stream 2, would shatter European unity. That is an argument that is being repeated by the White House repeatedly--that this is all about transatlantic unity; we should give Putin its pipeline because of transatlantic unity.

I urge every Senator to ask a simple question: What unity and with whom?

In January, the European Parliament voted to condemn and stop the Nord Stream 2 Pipeline. The vote was 581 to 50--581 to 50. If you care about transatlantic unity, let me suggest that we side with the 581 and not the 50. The Biden White House's argument is literally: Go with the 50 in the name of transatlantic unity.

I don't know how you stand up and make that argument with a straight face--581 to 50.

In August of 2021, the chairs of the Foreign Affairs Committees in nine countries opposed explicitly the Nord Stream 2 U.S.-German agreement--the Biden agreement--to allow the completion of Nord Stream 2. Among those countries that explicitly opposed that agreement: Estonia, the Czech Republic, Ireland, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Ukraine, and the United Kingdom. Are those countries Europe? Do we care about transatlantic unity with those countries that are begging us to find the courage to stand up to Vladimir Putin?

When President Biden made his deal to allow the pipeline to go through anyway, the Foreign Ministers of Ukraine and Poland issued a remarkable joint statement declaring that the decision President Biden made to surrender to Putin, that it created an immediate ``security crisis'' for Europe. They told us then--Ukraine and Poland both told us then--that, as a result of waiving sanctions, we are going to see Russian troops. They were right. It is almost as if they understand their neighbor. It is almost as if they understand Putin's desire to reassemble the Soviet Union. It is almost as if they believe Vladimir Putin when he said that he believed the greatest geopolitical disaster of the 20th century was the dissolution of the Soviet Union, and he wants to bring it back together by force, which I would note would be a grave national security threat to the United States.

Now, some will say, when they say European unity, they really mean unity with Germany. Indeed, I have heard Members on this floor say: Listen, I am just not prepared to sanction Germany.

This bill doesn't sanction Germany. It doesn't sanction the German Government. It doesn't sanction the German company. It sanctions Nord Stream 2 AG, which is wholly owned and controlled by Gazprom. This is sanctioning a Russian cutout because this pipeline is a tool for Putin's aggression in Europe.

And even when it comes to unity in Germany, what they really mean is unity with Angela Merkel, and I will concede that. Angela Merkel wants this pipeline. I don't fully understand why, but she does. But Angela Merkel is no longer the Chancellor of Germany. Indeed, the German people went

to the polls, and they voted her party out of office. So one would think from the United States, to the extent we are concerned about standing with an ally, we should be concerned about the current Government of Germany, not the former government, and we should respect the views of the German people.

Now, the current Government of Germany is hopelessly fractured on Nord Stream 2. The Greens, who are part of this coalition government, passionately oppose Nord Stream 2. Vocally, repeatedly they have condemned Nord Stream 2, and they are an integral part of this German Government. But just a few hours ago, the German Defense Minister, on the other side, said Nord Stream 2 is off the table. They are not willing to do anything to stop Nord Stream 2. And the German Chancellor has said the same, declaring that he seeks a positive reset with Putin. This is the same Putin who has tanks on the border of Ukraine, and he is preparing to invade.

Another argument that we will hear is that sanctions should be kept in our pockets. We should reserve them for use later in the case of a Russian invasion. I would note, this is not what our Ukrainian allies advocate, and I have trouble believing anyone in this Chamber actually takes this argument seriously, nor should they. Putin doesn't.

Putin believes that once he brings Nord Stream 2 online, and once he has changed the region through invasion, that no one will have the will to impose sanctions. And I would note, he is not crazy to believe that.

When the Biden administration first capitulated to Russia on Nord Stream 2, the Biden administration and the German Government made a promise. They said if--if, if--Russia uses energy for energy blackmail, then we will stop the pipeline. They beat their chest with that promise. They were quite bold about it. I have had some Members of the Senate say: Well, we have got really strong promises from Germany now.

Well, what has happened since then? Russia has nakedly and unequivocally used energy for energy blackmail. Energy prices have skyrocketed in Europe, and Putin is openly boasting, he is laughing and saying: Well, turn Nord Stream 2 on and your energy prices will go down.

He is not hiding it. He is not pretending. He did exactly what the Biden White House and the German Government said: If you do x, we will stop it.

He did it openly, brazenly, laughingly, and absolutely nothing happened--zero, crickets.

Mr. President, I ask you, as a reasonable man, if the German Government and the Biden White House were unwilling to impose sanctions when Putin immediately triggered what they said was their redline, in what universe would the Biden White House or the German Government have greater resolve once millions of Germans are dependent on Russian natural gas from Nord Stream 2 to heat their homes when it is literally stopping the Germans from freezing to death? Because that, if the Ukrainian pipeline is shut down, becomes the only viable source of heat. Do we really think they are going to have greater courage then than they have had so far? Nobody does. Putin doesn't.

It is important to understand that the debate before this Chamber is, Do we impose sanctions before an invasion in order to stop the invasion or do we threaten sanctions after an invasion is done?

The bill that my colleague Senator Menendez is pushing would do the latter. It would impose sanctions after an invasion is completed. I don't think Putin believes those sanctions would ever be imposed. But I can tell you, Ukrainian President Zelensky has very expressly addressed this issue. Here is what he said: ``Only if the sanctions are applied prior to the armed conflict would they become a prevention mechanism for any possible escalation.'' That is the President of Ukraine begging the Members of this Senate to vote in favor of the bill on the floor today.

Today will be one of our very last chances to stop Nord Stream 2 and to stop an imminent Russian invasion of Ukraine.

Just a few minutes ago, two of my colleagues, Senator Murphy and Senator Shaheen, had a colloquy in which they explained why they have flipped their positions. They and every other Democrat in this Chamber have voted for sanctions on Nord Stream 2 not once but twice. Every Democrat voted in support of my bipartisan sanctions on Nord Stream 2. Only two things have changed since all of the Democrats voted in favor of these sanctions: No. 1, the occupant of the White House, who now has a ``D'' behind his name instead of an ``R.''

The White House is furiously lobbying Democrats, asking Democrats to stand with their party--sadly, at the expense of our allies, at the expense of Europe, and at the expense of U.S. national security.

On the merits, this should be a very easy vote. And I would suggest, if Joe Biden were not President, if Donald Trump were sitting in the Oval Office today, every single Democrat in this Chamber would vote for these sanctions--all of them--as they did twice when Donald Trump was sitting in the Oval Office.

The other thing that has changed, by the way, is the Russian troops on the border of Ukraine, which is exactly what the Ukrainians and the Poles told us would happen when Biden waived these sanctions.

Those are the two things that have changed.

I have to say, my colleagues Senators Murphy and Shaheen had a very odd colloquy because they decided to go after me personally instead of focusing on the merits of the issue. In particular, they said: You know, when Trump was President, Senator Cruz didn't hold his State Department nominees over Nord Stream 2, and Trump didn't impose sanctions over Nord Stream 2.

Now, I recognize in politics sometimes, in the heat of the moment, you say things; you don't entirely think through them. But even in the annals of bad arguments, that is a singularly absurd argument. It is true I didn't hold the State Department nominees over Nord Stream 2. It is true Trump didn't impose sanctions. Why? Because we stopped Nord Stream 2, because we were successful.

When I authored the bipartisan sanctions, there were significant elements of the Trump administration that resisted it. The Department of the Treasury fought mightily against it. And I was more than happy to battle my own party on this because this was the right thing to do for U.S. national security. Is there even one Democrat with the courage to do that against his own party now that it is the other side?

The argument I didn't hold any nominees--why would I hold nominees? President Trump signed the bill. I have said from the beginning: If Biden imposes the sanctions, I will lift all the holds. I lifted 32 holds in December to get this vote.

My focus is on stopping this pipeline and stopping Putin and Russia. And their argument that, well, Trump didn't impose sanctions--that is correct, because Putin stopped building the pipeline.

I remind you of the timing. President Trump signed the bill, if my memory serves correctly, at 7 p.m. on a Thursday night. Putin stopped building the pipeline at 6:45 p.m., 15 minutes beforehand. There was nothing to sanction because they didn't commit the sanctionable conduct; they stopped. They only returned to building the pipeline-- does the Presiding Officer know what date Putin began building the deep-sea pipeline once again? January 24, 2021, 4 days after Joe Biden was sworn into office. Putin knew that Biden was going to do what he did: waive the sanctions and surrender. The sanctions worked. We had a bipartisan victory that, inexplicably, this White House gave away.

I want to take a minute to speak to my Democratic colleagues.

Listen, there are lots of issues we are going to disagree with one another on a partisan matter. That is fine. We will talk about tax rates, whether they should be high or low. We can have good, vigorous arguments about that. That is a part of our democracy. But in this instance, the Biden White House is carrying out a policy that makes no sense, that abandons our allies, that is harmful to American national security, that strengthens and encourages the aggression of Vladimir Putin, a bully and a tyrant, and that makes war much more likely.

Most, if not all, of my Democratic colleagues know all of this. I am going

to ask my Democratic colleagues to do something hard, which is to have the courage to stand up and take some partisan grief for voting against the White House on this one. Save the White House from the mistake they are making. That is one of the roles of the Senate. We keep hearing the analogy the Framers used of a saucer to cool the tempers of the moment. The Senate did that with President Trump. The Senate should do so with President Biden as well.

In my 10 years in the U.S. Senate, I have taken a lot of votes. The Presiding Officer has taken a lot of votes. There are very few votes that I think are as consequential as the vote we are getting ready to take.

If Senate Democrats put partisan loyalty above national security, if they vote simply by party line, it will dramatically increase the chances of a violent Russian invasion of Ukraine. Days or weeks or months from now, if we turn on the television set and see Russian tanks in the streets of Kiev, the reason will be that the U.S. Senate heard the pleas of our Ukrainian allies and we turned a deaf ear to them. I pray that we don't do so. The eyes of history are upon us, and this body, Republicans and Democrats, should rise to the occasion.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, in a few minutes, the Senate is going to take a vote of incalculable importance to our national security, to the future of our allies in Europe, and to the very existence of the nation of Ukraine.

Right now, Vladimir Putin has assembled over 100,000 troops on the border of Ukraine. More troops and more

weapons are arriving every day. Putin yearns to reassemble the old Soviet Union. Putin would see Ukraine wiped off the face of the map.

This is not the first time that the people of Ukraine have had to face down Russian aggression and authoritarianism. Throughout the Cold War and through their independence in 1991, millions of Ukrainians died as they struggled for independence from the Soviet Union and from Soviet Russia.

In 1994, the United States signed the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances. We committed--the United States of America committed--to ensuring Ukraine's territorial integrity in exchange for Ukraine voluntarily giving up the world's third largest nuclear arsenal, which it had inherited following the collapse of the Soviet Union. That was our commitment, and it is now our national obligation.

Russia, of course, also signed the Budapest Memorandum. Nevertheless, in 2014, thousands of Ukrainians died when Putin invaded Ukraine.

Putin only stopped short of a full invasion because he couldn't endanger the Ukrainian energy infrastructure, which he needs to get Russian gas to Europe. He now believes that Nord Stream 2 is a done deal, thanks to President Biden's catastrophic surrender and waiving of the mandatory sanctions passed by Congress.

Putin sees Nord Stream 2 as an alternate route to get his gas to Europe that Ukraine cannot touch, and so he has moved to complete what he couldn't do in 2014. When President Biden waived the sanctions on this Russian pipeline, the governments of Ukraine and Poland warned then that the result would be Russian troops on the border of Ukraine and an imminent invasion. They were right.

In recent weeks, the people of Ukraine and their government--the President, the Prime Minister, the Speaker of the Parliament--they have all called on this body to fulfill the commitment that we made to their nation. They have explicitly and repeatedly called upon the U.S. Senate to pass this bill before us, imposing immediate sanctions on Nord Stream 2.

None of us can know if that will change Putin's calculation, but we must acknowledge, as the people of Ukraine have pleaded with us to understand, that it is the only thing that can do so.

That is why today, in just a few minutes, we will have one last chance to stop the pipeline that Putin built so he can invade Ukraine. For 2 years, this body has had bipartisan consensus and unanimity on standing up to Russia on stopping Nord Stream 2. It is only with a Democrat in the White House that suddenly scores of Democrats have decided partisan loyalty is more important than standing up to Russia; partisan loyalty is more important than stopping Putin; partisan loyalty is more important than standing with our European people allies. And, I would note, ironically, the White House's lead talking point is ``transatlantic unity.'' When the Parliament voted on Nord Stream 2, it voted to condemn and shut down Nord Stream 2 by a vote of 581 to 50--581 to 50. The White House is saying: Stand with the 50. Stand with 9 percent of the European Parliament against 91 percent of the European Parliament.

