[Congressional Record Volume 168, Number 9 (Thursday, January 13, 2022)]
[Senate]
[Pages S213-S218]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROTECTING EUROPE'S ENERGY SECURITY IMPLEMENTATION ACT--Continued
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
S. 3436
Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, in a few minutes, the Senate is going to
take a vote of incalculable importance to our national security, to the
future of our allies in Europe, and to the very existence of the nation
of Ukraine.
Right now, Vladimir Putin has assembled over 100,000 troops on the
border of Ukraine. More troops and more
[[Page S214]]
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.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Van Hollen). The Senator from Idaho.
Mr. RISCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed
to speak for up to 5 minutes, followed by Senator Menendez to speak for
up to 10 minutes, before the scheduled rollcall vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. MENENDEZ. Reserving the right to object, I am sorry, I didn't
hear the unanimous consent request.
Mr. RISCH. I think it was just a minute or 2 for you and the rest for
me, Senator.
Mr. MENENDEZ. And I object to that.
Mr. RISCH. I would ask for 5 minutes for myself and 10 minutes for
yourself. Is that sufficient?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. RISCH. Mr. President, fellow citizens, I rise today to speak on
behalf of the Cruz-Risch Nord Stream 2 bill, which is designated as S.
3436. To start with, it is important to note that this bill has
language which is almost identical to the bipartisan language that was
contained in the House-passed National Defense Authorization Act. Both
bodies passed this language. It was, unfortunately, taken out in the
conference of that bill before it went to the White House. But now,
this language is back before us in this bill. And what it would do is