That makes no sense, and no Democrat uttering those talking points believes it. But there are too many Democrats who are deciding partisan loyalty matters more than standing with our allies. Partisan loyalty means more than standing with our European friends. Partisan loyalty means more than honoring our treaty commitments. Partisan loyalty matters more than protecting the national security of the United States.

For 5 years, Democrats have uttered the words: Russia, Russia, Russia. We will now learn whether they meant those words when they said them, or was that simply animus for President Trump?

We should stand together. If a Republican were in the White House, every Democrat in this Chamber would vote to sanction Nord Stream 2. The only reason not to do so is because, for some Democrats, partisan loyalty matters more than standing up to Russia or defending our national security.

Let me, finally, say: If the Senate votes down these sanctions in just a few minutes, it will effectively give a green light to Putin. That is what the leaders of civil society in Ukraine have told us. And if, as a result of the Senate's vote, the Democrats vote with Russia, with Putin, we may well see in the days or weeks or few months ahead Russian tanks in the streets of Kiev. And every Senator--Democrat or Republican--will remember this moment, this moment we had to stop the Russian invasion of Ukraine. And those Senators who put our obligations to our friends, our obligations to our Nation, our obligations to security above partisan loyalty, they will remember that. And those Senators that didn't, they will remember that.

The eyes of history are on the Senate. There are moments, particularly dealing with war and peace, when the consequences of our actions echo throughout the days. This moment is one of them.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, just this week, we saw the College Football National Championship game. A lot of tremendous athletes engaged in tremendous feats of skill and strength, but I have to say, there wasn't an athlete on the field who demonstrated the flexibility that we are seeing in the U.S. Senate right now. We are today seeing Democrats in the Senate, with the active encouragement of President Joe Biden, engaging in not one but two partisan power grabs and doing them both with a twist. Let me explain.

Democrats are desperate to hold on to power. It is their No. 1 priority. It is more important than anything else. It is more important than jobs and our economy to Democrats. It is more important than getting kids back to school. It is more important than defeating COVID. Nothing matters more to today's Democrats than staying in power no matter what.

How do we know that? Well, the very first bill introduced in the House of

Representatives, H.R. 1, is a bill many of us call the ``Corrupt Politicians Act.'' It is a bill designed to keep Democrats in power forever. That was Nancy Pelosi's No. 1 priority.

The very first bill introduced in this Chamber, S. 1, is likewise the ``Corrupt Politicians Act,'' a bill designed to keep Democrats in power forever. It is the No. 1 priority of elected Democrats.

When that failed to get sufficient votes to pass, Democrats shifted to option 1B. Option 1B has the same objective--keep Democrats in power forever--but it is through a little twist, a sleight of hand. Now, Democrats want to subject every significant decision concerning voting to the unreviewable--in most instances--arbitrary power of an unelected bureaucrat in the Federal Department of Justice.

My State of Texas has 29 million people. Those 29 million people have democratic rights. They have rights to elect legislatures that reflect their views, their policies, their values. Do you know what Senate Democrats say? We don't care. We don't care what those 29 million people want; we, the Democrats, want to stay in power.

So let's take, for example, photo ID. I have in my wallet my driver's license. Most people do. Voter ID is a policy that is supported by the overwhelming majority of Americans. Roughly 80 percent of Americans support voter ID, requiring a driver's license to vote. Two-thirds of African-American voters support voter ID. It is overwhelmingly supported across the country.

Do you know who doesn't support it? Elected Democrats. Sadly, every single Democrat in this Chamber has been willing to go on board with proposals to strike down voter ID laws. Here is what the Democrats want to do: They want to say that even though the voters of Texas want voter ID because we want elections with integrity--we want to know that if you come in and vote and say your name is John Doe, that you are not somebody else pretending to be that person--congressional Democrats don't care. They want to have an unelected bureaucrat with the ability to strike that down--and likewise with ballot harvesting.

Ballot harvesting is one of the most corrupt practices in this country. It is the practice whereby paid political operatives go and collect the ballots of other people. So, for example, you have a young operative from the DNC come into a nursing home and go room to room. Now, some of those residents may no longer be competent to make a choice. They may not be aware of their surroundings. But for an unscrupulous operative, that doesn't stop them. That operative can sit there and say: Sir or ma'am, you want to vote for so-and-so, don't you? They can fill out the ballot for them.

Do you know what? If there is some obstreperous senior in a nursing home who says, ``Gosh, I really want to vote for the other guy,'' well, it is very simple for the unscrupulous operative to take that ballot-- ah, this ballot is for the other guy--and magically it ends up in the trash, never gets mailed in. They can just mail in the ballots they agree with and throw away the ballots they disagree with.

There is a reason the majority of States have made ballot harvesting illegal: It invites voter fraud. By the way, it wasn't long ago when people on both sides of the aisle recognized this.

The most significant bipartisan effort examining voter fraud: the study of a bipartisan Commission called the Carter-Baker Commission. Baker is former Republican Secretary of State James Baker. Carter is former Democratic President Jimmy Carter. The Carter-Baker Commission concluded that voter ID was an important step to stopping voter fraud. The Carter-Baker Commission concluded that voter fraud was a real and significant problem undermining the integrity of elections. The Carter- Baker Commission identified ballot harvesting as one of the most dangerous practices encouraging voter fraud.

As I said, the Carter in Carter-Baker Commission was former Democratic President Jimmy Carter--hardly a rightwing Republican operative by any stretch of the imagination.

It used to be, when sanity was permissible in the Democratic Party, that people would acknowledge the obvious. Unfortunately, we are in hyperpartisan times. So, today, Senate Democrats want to be able to have laws on voter ID, want to have laws prohibiting ballot harvesting struck down by one unelected bureaucrat.

By the way, who is that bureaucrat? Currently, it is a woman named Kristen Clarke, head of the Civil Rights Division at the Department of Justice. Ms. Clarke is one of the most radical, partisan nominees ever to serve in the U.S. Department of Justice. She is one of the leading advocates in the country for abolishing the police.

By the way, every single Democrat in this Chamber voted to confirm her despite the fact that she is one of the leading advocates in the country for abolishing the police. She has been a hardcore, leftwing, partisan advocate her entire life.

Now, she is entitled to have her views. She is entitled to believe those views passionately. But here is what Senate Democrats want to do: They want to take this one person and say she can strike down the laws adopted by legislatures elected by 29 million Texans. That is extraordinary.

Now, what could justify such a thing? Well, we saw Joe Biden give an incredibly demagogic, racist speech accusing half the country of being racist, of being Bull Connor.

The Democrats say this is Jim Crow 2.0. You know, Madam President, ironically and I think inadvertently, the Democrats are telling the truth. They don't mean to be, but they are. What was Jim Crow 1.0? Jim Crow 1.0 was laws that were written almost exclusively by elected Democrats. If you look at the authors of Jim Crow, they were Democrats, as were the founders of the Ku Klux Klan. The purpose of Jim Crow laws was to do one thing: stop the voters from voting Democrats out of office because, if you look at the African Americans who were freed from slavery, they were electing Republicans. In many instances, they were electing Black Republicans. And the Democrats didn't want that. How dare the voters select someone not from their party. So Jim Crow was written to strip the right to vote from the voters who dared to vote against Democrats.

Well, fast-forward to today. The ``Corrupt Politicians Act'' is Jim Crow 2.0. It is once again written by Democrats to strip the right to vote from the American people to prevent them from voting Democrats out of office.

Listen, a lot of Democrats are really nervous right now. Pretty much everyone in Washington recognizes that in November, we are going to see a wave election. Pretty much everyone in Washington understands that in November, Republicans are going to retake the House of Representatives, probably by a big margin, and there is a very good possibility we will retake the Senate as well.

Democrats can't defend their policies. They can't defend the rampant inflation that is hammering seniors and working-class people across the country. They can't defend the chaos at the open borders. They can't defend the jobs being destroyed. They can't defend the lawless and abusive vaccine mandates. And they certainly can't defend their catastrophic surrender and failure in Afghanistan.

It has gotten so bad that when Joe Biden and Kamala Harris went down to the State of Georgia, Stacey Abrams, the Democratic candidate running for Governor in Georgia--and, I would note, Stacey Abrams still maintains to this day she won the last election. She insists the last election was stolen and she is the sitting Governor. Apparently this is a reelect campaign. Stacey Abrams refused to show up, to be seen with Joe Biden and Kamala Harris. Even while Biden was giving this racially demagogic speech, which Stacey Abrams has made a career of doing, Ms. Abrams did not show up for the speech. She said she had a scheduling conflict.

The Presiding Officer and I have both served some time in the Senate. We have both seen instances where the President of the United States was visiting our home States. I can tell you, as a Senator, you make time to be there if you want to be there. It is clear that Ms. Abrams did not want to be there, that she looked at Joe Biden and Kamala Harris and sees their poll numbers plummeting, she sees their policies failing, and she wanted to be nowhere near that.

So what is the Democrats' approach? If they can't win on the merits, if they

can't defend their policy failures, if they can't convince the voters, then let's go back to the Jim Crow policies the Democrats authored to begin with. This is Jim Crow 2.0: Strip away the power of the voters to make a choice, put an unelected bureaucrat in charge of election laws, and throw out the decisions of 29 million Texans.

I will tell the Presiding Officer this: Democrats don't get to claim they are defending democracy when they are literally taking away the rights of democratically elected legislatures. That is many things, but it ain't democracy. One unelected bureaucrat overruling 29 million Texans is not democracy; it is a power grab.

But I told you this was a power grab on top of a power grab with a twist. The second power grab is, how are they going to try to pass the ``Corrupt Politicians Act''? They are going to do it by nuking the filibuster.

The rules of the Senate written in that book that sits on the dais in front of you say that to proceed to legislation takes 60 votes in this Senate. It takes 60 percent of the Senators. Those are the Senate rules. They are black and white. They are clear. If you don't like the Senate rules, there is a way to change that. You can amend the Senate rules. It takes 67 votes to amend the Senate rules.

A number of us have proposed amending the Senate rules. I myself have repeatedly gone to Democrats saying I would be happy to work with Democrats on proposals to amend the Senate rules to allow Senators on both sides to offer more amendments. Democrats haven't been willing to do so. Instead, what Democrats intend to do--what they want to do, what President Biden is urging them to do--is to break the Senate rules, to change the Senate rules. It is called nuking the filibuster.

If their plan is successful, Senator Schumer will stand up and seek a ruling from the Chair as to whether it takes 60 votes or 50 votes to proceed to legislation.

The Chair will say--if the Chair is following the rules--it takes 60 votes. And then Senator Schumer will move to reconsider the ruling of the Chair and overrule the ruling of the Chair and say: Even though the words on the page say 60 votes, from now on it is 50. It is another brazen power grab.

There may be some folks at home who are a little cynical of the partisan time we find ourselves in, who are skeptical of claims, perhaps, made by both sides. But maybe you are a Democrat at home. And I am a Republican. I am a conservative Republican. You might be saying: Do you know what? If it is Cruz saying it, I am a Democrat; I don't believe him.

I understand this. This is a very partisan time. There are a lot of disagreements. So if you are a Democrat at home and you are inclined not to believe what I say, I am going to suggest, perhaps, some people you can believe.

I told you it was a double power grab with a twist. I want to point to you the words of President Joe Biden. If you are not inclined to believe a Republican, maybe you will believe Joe Biden. Here is what Joe Biden said in 2019. This is not 1964. This is not 1954--2019, a couple of years ago. ``Ending the filibuster is a very dangerous move.''

If you are at home and don't believe Republicans, do you believe Joe Biden? Was he lying when he said ``Ending the filibuster is a very dangerous move'' or was he telling the truth? Because that is what Joe Biden said just a couple of years ago.

Now, maybe you say: Well, he was on a campaign. People say things. You can't hold him to fault for saying that. That is not fair.

OK, all right, so now you don't believe me, and you don't believe Joe Biden. But let's see if we can find someone else. How about someone who serves in this Chamber right now? How about someone who is the Senate majority leader right now? How about Senator Chuck Schumer?

If you haven't actually watched this speech, I would encourage you to go pull out your phone and Google it. You can find it really easily. Senator Chuck Schumer, in 2005, gave a speech. I am going read to you verbatim what he said. He said: ``They want, because they can't get their way . . . to change the rules midstream.''

What would be the effect of that? You change the rules midstream. You nuke the filibuster. What would be the effect of that? According to Chuck Schumer, the effect of that is ``to wash away 200 years of history.'' That is what Schumer says is the effect. ``Washing away 200 years of history''--that sound serious.

Anything else?

``They want to make this country into a banana republic, where if you don't get your way, you change the rules''--``wash away 200 years of history . . . make this country into a banana republic.''

That is pretty serious stuff. That ought to concern us. But at least that is the worst it gets, right? Well, actually, no. Schumer continued: ``It'll be doomsday for democracy if we do.''

There are reporters teeming the U.S. Capitol. Any reporter who wants to be something other than a partisan shill and mouthpiece for the Democrats ought to ask every single Democrat: Senator so-and-so, do you agree with Chuck Schumer that ending the filibuster will turn our Nation into a banana republic? Do you agree, Senator so-and-so, that ending the filibuster would be doomsday for democracy?

And, by the way, if there are any reporters left who actually have journalistic ethics, you shouldn't just ask Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema. Right now, they are the lone Democrats with the gumption to stand up for democracy. But you ought to ask all 50 of them, every single one of the Democrats: Do you agree with Chuck Schumer that ending the filibuster is doomsday for democracy? And if not, why? Is it just that your team is the one that can't get their way? Now it is your side that wants to change the rules midstream. Now it is your side that, if you don't get your way, you change the rules.

Was Joe Biden lying in 2019? Was Senator Schumer lying in 2005? I don't know. You ought to ask them. A double power grab with a twist: Jim Crow 2.0, seizing Federal elections, striking down the laws adopted by democratic legislatures, putting an unelected radical leftist bureaucrat in charge of elections with more power--this one leftist bureaucrat--than all 29 million people in the State of Texas, doing so by breaking the Senate rules to change the rules. And the twist is with a dose of hypocrisy--unusual even for this place.

Look, if a Senator serves long enough, there will be times when they may vote a little bit this way or a little bit that way. There are lots of Senators that have had tensions with prior positions. I cannot think of another time when a Senator has voted for something that he has called ``doomsday for democracy.'' That is not just a little hypocritical. And, by the way, all the Democrats agreed with him. They were all standing shoulder to shoulder.

In 2005, when Senator Schumer said this, he was either lying or telling the truth. If he was lying, I guess you should ask him why he was lying. If he was telling the truth, I guess you should ask 48 Democrats who don't care why they are willing to vote for doomsday for democracy.

If you want to understand the dangers of this double power grab with a twist, look no further than the vicious, partisan, divisive, hateful speech President Biden gave, insulting half this country; oddly enough, blaming Republicans for the sins of his own party--the Democratic Party--who wrote Jim Crow and founded the KKK.

All of us were sitting outside the Capitol when President Biden gave his inauguration speech, when he talked about unity, when he talked about healing. Do you want to see the vicious partisanship that ending the filibuster will produce? You saw it. A double power grab, with a twist of hypocrisy.

If there is a Democrat in this Chamber who gives a damn about democracy, let me urge you: Don't vote for what your own leader has called ``doomsday for democracy.''

I yield the floor.

Reserving the right to object, I thank my friends from Delaware for their eloquent remarks. As both Senators know, I have a deep affinity for the State of Delaware. My mother was born in Wilmington, DE. I have hundreds of cousins in Delaware, who are their constituents.

I would note that the senior Senator from Delaware, Senator Carper, when I was newly elected, proceeded to welcome me into a caucus I didn't know existed, the TC Caucus. Indeed, he and I both reflected upon this recently when we were both in Oklahoma for the funeral of our former colleague, Senator Tom Coburn, another member of the TC Caucus.

I would note as well that Senator Carper went so far as to call my mother on her birthday to wish her happy birthday for having been born in Wilmington, and my mother appreciated that.

The junior Senator from Delaware--we served together on multiple committees. We have worked together. We have sparred together. And we may well be able to work together in finding a resolution to this impasse.

Every Senator here knows why I have holds on these nominees. Right now, as we speak, hundreds of thousands of Russian troops are massed on the border of the Ukraine, waiting to invade.

The reason for that is because Joe Biden surrendered to Vladimir Putin on the Nord Stream 2 Pipeline. That is the direct cause for the threat of military invasion Ukraine faces right now.

Putin didn't just wake up one day and decide to invade Ukraine. He has wanted to invade Ukraine for years. In fact, he did so in 2014, but he stopped short of a full invasion because he needed to use the Ukrainian energy infrastructure to get Russian natural gas to the European market. Because of that--that is why Putin launched Nord Stream 2, to have a pipeline directly from Russia to Germany going undersea to cut Ukraine out of the transit loop, so then the Russian tanks could invade Ukraine.

This body right now should be talking about the crisis in Ukraine and about how to counter Putin's aggression and expansionism. The best way to do so would be to immediately put sanctions on Nord Stream 2-- sanctions that we had in place; bipartisan sanctions that I authored, that both of the Senators from Delaware supported, and that, indeed, had overwhelming bipartisan support from both Houses of Congress, passed into law, and worked.

Now, I have sought to ensure that we have the time, space, and resources to address how we stop Putin from invading Ukraine, and, indeed, I have offered a deal to resolve this impasse. It is a deal that I have offered to Senator Schumer that I would lift the hold on a number of nominees in exchange for a vote on sanctions on Nord Stream 2.

I would note that this is a deal Senator Schumer accepted 3 weeks ago. Three weeks ago, when we were debating the National Defense Authorization Act, I likewise sought a vote on sanctions on Nord Stream 2. In exchange for that vote, I offered to lift the hold on seven nominees. Senator Schumer accepted that deal, and the vote was scheduled. Then, unfortunately, the entire package of amendment votes that had been agreed to on Nord Stream 2 fell down in an unrelated dispute over other matters.

This week, I have offered Senator Schumer a similar deal, although a substantially more generous deal. The deal that Senator Schumer had accepted was to lift seven holds in exchange for a vote. He said yes to this.

I have now put on the table a deal to lift 16 holds in exchange for a vote on Nord Stream 2 sanctions--more than twice as many holds. Included among those 16 is Governor Markell from Delaware. He is among the holds I have agreed to lift if Senator Schumer will agree to schedule the vote that 3 weeks ago he agreed to schedule.

At this point, this deal is a better deal on every metric than the deal Schumer already said yes too. Unfortunately, as we stand right now, he has not yet said yes to this better deal.

So at this point, I am going to counter with a request for unanimous consent that we impose sanctions on Nord Stream 2, and I expect my Democratic colleagues will oppose this.

But as if in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent that the Banking Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. 3322 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration. I further ask that the bill be considered read a third time and passed, and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Madam President, reserving the right to object, I would note, as I did again, that there is a prospect for a reasonable compromise, and it is a compromise that Senator Coons has been integral in working to seek a resolution, and I thank him for his positive and productive efforts trying to bring the two sides together.

You know, the two sides of the aisle often distrust each other. It is the nature of a two-party system. But we have a path forward that can confirm a substantial number of nominees in these final 2 weeks of this year and can also schedule a vote on an issue that previous to this administration commanded virtual unanimous, bipartisan support.

Among those who would be cleared is Governor Markell, and so I would encourage my friends from Delaware, given the eloquence with which you advocated his confirmation, I would suggest you direct that eloquence to your own party's leader, who has the ability to accept this deal and see Governor Markell confirmed to the new position to which he has been nominated this week. But since that deal has not yet been accepted, I object.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, you know, in Washington, there is always political rhetoric that goes around. The Senator from New Hampshire just moments ago described the Embassies in Europe that are missing Ambassadors. She said they are missing Ambassadors because of Republican objections, and she highlighted in particular Ukraine.

I would like to point out there is some irony in her doing so because actually the reason there is no Ambassador in Ukraine is because of one thing and one thing only: President Biden has not nominated anybody to serve as Ambassador to Ukraine. We are in December of the first year of his Presidency, and Biden has yet to name an ambassador. So there are no Republican holds, there are no Republican objections to an ambassador that Biden has not even named.

In addition, there were multiple Ambassadors who have been named whom the Senate Foreign Relations Committee has yet to hold a hearing on. For every one of those nominees on whom there hasn't been a hearing, again, there are no Republican objections; it is simply that the Senate Democrats have failed to move forward with hearings.

But there are a number of nominees who have been nominated and who have had hearings on whom I have holds. And we are here today once again because the Democrats in this Chamber have been unwilling to do the one thing that would stop Vladimir Putin from potentially invading Ukraine, which is sanctioning the Nord Stream 2 Pipeline and making sure that it never becomes fully operational.

Now, Senator Shaheen, along with every other Senator in this Chamber, knows exactly why I have holds on these nominees. Right now, as we speak, over 100,000 Russian troops are massed on the border of Ukraine, waiting to invade. And it is Joe Biden's fault because it is a direct consequence of President Biden's surrender to Vladimir Putin on Nord Stream 2.

For those watching at home asking ``What is Nord Stream 2?'' it is a pipeline being constructed from Russia to Germany to carry natural gas. Putin is building Nord Stream 2 to go around Ukraine because right now, Russian gas gets to Europe through Ukraine.

Putin didn't just wake up one day and decide to invade Ukraine; he has wanted to invade Ukraine for years. He did it in 2014, but he stopped short of a full invasion because he needed to use Ukrainian energy infrastructure to transport Russian gas to the European market. Ukraine's energy infrastructure is their insurance policy against a Russian invasion.

Nord Stream 2 is all about Putin building an alternative avenue to get Russian gas to Europe. So if Nord Stream 2 comes online, it leaves Ukraine exposed to Russian aggression.

Just 2 years ago, we had a bipartisan consensus in the Senate that we needed to stop Nord Stream 2. Now, Senator Shaheen knows that well because she and I authored the legislation together. She and I worked together to get the support of Democrats and Republicans in the Senate and the support of Democrats and Republicans in the House. The Cruz- Shaheen legislation sanctioning Nord Stream 2 passed both Houses of Congress overwhelmingly and was signed into law. The Cruz-Shaheen legislation worked marvelously well, so well that Putin stopped construction of Nord Stream 2 the day that President Trump signed our legislation into law--not even a week later, not a month later, but the very day that our sanctions were signed into law.

It was an incredible, bipartisan national security victory that we won together, and that victory continued for over a year. For over a year, Nord Stream 2 lay dormant on the bottom of the ocean, dead, until, unfortunately, Joe Biden became President.

Almost from the moment of election day, Biden and the incoming administration began projecting weakness to Russia and Putin, and to understand just how much that message was received: Joe Biden was sworn in as President on January 20, 2021. Putin began building the Nord Stream 2 Pipeline again on January 24, 2021, 4 days after Biden was sworn in.

In the Senate, I introduced legislation again in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that passed in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee--in this Senate--with overwhelming bipartisan support to sanction Nord Stream 2 yet again. But this summer, the Biden White House made a political decision to surrender completely to Putin on Nord Stream 2, and President Biden waived the sanctions on Nord Stream 2. He did so overruling the recommendations of his own State Department that argued that this protects U.S. national security interests, this stands up to Russia, and this protects Ukraine. The Biden White House didn't care about any of that--overruled it all.

Then, unfortunately, Senate Democrats lost their willingness to hold Biden to account. This is an issue on which Democrats and Republicans are agreed on the substance. But it can be difficult to stand up to a President of your own party, and on Nord Stream 2, Senate Democrats have not been willing to do so. They were eager to do so when Donald Trump was in the White House, but when a Democrat was in the White House, suddenly their willingness to stand up to the President evaporated.

So the holds that I have placed are directly in order to try to force Joe Biden and Kamala Harris to follow the law and stand up to Russia and stand up to Putin.

So I will offer my colleague Senator Shaheen a deal that I have offered many times to the White House, to the State Department, to the Department of the Treasury, and to Senate Democrats--a deal that if we, as the Senate, will impose sanctions on Nord Stream 2, CAATSA sanctions--yet another Russia sanctions bill that both Senator Shaheen and I voted for, that we both advocated and supported, and that the Biden administration is refusing to apply--if the Senate will impose those sanctions, I will happily, enthusiastically lift my holds on these nominees, and Senator Shaheen can take her map of Europe and color in all of those countries. We can do that right now by doing the right thing substantively.

By the way, this is the one step which has a real possibility of stopping a Russian invasion of Ukraine.

This past weekend, the Biden administration declassified their own internal projections that an invasion is imminent; it could happen as soon as January or February. And if we see Russian tanks in the streets of Kiev, it will

be because Joe Biden surrendered to Putin and Senate Democrats weren't willing to hold him to account.

I hope that is not the case. We can act right now to sanction Nord Stream 2 to stop the pipeline from being operational, to stop Putin and the soldiers at the border to prevent the invasion, and to clear these ambassadorial nominees that my Democratic colleagues want.

Accordingly, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be discharged from further consideration of S. 3322 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration; I further ask that the bill be considered read a third time and passed; and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object. You know, I would note that Senator Shaheen said it was simplistic to say that sanctioning Nord Stream 2 would stop a Russian invasion of Ukraine. And in that, Senator Shaheen may well be right.

I cannot guarantee that Nord Stream 2 sanctions would prevent an invasion of Ukraine. What we do know is, it has in the past--what we do know is that in 2014, when Putin invaded Ukraine in the Crimea, that he stopped short of a full invasion because he needed the Ukrainian energy infrastructure.

And we also know that, during the more than a year in which the Cruz- Shaheen sanctions were in effect and Nord Stream 2 was dead, that Putin didn't amass troops in preparation for an invasion. So we know that it has been effective.

And we also know, although I cannot promise that sanctioning Nord Stream 2 would prevent an invasion--we know the obverse is true, which is that allowing Nord Stream 2 to go online and become operational would invite an invasion.

Senator Shaheen noted that the certification process is expected to be concluded in January or February of next year.

I would note that according to the Biden administration's own documents, the Russian invasion is expected, potentially, in January or February of next year. I do not believe it is coincidental that the instant Putin can turn on the switch of Nord Stream 2 is when the tanks are preparing to invade.

If the Senate Democrats continue their partisan blockade of sanctions, they are inviting a Russian invasion.

I would happily consent to a colloquy.

Well, I will accept that correction. I don't believe the Senator said the spring. I think the Senator said after the first of the year, but--

I do not think it is coincidental that the timing of Nord Stream 2 and the timing of an invasion are intertwined.

Now, Senator Shaheen also suggested the way to prevent an invasion is to be united with our allies. I actually agree with that.

I would point out that this summer, when President Biden waived the sanctions on Nord Stream 2, do you know what our allies said? Ukraine and Poland put out a joint statement. I would encourage you to read the joint statement from the Foreign Ministers of Ukraine and Poland because they denounced the Biden administration for waiving sanctions on Nord Stream 2.

And do you know what Ukraine told us? That waiving those sanctions makes a military attack on Ukraine much more likely. That is what Poland told us.

Senator Shaheen knows that. She has spoken with the governments of both countries, I am sure. I have spoken with the governments of both countries. And they adamantly believe that waiving those sanctions is a major force increasing the likelihood of a Russian invasion.

You know, one of the things that is striking in the debates we have had in Nord Stream 2, throughout the course of all of this, we have yet to see a single Democrat stand up and defend the Biden administration's waiver of sanctions on Nord Stream 2 on the merits. They all know it is wrong.

The only arguable benefit that the Biden White House claims is they

earned some good will with Angela Merkel. Angela Merkel had been the leader of Germany. But, as Senator Shaheen noted, she is no longer the leader of Germany. The German people voted her party out of office. And the new administration is expected to oppose Nord Stream 2.

So we literally have a situation in which the Biden White House surrendered to Russia, gave a multibillion-dollar pipeline to finance the Russian military, abandon our Ukrainian allies, and did it all in search of good will from a leader who is no longer in office.

Do you want us to be united? The European Parliament voted to condemn Nord Stream 2. The last vote was roughly 500 to 50 to condemn Nord Stream 2. Do you want to be united? How about if we stand with the 500 and not the 50?

If Senate Democrats would not object to my motion, we would be standing with the whole of Europe, and we would be united.

And a final observation, Senator Shaheen decried the holds as an effort to undermine Ambassadors. I would note that I have offered here, as I have offered many, many times--as I have offered in writing as far back as August of this year--to lift the holds if we adopt policy that actually stands up to Russia.

Senator Shaheen says her changed position is not partisan. I understand why one would want to say that. But her substantive argument is, now, she doesn't want us to disagree with Germany.

Well, when Senator Shaheen and I authored Cruz-Shaheen in 2019, when we authored the second Cruz-Shaheen in 2020, when we passed both of them, we were disagreeing with Germany. The German Government was very unhappy with it. But it was the right thing for American national security. Nothing has changed.

And by the way, when there was a Republican President in the White House, I repeatedly took on the Trump administration and pressed them on this issue. The only thing that has changed--one thing has changed: the letter behind the name of the person in the White House. Now, it is a ``D'' and not an ``R.'' And all the Democrats who gave speeches on Nord Stream 2, suddenly, we hear crickets. That needs to change.

I object.

Mr. President, a brief moment of clarification. Several of the facts that I said in my remarks are undisputed because they are undisputable.

No. 1, it is a fact that Putin stopped construction of Nord Stream 2 the day--the exact day--that President Trump signed the Cruz-Shaheen sanctions into law--that day--and the pipeline was dormant for over a year.

Now, Senator Shaheen said Putin ultimately went back to building the pipeline even with the sanctions on the books. That is true--after Joe Biden was sworn into office. Putin began building the pipeline on January 24, 2021, 4 days after Biden was sworn in. Not a foot of the pipeline was built between December of 2019, when the sanctions were signed into law, and January 24. Putin began building the pipeline because Biden telegraphed his surrender.

Secondly, Senator Shaheen suggested that if only we had an ambassador, we might know what the European Parliament did. Thankfully, we have these magic little devices that let us cross the Atlantic in the twinkle of an eye, so we actually know that the European Parliament voted roughly 500 to 50 to condemn Nord Stream 2. So if we want to stand united with Europe--not just Ukraine and Poland; Europe--we want to stand up to Nord Stream 2.

A final point I will say to Senator Shaheen perhaps is a word of encouragement, which is that I have right now pending an offer with the Democratic leadership to lift a number of these holds--a significant number of these holds--if the Democratic leadership will agree to a vote on Nord Stream 2 sanctions. We are engaged in productive negotiations on that issue. If the Democrats cease obstruction, we can have that vote, and a number of these holds can be lifted. But that ultimately is going to be a decision for Senate Democrats.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to strongly oppose the confirmation of Rachael Rollins to be U.S. attorney in Massachusetts.

Many Americans have probably never heard of Rachael Rollins, but they are becoming very familiar with the kind of lawlessness and dangerous crime that radical, leftwing district attorneys like her have generated. Under

their watch, we have seen looting and larceny and violent crime rates rise in cities all over the country the past couple of years.

Ms. Rollins is part of a web of leftwing district attorneys across the country who see it as their job not to prosecute crime; rather, to protect criminals. There is Ms. Rollins in Boston, Chesa Boudin in San Francisco, Kim Gardner in St. Louis, Kim Foxx in Chicago, Larry Krasner in Philadelphia, and John Chisholm in Milwaukee, among others.

What has happened with these prosecutors who refuse to prosecute crime?

Well, all too predictably, crime rates have skyrocketed.

Last year, the murder rate went up nearly 30 percent overall, and it went up 40 percent in cities with populations between 100,000 and 250,000.

We have seen horrific crimes and tragedies that could have been prevented if these DAs had simply done their jobs.

Take John Chisholm, the DA in Milwaukee, who released Darrell Brooks, a repeat and dangerous criminal, on $1,000 bail.

What was the crime he was charged with?

Using his vehicle--a red SUV--to run down a woman, the mother of his child.

Released on $1,000 bail, what happened?

Brooks, as we all know, drove that same red SUV through a Christmas parade, murdered six people, including an 8-year-old boy.

That man should not have been on the streets, should not have been behind the wheel. The DA knew he was a violent criminal who used that SUV as an instrument of violence and, for $1,000, the leftwing DA let him go. Had Brooks not been out on such a low bail, this horrific tragedy wouldn't have occurred; that 8-year-old boy would still be alive.

Our communities don't need prosecutors who endanger the very communities they are supposed to serve by refusing to prosecute or detain criminals. They don't need leftwing prosecutors who let violent criminals walk the streets.

The damage that these so-called prosecutors can do has, thankfully, been somewhat limited by the fact that, when they choose not to prosecute criminals, the Federal Government has the ability, in many instances, to step in and charge criminals federally.

But Joe Biden and Senate Democrats are working to change that by elevating one of these radical, leftist, soft-on-crime district attorneys, Rachael Rollins, to be the U.S. attorney in Massachusetts-- the chief Federal prosecutor in the entire State of Massachusetts.

Let's talk a bit more about what exactly Rachael Rollins believes prosecutors should do and what her record is.

Rachael Rollins has been vocal and aggressive against prosecuting crime. She has been very clear that she came into the job of district attorney as a crusader.

She has said--and these are her words:

If you want to change the criminal legal system, become a

prosecutor [because they have the] power to determine

charges, what crimes to decline to prosecute or divert, [and]

how to fashion bail hearings.

She has been quite open in what her intentions are. Ms. Rollins tells us that what matters about a prosecutor is not taking bad guys off the street; it is not seeking justice for the victims of crime. No. It is the power to say: ``I won't prosecute these crimes.''

(Ms. ROSEN assumed the chair.)

And with Ms. Rollins, it is not hypothetical because she is a district attorney. And as the Boston DA, she went so far as to write down in ``The Rachael Rollins Policy Memo,'' a list of 15 crimes whose prosecution should ``always be declined'' or ``dismissed without conditions.''

Charges on this list of 15 crimes should be declined or dismissed prearraignment without conditions. The presumption is that charges that fall into this category should always be declined.

So you have a DA saying these are the crimes we don't prosecute, ``always be declined,'' ``dismissed without conditions.''

So you may say: ``OK. Maybe this is like some sort of criminal justice reform. Maybe this is low-level, nonviolent marijuana possession. A teenager got caught with a joint; we are not going to prosecute them.'' Reasonable people can actually disagree on that. We can have an intelligent conversation back and forth about that.

But the beauty of it is that we don't have to speculate because she put it in writing. These are the 15 crimes. They are upside down, as are her policies. These are the 15 crimes where charges should be dismissed prearraignment without conditions:

No. 1, trespass. Now, I want you to think about it. If you don't want to see people trespassing on your property, well, under Rachael Rollins, the Democrats' U.S. attorney, we don't prosecute trespass.

What else?

Shoplifting. Has anyone watched the videos of the people breaking into stores and stealing and stealing and stealing and looting? Do you know what? Joe Biden and Senate Democrats--they are bringing that to a neighborhood near you.

Shoplifting, we don't prosecute. That is what she said. Shoplifting, olly oxen free. If you see a TV you like, pick that damn thing up and run out of the store because your friend, the fake prosecutor, is not going to charge you.

Larceny. Really, larceny? Larceny, we don't prosecute.

Disorderly conduct. You are a single mom coming home at night. A drunk vagrant is yelling, screaming, cursing at your kids. Do you know what? Not a crime here. We don't prosecute that.

What else?

Receiving stolen property. OK. This is at least intellectually consistent. If you are going to legalize shoplifting, rob the hell out of the stores, at least the fence can be on the back end. You can steal that TV and go straight to the fence. By the way, I guess you can do it in a parking lot. Set up a van right there. ``We fence stolen property.'' You run in and grab it, I will fence it right here. DA? ``All good by us.''

Driving with a suspended license. Well, sometimes that might be OK.

What was it suspended for? Was it suspended for DWI? Was it suspended because you are a drunk who has killed people? Were you suspended because you are this homicidal maniac in Milwaukee who murdered six people?

Do you know what? This DA says: ``Hey, driving with a suspended license, no problem at all, no longer a crime.''

Breaking and entering into a vacant property without property damage. So any property that is vacant, you can break in, and you are fine. Locks don't matter. Burglar alarms don't matter. By the way, if a burglar alarm goes off, what the hell do you do? You show up, ``Hey, you don't prosecute it. I'm staying right here.''

You may say: ``Well, at least it is something reasonable, without property damage, right?'' Well, now, except the problem is No. 8 on the list: breaking and entering into a vacant property with property damage.

So it doesn't matter. Break into the place, loot it, trash it, destroy it. All is good in Joe Biden's criminal-friendly America.

No. 9, wanton or malicious destruction of property. By the way, don't believe the Democratic talking point: ``This stuff isn't violent.'' Really, wanton or malicious destruction of property? Not a crime in Joe Biden's America.

Threats, threats of violence. I want you to imagine right now you have got an angry vagrant making threats of violence against your children. You call the DA and say: ``My family is being threatened. Protect our safety.'' And what does she say? ``Not a crime.''

Oh, well, stinks to be you. Threats are just A-OK.

Minor in possession of alcohol. Hey, great. Kids, drink up. Actually, the beauty of it is, in Joe Biden's America, the kids can get drunk; they can drive; they can have their license suspended; and apparently they will get a gold star at the end of it. Minors in possession of alcohol. We have got Senate pages here. Just go down to the U.S. attorney's office. They are serving margaritas.

Marijuana possession. OK. As I said, we can debate marijuana possession. Reasonable people can disagree on that. Now, it doesn't specify the quantity. A teenager with a joint? You can say that that may be a good candidate for diversion to something else. Drug dealer with several kilos of pot in the

back, maybe you ought to be prosecuting that.

Oh, and, by the way, how do we know she doesn't just limit it to kids with a joint? Well, what is No. 13 on the list? Possession with intent to distribute.

So, drug dealers--in Joe Biden's America, drug dealers, it is legal. You can sell booze to kids. You can sell drugs to kids. You can sell stolen televisions to kids. She doesn't prosecute drug dealers.

But look, at least it is just pot and come on, we know--you know, in States--in a lot of States pot is not that bad, right? It is just pot.

Uh-oh. No. 14, nonmarijuana drug possession. So for any Democrats ready to go home, saying, ``Hey, we just like pot because we are Democrats,'' nope. Heroin, cocaine, LSD, fentanyl drug dealers who are poisoning our kids, in Joe Biden's America, we don't prosecute you.

And No. 15 is really the crowning jewel of this--resisting arrest. So I want you to envision what this says. You can break and enter into a vacant property and do damage. You can have a homeless person trespass on your front lawn, set up a tent, threaten your children, sell them drugs, and if a police officer shows up and tries to arrest them, they can violently resist arrest. And what does the DA say? ``All good by me. Not a crime.''

Madam President, this is, in a word, nuts. This is crazy.

And do you know what? This is what the Democrats support.

I will tell you why. The Democrats are counting on the news media refusing to cover this. The Democrats are counting on ABC, NBC, and CBS--this is not news. The Democrats are counting on CNN will not cover this.

Every single Democrat in this body has voted for Rachael Rollins. They had to bring Vice President Harris out to break the tie.

And, you know, Democrats, when they go home, they like to say: ``We are not for abolishing the police.''

No. Do you know what? When you vote to confirm a lawless so-called prosecutor who says ``I won't prosecute crime,'' you have abolished the police. Cops can arrest them, but the DA will let them go. And what does she say? ``Dismissed . . . prearraignment . . . without conditions.''

This is radical and extreme, and I want to make a challenge to Senate Democrat colleagues. Some of you are in purple States. A few of you are in red States. Some of you are in bright blue States. I challenge any of you in the bluest State of the Union to go home to your constituents, get any gathering in a townhall, and put this chart in front of them. Ask your constituents: Do the people of Nevada agree that we shouldn't prosecute trespassing or shoplifting or drug dealing or resisting arrest or violent threats? Do the people of Virginia agree that these are not crimes and shouldn't be prosecuted?

And I promise you, in all 50 States, there is not a State too blue where your constituents would agree on this. And so what our Democratic colleagues are counting on is that people won't know.

You know, before the vote, I spoke with several Democrats. I tried to tell several Democrats, this is a bad vote. This is a vote you are going to regret. This is a vote your constituents are going to be mad at you for. One of those Democrats said: ``Well, the majority leader asked me to do it.''

You know, crack the whip, party unity, party discipline. The order from the Democrats in the White House is this is the chief Federal law enforcement officer in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. God help you if you don't want violent criminals robbing your store. God help you if you don't want drunken homeless people setting up tents in your front yard. God help you if you don't want drug dealers selling drugs to your children because Joe Biden and Kamala Harris have said those are all A- OK. And if you don't believe me--because in this bizarre partisan world nobody believes the other side--read the memo, ``The Rachael Rollins Policy Memo.'' She wrote it. She put her name on it in writing. This is what it says.

If we lived in a time of sanity--Senators on both sides--Democrats listening to this would say: ``Hold on a second. That doesn't make any sense at all. Let's tap the brakes.''

By the way, one Democrat could stop this nomination--one. Every individual Democrat, you had the choice. It means every one of you is also the deciding vote. So when you go back to your home State, you singlehandedly decided this lawless, so-called prosecutor should be confirmed.

I will tell you this, you can never again claim you oppose abolishing the police because this vote is front and center: trespassing, not prosecuted; shoplifting; larceny; disorderly conduct; receiving stolen property; driving with a suspended license; breaking and entering with property damage; loss and malicious destruction of property; threats; minors in possession of alcohol; marijuana possession; possession with intent to distribute; nonmarijuana drug possession.

I don't ever want to see a Democrat standing up here talking about fentanyl: Fentanyl is terrible. I don't want to see another Democrat talking about the opioid crisis, saying: ``People are dying in New Hampshire. People are dying in my State.'' They are, and you are about to vote for a prosecutor who won't prosecute the drug dealers selling those opioids and poisoning our children and won't prosecute resisting arrest. So, if a cop comes, take a swing.

To my colleagues on the Democratic side of the aisle, there is still time for you to stop this nomination. I implore of you: Listen to your constituents and do the right thing.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, reserving the right to object.

The eyes of history are on the Senate today. If the Nord Stream 2 Pipeline comes online, as it is on the verge of doing, the odds of Russian tanks rolling into Ukraine increase dramatically. We have imposed sanctions on the Nord Stream 2 Pipeline with bipartisan unity. We can do it again.

If Russian tanks roll into Kiev, who in this Chamber wants that on their conscience?

We need to stop Russia from invading Ukraine, and the only way to do it is by imposing sanctions on Nord Stream 2. We did that 2 years ago. We overwhelmingly passed bipartisan sanctions that President Trump signed into law.

It is worth explaining why these two are linked.

We are all reading in the newspaper--and my friend from Virginia and I have sat in briefings, classified and public briefings--that over 100,000 Russian troops are massed on the Ukraine border. The administration declassified its own projections that an invasion of Ukraine is imminent and could come as soon as January or February of next year. This disaster is the direct result of a political mistake made by Joe Biden.

What does the Nord Stream 2 Pipeline have to do with Russia's invading Ukraine?

Well, here is a little bit of ancient history. In the year 2014, Vladimir Putin invaded Ukraine.

Why?

He did it because he has said that he considers the dissolution of the Soviet Union to be the greatest geopolitical disaster of the 21st century, and his grand ambition is to recreate the Soviet Union--by force.

A reassembled Soviet Union would be a profound threat to the safety of all Americans. We spent decades with a dangerous Soviet Union. In 2014, Putin invaded Ukraine--he invaded Crimea--but he stopped. He didn't go through all of Ukraine.

Why did he stop?

He stopped because Russian natural gas, to get to Europe, goes through Ukraine. The pipelines go through Ukraine.

Madam President, reserving the right to object.

There is nothing in regular order that limits my ability to explain my view on this topic.

So, apparently, the Democrats don't want to talk about Joe Biden's gift to Russia and Putin that has set up the tanks on the border of Ukraine.

Is the Chair refusing to let me speak?

And, just a moment ago, the Chair granted unanimous consent that that time be extended until this unanimous consent request was concluded. That is the pending UC that was granted.

If Senator Kaine or the Chair wants to silence me because you don't want to hear what is happening in Ukraine, you can try to do that.

Madam President, I object. And the Chair and the Democrats are hiding from the truth.

Mr. President.

Reserving the right to object, the Senators in this Chamber, including Senator Markey, know precisely why I have a hold on this nominee.

Right now, as we speak, hundreds of thousands of Russian troops are amassed on the border of Ukraine waiting to invade. This calamitous foreign policy disaster is Joe Biden's fault. This is the direct consequence of Joe Biden's surrender to Vladimir Putin on Nord Stream 2. What is Nord Stream 2? It is a pipeline being constructed from Russia to Germany to carry natural gas. Putin is building Nord Stream 2. Why? To go around Ukraine because right now Russian gas goes through Ukraine.

Putin didn't just wake up recently and decide to invade Ukraine; he has wanted to invade Ukraine for years. He did so in 2014, but he stopped short of full invasion. Why? Because the Ukrainian energy infrastructure was necessary to get the Russian gas to market. Nord Stream 2 is all about building an alternative avenue to get the Russian gas to Europe, so then the Russian tanks can ride into Ukraine.

We had a bipartisan victory. Indeed, the Senator from Massachusetts supported my bipartisan legislation sanctioning the Nord Stream 2 Pipeline in December of 2019. When President Trump signed that bipartisan legislation into law, Nord Stream 2 was halted that day. Not the next day, not the next week, not the next month--that day, the pipeline shut down. We had won a major, bipartisan foreign policy victory. We had stopped Russia. We had stopped Putin.

That pipeline remained dormant for over a year--a hunk of metal at the bottom of the ocean--until Joe Biden arrived at the White House. Joe Biden was sworn into office on January 20, 2021. Four days later, January 24, Putin began building the pipeline again--4 days later. Why? Because the Biden White House made the decision to waive the sanctions on Nord Stream 2 and to give Vladimir Putin a multibillion-dollar gift for generations to come and in doing so, to set the stage for the invasion of Ukraine by Russia.

When Biden waived sanctions on Nord Stream 2, Ukraine and Poland both said that it was creating a security crisis in Europe, that it was increasing dramatically the chances that Russia would invade Ukraine. This invasion that we are facing the very real prospect of is Joe Biden's fault. But do you know what? It is also the fault of Senate Democrats.

For 2 years, we had bipartisan agreement to stop Nord Stream 2, and we succeeded. When there was a Republican President in office, Donald Trump, I and other Republicans were perfectly willing to hold President Trump to account, to press him to stand up against Nord Stream 2, and he did.

As soon as a Democrat got into the White House, our Democratic colleagues decided that partisan loyalty was more important than national security, that partisan loyalty to the Democratic Party was more important than standing up to Russia, was more important than defending Ukraine. So, suddenly, we have seen the Democrats in this Chamber bending over backward to avoid stopping Nord Stream 2.

I want to be very clear. There is a lot of discussion about Joe Biden having a phone call with Putin today. Well, that phone call is real nice, but it is not going to stop an invasion. I will tell you what will stop an invasion. Joe Biden could stop the invasion today by simply following the law and sanctioning Nord Stream 2.

This body could make a major step today to prevent war in Europe, to prevent Russia from invading Ukraine right now, by doing what Democrats and Republicans had agreed to do, had done together until Biden surrendered to Russia. We can do that by passing legislation that I have pending at the desk that would sanction Nord Stream 2, that would stop the project, which would mean Russia would remain dependent on Ukrainian energy infrastructure. For the same reason Russia didn't continue to invade in 2014, it would stop the invasion. We can do that right now.

Accordingly, as if in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. 3322, which is at the desk. I further ask that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I would note that what we just heard was Democrats in this Chamber objecting to sanctioning Nord Stream 2. It is worth understanding what that means. It means that Senate Democrats prioritize political loyalty to Joe Biden and Kamala Harris more than they do standing up to Vladimir Putin.

A month or two from now, if, God forbid, we see Russian tanks moving into Ukraine, remember this moment where Senate Democrats objected and said: No, we won't sanction the pipeline. We won't save Ukraine. We won't stand up to Russia.

You know, the whole country endured Democrats going on and on and on for 4 years--``Russia, Russia, Russia''--and someone who didn't follow politics closely could be forgiven if they actually believed the rhetoric from the Democrats. But it turns out that by saying ``Russia, Russia, Russia,'' what they really meant was ``We hate Donald Trump'' because when it comes to standing up to Russia, for decades, Democrats had shown weakness and appeasement to the Soviet Union. As soon as Donald Trump was gone, we see Democrats going back to weakness and appeasement to Russia again.

The Russian troops on the Ukrainian border are Joe Biden's fault and they are Senate Democrats' fault for being unwilling to stand up to a President of their own party.

I would note that this particular nominee is a nominee to be the head of protocol at the State Department. It is really bad protocol to drive tanks into somebody else's country.

You want to talk about protocol, how about the protocol of, let's defend American national security interests; let's defend Europe; let's defend our allies; let's stand up to a tyrannical bully named Vladimir Putin. Sadly, Democrats don't want to do that. Accordingly, I object.

Madam President.

Reserving the right to object, 2 years ago, I authored bipartisan legislation sanctioning any company that participated in building Nord Stream 2. That legislation passed Congress overwhelmingly, and Democrats and Republicans overwhelmingly supported it. That was passed on the NDAA, the National Defense Authorization Act.

A year ago, I authored a second set of bipartisan sanctions on Nord Stream 2. That second set of bipartisan sanctions again passed overwhelmingly with the support of Democrats and Republicans in this Chamber. That second set of bipartisan sanctions likewise passed on the National Defense Authorization Act.

Today, the Democrats are objecting to passing sanctions on Nord Stream 2.

What has changed?

Two things have changed. No. 1, today Joe Biden is President and not Donald Trump. And the Democrats were more than willing to stand up to Russia when Donald Trump was President, but when Joe Biden is President, suddenly it is untenable for Democrats to stand up to Russia.

But, secondly, it is even worse because what has also changed is that Joe Biden has utterly and completely capitulated to Vladimir Putin. He has waived the mandatory sanctions that this body passed. He has given a multibillion-dollar generational gift to Putin. This strengthens Russia. Decades from now, successor dictators in Russia will reap billions of dollars that they will use for military aggression against Europe, against America, and it will be because Joe Biden utterly and completely capitulated.

So why are Senate Democrats objecting to a vote on Nord Stream 2?

Because they cannot defend Joe Biden's surrender to Putin on the merits. They don't want to vote on it because it would be politically inconvenient for this White House that has undermined the national security of the United States and has weakened our allies. Right now, energy prices are skyrocketing in Europe because Joe Biden surrendered to Vladimir Putin.

We have twice passed Nord Stream 2 sanctions on the NDAA. After Biden's surrender to Putin, we should do so again. My Democratic friends who have given speech after speech after speech against Nord Stream 2, against Russia, should demonstrate they mean what they say and that they are not simply interested in being political protectors for a Democratic President.

Accordingly--and I would note, by the way, in response to every amendment that has been called up, the Democrats have not seen fit to provide even a word of substantive argument in response. So I am going to predict you are not going to hear the President, Joe Biden, surrender to Russia. You are not going to hear any defense of Nord Stream 2. You haven't heard any substantive defense. You are going to hear two words--``I object''--because the Democrats are afraid of taking this vote.

I believe we are elected here to represent our constituents and the interests of the United States, and we should have the courage to do so. Therefore, I ask to modify the request to include amendment No. 4794.

My prediction was accurate, and I object.

Madam President, I rise today to discuss the growing threats to American national security and to the security of our friends and allies in the Middle East.

Under President Obama and Vice President Biden, the policies put in place were a catastrophe for our allies in the Middle East and a boon to our enemies. They boosted the Muslim Brotherhood and criticized Arab governments that tried to crack down on religious extremists. They gave Palestinian groups tied to terrorism a veto over peace between our Israeli and Arab allies, and they elevated those groups.

They pushed the catastrophic Obama-Iran nuclear deal, which dismantled pressure on Iran and put the Ayatollah on a path towards a nuclear arsenal, while sending pallets of cash in the dead of night as ransom for hostages.

Of course, the Obama-Biden administration didn't tell the American people and didn't tell Congress what they were doing. Instead, they deliberately hid that information. They lied as long as they could about their policies, and they developed and built an echo chamber designed to drown out their critics.

I rise today because history is repeating itself, because I am deeply worried that President Biden and the Biden-Harris administration are returning to the very worst policies and the very worst tactics of the Obama years and that the consequences are going to be far worse.

Once again, the Biden-Harris administration is boosting the Muslim Brotherhood and other religious extremist groups in the Middle East. They are elevating the Palestinians at the expense of our Israeli and Arab allies, and they are dismantling pressure on Iran.

And, once again, they are hiding those details from Congress. They do not want Congress to know, and they do not want the American people to know. And, in some cases, unfortunately, they are outright lying.

I know that President Biden and his administration are refusing to answer, even lying about their Middle East policies, because I asked them. I asked them as part of questioning Barbara Leaf, the President's nominee to be the Assistant Secretary of State for Near East Affairs.

Over the next several minutes, I will discuss the answers I got back.

Ms. Leaf has been--and will continue to be--at the center of the Biden-Harris administration's Middle East policy. She was responsible for Middle East policy from the very beginning of this administration as the senior director for Middle East and North African Affairs at the National Security Council. In her new position to which she has been nominated, she would be America's most senior diplomat for the Middle East.

I asked Ms. Leaf written questions about Biden's administration's policies in multiple areas of Middle East policy, as part of her testimony in front of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Her answers ranged from deliberately nonresponsive to simply false and, throughout, thoroughly, deeply distressing.

For example, right now, today, the Biden-Harris administration is withholding $130 million of assistance for security and counterterrorism from our Egyptian allies, allegedly on human rights concerns. What we don't know is exactly why they are doing it and exactly what the Biden-Harris administration is asking for.

Under the Obama administration, the United States repeatedly, inexplicably boosted the Muslim Brotherhood, which openly advocated terrorism against the United States. Those extremists were boosted at the expense of moderate Arab allies, and they consistently misled the public about their goals.

Here, the only reason the American public found out in the first place about this $130 million is because the Washington Post revealed it. The Biden-Harris administration didn't explain to the American people what they were doing. It was only the reporting of journalists that revealed it, and we still don't know enough. We don't know the details.

The Post reported that the administration is withholding the aid until Egypt addresses certain human rights concerns. We don't know what they are. They apparently include releasing 16 unnamed prisoners. We don't know who they are.

So I asked Ms. Leaf about these details. I asked about the 16 people. I asked for their names, their institutional affiliations, what they were charged with. I also asked if they were American citizens. And if they were not, I asked whether they were involved in organizations that push Islamic extremism or anti-Semitism.

Ms. Leaf is obviously very familiar with the case. She wrote back over 1,000 words of highly technical responses. Here is just a third of her answer. That is the part we could fit on the poster board. Lots of words, lots of numbers, but, as you can see, not a single detail that I requested was provided.

Of the 16 people the Biden-Harris administration is demanding that Egypt release, you will see not a single name--not a one. Congress doesn't get to know who those 16 people are. The American people don't get to know who those 16 people are. The answer from Ms. Leaf to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee is, to not put too fine a point on it, Go jump in a lake.

How many of those 16 are affiliated with terrorist organizations?

The answer from Ms. Leaf: Go jump in a lake.

How many of them are American citizens?

The answer from Ms. Leaf: Go jump in a lake.

Why is that? Why is that--that the Biden-Harris administration is extorting Egypt to release 16 prisoners, and yet they are embarrassed to say who those prisoners are?

Well, we do have some public hints about the sort of people that the White House and the congressional Democrats maybe tried to coerce our Egyptian allies into releasing. Buried inside a very recent Senate appropriations report, there is an instruction that seems very much like what we are seeing with these secret conditions. It came presumably from Senate Democrats, although we don't know who. No Senate Democrat has stood forward to own this language, but there is a Senate Democrat who authored this language.

It says:

In making the certification required by subsection

(a)(3)(A), the Secretary of State shall consider the cases of

Ola Al-Qaradawi, Hosam Khalaf, Salah Soltan, Abdulrahman

Tarek, and Mohamed El-Baqer. The Committee urges that humane

treatment and fair trials be afforded these and other

prisoners in Egypt.

So, apparently, for some unnamed Democrat who is unwilling to put his or her name to it, these names are people the United States should champion, and it suggests the sorts of people the Biden-Harris administration may be trying to extort Egypt into releasing.

Who are they?

Well, let's start with Salah Soltan. Who is Salah Soltan? He is a Muslim Brotherhood propagandist. He is a hate preacher. He is someone who goes on TV over and over again and preaches the most vicious sorts of libel against Jews.

Why are Senate Democrats trying to release vicious anti-Semites? If you go back to the appropriation language, why are they suggesting in the appropriation language that the United States should be fighting to release that anti-Semite and hate preacher?

We don't know because Senate Democrats aren't defending that position, and the administration refuses to answer.

Who are some of the other people on that list?

Well, you have Mohamed El-Baqer. He was a Salafist youth activist. He was part of the Revolutionary Youth who started the revolution, and he has been implicated in security violations.

How about Ola al-Qaradawi? She is the daughter of Yosef al-Qaradawi, who is one of the major voices for jihad inside the Muslim Brotherhood. The paper trail on her is deliberately opaque from both sides.

How about Hosam Khalaf? He is Ola al-Qaradawi's husband, and he has been allegedly connected to a Muslim Brotherhood offshoot.

How about Abdulrahman Tarek? Well, we don't know. His presence has not been accounted for publicly.

And yet these names mysteriously appear in a Senate appropriations report. When I asked Ms. Leaf about it, she provided 1,000 words and not a single name.

And I will tell you that, actually, the names on that list are not secrets from Congress. They have been provided to Congress in a classified form. So the Presiding Officer and I can go into a secure SCIF, and we can read it in the SCIF. We can read the names.

You know what we are not allowed to do?

Tell anyone what the names are.

Why is it that those names are classified?

They are classified because President Biden and Vice President Harris don't want the American people to know who it is they are trying to release.

There is no reasonable justification for those names to be classified. They are extorting our friend and ally, Egypt, to get 16 people released from jail, and they refuse to tell us who.

The American people have a right to know if the Biden administration is trying to pressure our allies to release Muslim Brotherhood extremists; if the Biden administration is trying to get our allies to release anti-Semites; and, if they are, to hear a justification for why. But Ms. Leaf, instead, simply defies the Senate and refuses to answer.

Let's turn now to Israel.

During the Trump administration, there was a decision to stand shoulder to shoulder with Israel, which led to an historic flowering of peace across the region. The name and framework for those peace agreements was the Abraham Accords.

This was something that the Obama administration said would never happen and something, unfortunately, tragically, that they were actively hostile to. The Obama administration insisted that Israel would have to make massive concessions to the Palestinians on their sovereignty--on the security of Israel--before there could ever be peace deals between the Israelis and their Arab neighbors.

When asked whether there could ever be peace like the Abraham Accords without a prior deal with the Palestinians, then-Secretary of State John Kerry said: ``There will be no separate peace between Israel and the Arab world. . . . No, no, no, and no.''

No ambiguity to what they thought--they don't want peace without massive concessions from Israel to the Palestinians.

Well, turned out President Obama and Secretary Kerry were tragically wrong, as they were on so many issues, and President Trump demonstrated that to the world. And, sadly, President Biden and Vice President Harris have never forgiven our Israeli allies and our Arab allies for that--for demonstrating that with strong, resolute clarity from the United States' unequivocal support of Israel, that peace could be the result. That was an outcome anathema to the foreign policy objectives of the current administration. As a result, there are many in the Biden administration that are enormously, deeply, seethingly hostile to the Abraham Accords.

At the beginning of the Biden administration, the State Department even issued internal guidance prohibiting the use of the phrase ``Abraham Accords.'' Those words were verboten. You may not say those words. The instructions were instead to call them the ``normalization agreements.''

George Orwell is, no doubt, looking down from Heaven and smiling at the power of language to be redefined. There are no Abraham Accords. Now, they are normalization agreements.

Once again, the only reason that the public knows about this is because journalists revealed it. This time, it was the ``Washington Free Beacon,'' but the details have never been clarified.

After those public reports, the Biden administration was forced to at least partially reverse that policy. They insisted they fully support the accords that must never be named. But it is not clear how true or how broad that reversal has been.

On September 13, U.S. Ambassador to the U.N., Thomas-Greenfield, gave a speech about the Abraham Accords in which she stubbornly refused to utter the words ``Abraham Accords.'' Instead, following, apparently, the State Department guidance, she simply used the bland term ``normalization agreements.''

On October 13, Secretary Blinken met with Foreign Minister Lapid, and the spokesperson issued a formal readout from that meeting. Once again, the formal readout from the State Department carefully eschewed any mention of the Abraham Accords and used the bland term ``regional normalization efforts.''

This is conscious. This is deliberate. This is a pattern. It is a classic example of where congressional oversight is called for.

Madam President, many Senate Democrats claim to support the Abraham Accords. Now, I would note, I was at the White House for the signing of the Abraham Accords. Not a single Senate Democrat showed up for that historic peace agreement--none. Presumably because of partisan loathing of President Trump. But, nonetheless, congressional Democrats say they support the accords today. If that is true, we need to see congressional oversight.

So I asked Ms. Leaf for the specific guidance that was issued to the State Department. Give Congress--give the Senate--the written guidance prohibiting reference to the Abraham Accords. We know about it from public reports in the media. She and the State Department refused. They refused to provide that guidance to Congress. They refused to show it to the public. And, in doing it, it is not accidental.

She refuses to answer this question because they want to hide it from the American people, just like the names of the 16 prisoners they are demanding that Egypt release. Presumably, if the American people knew those names, knew the affiliations, knew the backgrounds, they would be outraged. Likewise, if the American people read the written guidance issued by this State Department, prohibiting uttering of the words ``Abraham Accords,'' then the charade so many Democrats try to play in supporting those accords would be that much harder to maintain.

A third example, turning to Iran, perhaps more than anything else, first and foremost, this administration wants to return to the catastrophic Obama-Biden-Iran nuclear deal and to dismantle meaningful sanctions against the theocratic regime in Iran. From the earliest hours of the administration, the effort began to do exactly that.

As part of that push, the administration has quietly, and sometimes secretly, reduced pressure on Iran and released frozen Iranian funds. But the Ayatollah wants to see just how much he can get, and he may not think that President Biden will ever do anything meaningful. If the United States isn't going to impose pressure on Iran, there is no reason for the Ayatollah to return to the deal at all. He doesn't need to take ``yes'' for an answer for a deal because he is getting everything anyway.

And so since very early in the administration, the Biden-Harris officials have contemplated what has been called a ``less for less'' agreement in which they would reduce some pressure on Iran for something less than full compliance. You will only nuke some of us.

Once again, we only know about the existence of these considerations from public reports. In February and again over the summer, Reuters reported on administration officials contemplating these deals, the so- called ``less for less'' deals. We here in Congress know a little more but not much.

Congress and the public deserve to know what is being contemplated to reduce pressure on the Iranian regime, the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism and a regime that seeks--and, I believe, may well be willing--to use nuclear weapons to murder millions of Americans and millions of our allies.

I believe that if the Ayatollah had the ability to murder millions of Americans or millions of Israelis in the blink of an eye, the odds are far too high that this theocratic zealot, who glories in death and suicide, would be willing to do so.

And so I asked Ms. Leaf for the details of such agreements. Here is what she said in response:

There have been no such arrangements, deals, or agreements

contemplated to reduce pressure on Iran.

That statement is false. It is categorically, directly, unequivocally false. It is false testimony in writing to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Ms. Leaf knows it is false, and the State Department handlers who transmitted her written answer to the Senate know that it is false.

What is the Biden administration trying to hide? What deep details don't they want us to know?

This isn't just about policy disagreements, although I disagree vehemently with many of this administration's policies. I understand some people, some Democrats, will disagree. But even more fundamentally, this is about transparency and oversight. On that, there should be no disagreement.

And these questions are ones that go to the very core of this administration's Middle East foreign policy and of American national security. What extremists are President Biden and Vice President Harris trying to empower? Whom do they view as allies worth supporting in the region? What deals are being contemplated with the Iranian regime?

I asked Ms. Leaf for these details. She has, after all, been working right in the center of Middle East issues for this administration. She and the Biden-Harris administration are refusing to answer. The public has a right to know.

Let me also point out that President Biden, in recent days, said publicly that if Iran enters into a new nuclear deal, the United States would stay bound by it in perpetuity as long as Iran didn't renege on that deal. I want to be absolutely clear on something: President Biden has zero constitutional authority to make that commitment.

The Ayatollah in Iran could be forgiven for misunderstanding that. The Ayatollah, after all, is a total dictator with the ability to line up anyone who disagrees and execute them on the spot. But, thankfully, the President of the United States does not enjoy such dictatorial powers.

Under our Constitution, there are two ways, and two ways only, that a President can make a binding commitment on the United States of America. The first is through passing a law that passes the Senate, passes the House, and is signed into law by the President. If President Biden wishes to do so with any Iran deal, he is welcome to do so.

The second and the way, traditionally, that foreign policies agreements are handled is through a treaty--a treaty that is submitted to the Senate and ratified by two-thirds of the Senate. The chances that the Biden-Harris whatever disastrous nuclear deal they work out with Iran, the chances that that would be ratified by two-thirds of the Senate I can quantify exactly. There is 0.00 percent.

President Biden knows that. He knows that because the Senate has been unequivocal that this deal is disastrous and harmful for American national security, harmful for Israel, and harmful for our allies. And so, instead, President Biden makes an empty promise that he cannot commit.

In that, he is following in the footsteps of President Obama. President Obama made a similar promise, and President Obama knew it was a lie when he said it, and President Biden knows it is a lie when he says it.

History demonstrated that President Obama told a falsehood because the next Republican President, Donald J. Trump, ripped the Obama-Iran deal to shreds and withdrew from the deal, which was the right decision. I urged President Trump to do that.

Our allies and our enemies should mark my words on this: Regardless of whatever empty promises President Biden makes, he lacks constitutional authority to bind a subsequent administration. And I believe it is 100 percent certain that the next Republican President who is sworn into office will once again rip to shreds any disastrous deal negotiated with the Ayatollah and Iran.

So President Biden has 3 more years to try to give away the store, to try to send billions of dollars, perhaps on pallets in the dead of night like Barack Obama did, to fund theocratic terrorists who want to murder Americans and murder Israelis. But the Ayatollah needs to know, Europe needs to know, our friends need to know, our enemies need to know that President Biden's promises are empty words that will expire the instant his Presidency is over.

We don't have a dictator in this country. We have a constitutional republic. If President Biden wants to bind subsequent administrations, he can negotiate a treaty, submit a treaty to the Senate, and get it ratified. But he doesn't have the votes, and so instead he makes empty promises.

If President Biden and Vice President Harris were proud of the policies they are pursuing in the Middle East, they would give the American people the list of the 16 prisoners they are trying to force Egypt to release.

We know that multiple of the names Senate Democrats have put in the appropriations language are affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood. We know one is an anti-Semitic hate preacher. And we suspect that the administration knows full well that if it released those names, it couldn't defend them to the American people. It is counting on darkness and secrecy to hide their conduct.

I believe the Senate--both Republicans and Democrats--have an obligation to the American people to shine a light. If you are going to extort our allies to release prisoners, tell us now: Are they affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood? Are they anti-Semites? Are they a national security threat to the United States or our allies? The American people deserve to know.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise to speak for the generations of Americans who this body is irresponsibly drowning in debt.

Now, to be clear, debt is a bipartisan problem. Debt is a problem both parties bear substantial responsibility for.

To understand just how true that is, we need look back just 21 years. In the year 2000, when this century began, our national debt stood at roughly $5 trillion.

Mr. President, I want you to pause and think about that. The year 2000 wasn't that long ago. Five trillion dollars is the total amount we owed.

In 2001, George W. Bush became President. During the 8 years of Bush's Presidency, the debt doubled from $5 trillion to $10 trillion. My party bears a significant degree of responsibility for that growth.

Then in 2008, Barack Obama was elected President; and over the next 8 years, the debt doubled again, from $10 trillion to $20 trillion.

I want you to pause and reflect on that. The $5 trillion debt that we started the 21st century with had been accumulated by 42 Presidents over two centuries; and then two Presidents, over 16 years, one a Republican and one a Democrat, took our debt and increased it by 300 percent, quadrupled the Nation's debt in 16 years.

As we stand here today in 2021, some 9 months into the Joe Biden Presidency, the debt is roughly $29 trillion.

My home State, the great State of Texas, has roughly 29 million residents. That means the national debt is $1 million for every man, woman, and child in the State of Texas. That is reckless and irresponsible.

Now, my Democratic colleagues point out that Republicans spent too much during the Trump Presidency. I agree. Much of that spending I voted against. And I would note last year was an extraordinary year with a pandemic unlike anything any of us have ever seen in our lives. I wish Republicans had been better at exercising fiscal responsibility when we had control of the White House and both houses of Congress.

The unfortunate reality in this body, though, is that when you have a multitrillion-dollar spending bill, you can usually count on the votes of every single Democrat and about half the Republicans. So on spending bill after spending bill, we see 75 to 80 Senators coming together-- usually all the Democrats and half the Republicans.

And there are about 20 of us who try to say: Why are we bankrupting our kids and grandkids? Why are we digging the hole deeper and deeper and deeper?

But that is--at least right now--a minority view in this body.

But the fact that my party bears significant responsibility for the debt we have today is not to draw an equivalency between what has happened in the past and what is happening right now, because, Mr. President, what Senate Democrats, what House Democrats, and what President Biden are doing now has no precedence in our Nation's history. It is an order of magnitude different. Senate Democrats, House Democrats, and President Biden, if the spending proposals they have put forth pass, within a 12-month period, they will have spent $9.5 trillion.

One of the problems people have at home is understanding big numbers. A million, a billion, a trillion--they have all got an ``illion'' in them. It is hard to tell the difference. That just sounds like a lot of money.

Well, let's put $9.5 trillion in context: $9.5 trillion is more than twice what the United States spent to win World War II. The entire course of the war, it cost us less than half of that to save the free world and defeat the Nazis. And Washington Democrats are trying to spend that in 12 months. It is wildly irresponsible. It is reckless.

They are trying to accompany that with trillions of dollars of new taxes. If the Democrats get their way, every tax you can think of is going up. Individual income tax is going up. Corporate taxes are going up. Small business taxes are going up. Capital gains taxes are going up. The death tax is going up. Farmers are paying more in taxes. Ranchers are paying more in taxes. Small businesses are paying more in taxes. Working families are paying more in taxes.

Joe Biden campaigned promising no one who makes $400,000 a year or less will see their taxes go up. That statement was a flat-out falsehood.

And, by the way, look, I recognize Joe Biden and I are of a different party, so maybe you are inclined not to credit me with my assessment of the truth or falsity of President Biden's promise.

Well, if you don't take my word for it, take the Joint Committee on Taxation's word for it, that analyzed the Democrats' tax program and found, for roughly 80 percent of Americans, taxes either stay the same or go up; that it is cutting taxes for a very small portion of Americans. It is raising taxes on people with incomes as low as $40,000 a year.

By the way, it is also worth noting part of the Democratic talking points is that the deficit is driven by the 2017 tax cuts. Those are good partisan talking points. Those will get a round of applause in any Democratic gathering. Although I say that, with all candor, Mr. President, I haven't been to many Democratic gatherings, but I feel confident that is accurate; that Democrats like: ``Yes, too many tax cuts.''

Before you are inclined just to believe that political rhetoric, however, you might at least pause to look at the facts, to look at the numbers. And the facts and numbers show that, after we passed the 2017 tax cuts, cutting taxes on working families across this country, that we saw record prosperity; we saw the lowest unemployment in 50 years; we saw the lowest African American unemployment ever recorded; we saw the lowest Hispanic unemployment ever recorded; and we saw Federal tax revenues go up.

So the next time you hear a Democrat say the debt comes from the tax cut, it just ain't so. The next year, the Treasury got more money in taxes than it had the year before. So the Democratic narrative about tax cuts driving the debt is--to borrow a term from the current President--malarkey.

The debt that we are facing as a result of this wild spending spree is going up and up and up, and one of the consequences of that spending and that debt is we are seeing an inflation bomb going off in this country.

Now, for younger Americans, inflation may not sound very real. Inflation is not something we have lived with in recent times. We have been in this sort of weird holiday from economic history with inflation being very, very low.

Mr. President, you and I are both old enough to remember the 1970s. We are both old enough to remember double-digit inflation, 21-percent interest rates.

Inflation is a cruel tax, and it is a tax on everybody, but it is particularly cruel on the most vulnerable.

You know who gets hammered with inflation? Senior citizens, seniors who spent their whole lives saving. And they suddenly see the values of their savings going down and down and down because Washington politicians are devaluing their money--seniors who are on a fixed income get the same amount of money each month, but suddenly the cost of everything goes up.

Right now, today, all across this country--in Texas, in Virginia, and in every other State--prices are going up. The cost of gasoline has skyrocketed as a direct result of Joe Biden and the Democrats' policies. The cost of food is going up. The cost of rent is going up. The cost of lumber is going up. The cost of homes is going up.

According to the chief economist at Moody's Analytics, for households earning the U.S. median annual income, which is about $70,000 a year, the current inflation rate has forced them to spend another $175 a month in food and fuel and housing. That works out to $2,100 a year.

So each month, if your family is at the median income level in the United States, the Democrat inflation tax is about 175 bucks a month. And that is before their massive tax rates kick in, and that is before this body passes the Bernie Sanders socialist budget.

It is worth noting just how radical these Democrats are. President Biden is in the White House; that is true. But in the Senate, Senate Democrats have the slimmest majority possible. This is a 50-50 body. It is only by virtue of the Vice President's tie-breaking vote that they have any majority at all. Yet Democrats have interpreted this incredibly close election as a mandate to radically transform this country.

Joe Biden didn't campaign on that. Joe Biden campaigned as a nice, happy, centrist moderate. No more mean tweets. Nothing to scare you at home. We are just going to return to the halcyon days of yesteryear.

Five years ago--well, let's go back even further than that. Nine years ago, Mr. President, when you and I were both elected to the Senate--we arrived here the exact same time. Nine years ago, there was exactly one socialist in this body that admitted he was a socialist. That was Bernie Sanders.

If you asked Senator Sanders, he would say: I am a socialist. I am not a Democrat. I am running as a socialist.

And most of the Democrats in this body would say: No, no, no. That is not me. I am not a socialist like him.

That was a fringe view. Even in the 2020 election, Joe Biden, when he was running in a primary against Bernie Sanders, said: No, no, no. I am not a socialist.

Well, today, Bernie Sanders is the chairman of the Budget Committee. We are in the midst of debating, passing, the Bernie Sanders socialist budget--$5.5 trillion. That is radical. That is extreme. And I think our Democratic colleagues are too scared of the left flank in their own party to dare stand up to it.

Now, in addition to the reckless spending, to the reckless taxes they are trying to ram through, to the massive debt they are trying to ram through, we also have a radical agenda across the country, including on our southern border, where we are facing a crisis on our southern border. Over 2 million people are expected to cross illegally this year. The highest rate of illegal immigration in 21 years, and congressional Democrats refuse to do anything about it.

Joe Biden and Kamala Harris have handed the agenda over to the open- border radicals, and we are seeing a public health crisis; we are seeing a national security crisis; we are seeing a humanitarian crisis as a result.

As bad as the economic and domestic policy has been, the foreign policy has been even worse, including the greatest national security disaster and foreign policy disaster in a generation--the utterly incompetent and calamitous surrender in Afghanistan.

All of that extreme agenda is being pushed by Joe Biden and Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi, which brings us to our present crisis, the debt ceiling crisis.

Our national debt is roughly $29 trillion. Yet Democrats want to add trillions more to that. How many trillions? We don't know. They are battling within their conference just how many trillions more with which to saddle this country, but it is going to be a lot.

But do you know the curious thing? This crisis is 100 percent manufactured by Democrats. Why is that? Because for the entirety of this Congress, Democrats have had complete, 100-percent power to raise the debt ceiling anytime they have wanted.

How is that? Well, ordinarily, in this body, the way legislation moves, it needs 60 votes to move. It is called the legislative filibuster. But there is an exception to that, and it is a big exception. It is called budget reconciliation. It comes from the Budget Act of 1974. Under budget reconciliation, you only need 50 votes, not 60 votes. It is the biggest exception that exists to the filibuster rule.

Democrats, unfortunately, have 50 votes in this body. They have a majority in the House, and they have the White House. That means Democrats, using budget reconciliation--and it is clear, by the way, that you can raise the debt ceiling by using budget reconciliation-- could have raised the debt ceiling in January. They didn't. They could have raised the debt ceiling in February. They didn't. They could have raised it in March or April or May or June, July, August, September. They didn't. We are in October. Democrats could have raised the debt ceiling today. They didn't. They could have done it with only Democratic votes, and there would not have been a single thing Republicans could have done to stop them. They know that. They don't dispute that.

So why are we facing a crisis? If, for 10 months, Democrats could have done this anytime they had wanted, why didn't they? Well, it is because there are at least some Democrats who realize that drowning the Nation in debt

and spending and taxes is not popular back home. The voters don't like it.

So, instead, Majority Leader Schumer has not once, not twice, but three times tried to move a legislative vehicle to raise the debt ceiling that requires 60 votes. He didn't have to do it. He could have done it using reconciliation and using only Democratic votes. He had the total power to do that, but he didn't want to do that. He wanted to use it--to move it forward in a way that required at least 10 Republicans to join with him. Why? There is one and only one reason for this. I would challenge any Senate Democrats to ask Majority Leader Schumer if there is any other reason he proffered for not doing what he could have done at any time, day or night. The only reason is to obscure accountability. The only reason is to blame some of that debt on Republicans so that Senate Democrats could claim: Hey, both parties did it.

What the Democrats are doing right now is unprecedented. It is radical. They know it, and they are scared of it. So what are we seeing instead? We are seeing Chuck Schumer tell the American people: We are on the verge of a default. We are seeing Joe Biden threaten that the United States will default on our debt. We are seeing the Treasury Secretary threaten that the United States will default on our debt. Joe Biden's threats to default on the debt are wildly reckless and irresponsible.

Let me be clear so that no one is confused: The United States should never, ever, ever default on our debt--period. All 100 Senators in this Chamber agree with that. There is not a single Senator in either party who believes the United States should default on our debt.

Why does Joe Biden go on national television and threaten to default on the debt when he could have raised the debt ceiling anytime he wanted? Because he is playing a game of political brinksmanship, threatening a calamitous result on the American economy because he wants to browbeat Republicans into serving as a smokescreen to help hide the responsibility Democrats pay for their massive spending and debt.

I have got to say, for the last several months, I was proud of my party. The Republicans were united. We were standing together. We were standing as one. And every single Republican--all 50 Republicans were telling anyone who would listen: We will not participate in raising the debt ceiling. If the Democrats are going to raise trillions in spending, they need to raise the debt ceiling and own the debt that their reckless spending is producing. Our party was completely united.

The Republican leader and I--and he and I have had significant disagreements over the years, but on this question, we were in exactly the same place. We were saying exactly the same thing. Our conference has a wide range of views from conservatives to moderates to libertarians. All 50 of us were on the same page. The Democrats have the power to raise the debt ceiling on their own. They are engaged in wildly reckless spending, and if they are going to do that, they need to be the ones to vote for this debt.

We were united for 2 months. Indeed, 46 of us signed a letter to Chuck Schumer, I think 2 months ago, making clear what our position was. I helped write that letter. It was not a fringe position of a couple of members of the conference; we got 46 out of 50 Republican Senators to sign it. So Schumer knew. Pelosi knew. Biden knew. But they chose to engage in reckless brinksmanship.

Now, I believe the end result of this game of chicken was clear: that Democratic Leader Schumer was on a path to surrender. He was on a path to doing what he should have done a week ago or 2 weeks ago or 3 weeks ago or a month ago or 2 months ago, which is moving a reconciliation bill and raising the debt ceiling.

I can tell you there were Democratic Senators--multiple Democratic Senators--coming to me and coming to the other members of my party, saying: OK. How much time would it take to move a reconciliation bill? Can we get it done in time for the October 18 date that the Treasury Secretary has laid out?

To a person, Republicans answered: Yes, there is plenty of time, under the rules of reconciliation, to move forward. There is no barrier. You have all the time you need.

I believe Democratic Leader Schumer was on the verge of surrendering, and then unfortunately, yesterday, Republicans blinked. I think that was a mistake. I think that was the wrong decision.

Now, I will tell you, the reason Republican leadership made that decision to blink was because Senate Democrats threatened to nuke the filibuster, to eliminate the filibuster. I don't know if that threat was real. I don't know if they would have carried through on it or not. But I understand why Republican leadership blinked. Ending the filibuster would enable the Democrats to pass an even more radical agenda than the one they are doing right now. It would enable the Democrats to pass things that would profoundly alter this Nation, perhaps irreparably. So I understand why Republican leadership blinked, but I wish they had not. I wish they had not because I believe we were on the verge of victory.

The American people agreed with us. The Democratic position, on its face, was objectively unreasonable. Here is the Democratic position: We have complete power to raise the debt ceiling anytime we want, but the only way we will do it is if Republicans do it with us. Otherwise, we will default on the debt.

Even the Capitol Hill press corps--and, Mr. President, in your quieter moments, you will admit it leans very far left--even the Capitol Hill press corps knew that was ridiculous.

So unfortunately, yesterday, we were on the verge of victory, but we turned that victory into defeat.

Now, let's be clear what the order of magnitude of this defeat is. We are soon going to vote on moving to take up the debt ceiling. The political games played by Democratic Leader Schumer may have prevailed in the short term by cajoling 10 or more Republicans to vote with the Democrats to allow a vote on the debt ceiling. I hope that doesn't happen. I hope we defeat that vote. I am certainly going to vote no, and I am urging my colleagues to vote no. But if 60 or more Senators vote to take up the vote, then we will see a clear divide. On the debt ceiling, all 50 Republicans will vote no. On the debt ceiling, all 50 Democrats will vote yes. We will see a clear divide. I wish it had happened without the political games, without the political theater, that Democratic leadership played.

One of the reasons I think it was a mistake for Republican leadership to give in to the demands, to the hostage-taking, to the political terrorism of the other side, is that it significantly hurts the credibility of the Republican conference. The Democratic leader is no doubt telling every Democratic Senator: You see, they won't hold their ground. They will give in. All we have to do is stand strong, and they won't stand and fight against us.

Now, I hope that proves nothing more than hot air. I hope that proves a bad estimation of what Republican Senators will do. I can tell you this conference remains absolutely united that the Bernie Sanders' socialist budget of $5.5 trillion, with trillions in taxes, is wildly and recklessly irresponsible and would do massive damage to this country. I hope and believe we will stay united on that. But we could have stayed united on the debt ceiling as well. We could have stayed united in making clear that the Democrats had every ability to do this on their own, but sometimes in a poker game, a bluff wins the pot. In this case, to mix my metaphors, which would make my high school English teacher very angry, in the game of chicken, Chuck Schumer won this game of chicken. As two trucks drove toward each other on a country road, one or the other was going to turn or you were going to have a lot of dead chickens.

I wish Republicans had not blinked. We shouldn't have done that, but the strategic mistake by our leadership should not distract from the fundamental divide in this body.

I don't know why it is the Democratic Senators look at this last election--an unbelievably close election--and conclude that there is no need for bipartisanship in the Senate, that their mandate is to ram through a radical and socialist agenda.

And let me be clear by the way: The first major bill the Democrats took up was a $1.9 trillion spending bill, a so-

called COVID relief bill. I say so-called COVID relief because only 9 percent of the bill was healthcare spending on COVID. It was a liberal wish list, paying off special interests that support the Democrats.

You know, Mr. President, you and I were both at Joe Biden's inauguration. We sat on the steps of the Capitol. We heard President Biden give what I thought was a pretty good speech; a speech about unity, a speech about coming together, a speech about healing.

Sadly, that speech didn't even last the time it took for the words to be transmitted over the airways to the people listening at home.

It would have been easy for President Biden and Democrats to pass a bipartisan COVID relief bill--easy. There were Republicans eager to do so. And to show that that is not just empty posturing, that that is not just partisan language, last year, when we had a Republican majority in the Senate, we passed bipartisan COVID relief bills not once, not twice, not three times, not four times--five times. Five times.

When Republicans had the majority, we didn't ram through COVID relief bills that were hard partisan bills, but, instead, we worked together with the other side.

When Joe Biden, who promised healing and unity, the first big bill he had, he made a choice: Do I want to honor what I said, or do I want to give into the angry socialist left?

And he rammed through a bill--a $1.9 trillion spending bill--that in the House of Representatives got zero Republican votes, and in the Senate got zero Republican votes.

And I have got to tell you, Senate Democrats didn't want a Republican vote. There wasn't even a minute of discussion of negotiation. There wasn't an attempt to make it bipartisan. It was: We have the power by the narrowest, narrowest margin, and we are going to abuse that power.

And, sadly, it hasn't changed. It has continued.

This Bernie Sanders, socialist budget--$5.5 trillion--is reckless and partisan, and it will get zero Republican votes in the House, it will get zero Republican votes in the Senate--because the Democrats believe they have a short window to fundamentally transform this Nation and to destroy the free market system that has produced the greatest prosperity this Nation has ever seen.

This is tragic, and I, for one, will continue doing everything humanly possible to lead the fight to stop this radical agenda that threatens the lives, the safety, the security, the liberties, the constitutional rights, and the financial future of 29 million Texans.

Bankrupting our kids and grandkids is serious business, and the political games from the Democrats are meant to distract from that.

And let me note, finally, there is legislation I have supported all 9 years I have served in this body. It is legislation introduced by the Senator from Pennsylvania, Senator Toomey, called the Full Faith and Credit Act, although I actually prefer a different name for it.

The name I prefer is the default prevention act. It is legislation that says, in the event the credit limit is not raised, the United States will never ever, ever default on the debt; that even without the credit limit being raised, there are tax revenues coming in every month.

So the default prevention act makes clear we will prioritize those tax revenues to interest on the debt, to paying our Active Duty military, and to Social Security and Medicare.

Government by crisis would end, or at least be substantially mitigated, if we pass the default prevention act.

Earlier today, I was on a radio program--Sean Hannity's radio program, where he played an interesting clip of Democrats all talking about debt ceiling denial or default denial.

And I would commend the other party. One of the things the Democrats do really well is message discipline. When they come up with talking points, it is remarkable. Every Democrat in these United States of America, from Joe Biden down to the county dog catcher, they repeat the exact same words.

So Sean Hannity played a whole series of just clips of Democrats using the identical talking points: Debt ceiling denial, default denial.

You know who is in denial is the Democrats. They are in denial that the debt ceiling exists. They are in denial of the $29 trillion that is bankrupting our kids and grandkids.

And they like these crises. Why do I know they like these crises? Because they don't want to pass the default prevention act.

If the Democratic Senators who give speeches about how bad a default would be, if they actually believed that, we could come together today and we could ensure the citizens of Texas, the citizens of Virginia, the citizens of Utah that there will never ever, ever, ever be a default of our debt.

But if we did that, it would mean that Senator Schumer and Nancy Pelosi and President Biden couldn't engage in the kind of theatrics, the kind of reckless brinksmanship that we have seen over the last several weeks. That would jeopardize their radical agenda.

I hope and pray that this body, the Senate, serves as the last bulwark to stop the radical socialist agenda that Washington Democrats are trying to ram through.

I yield the floor.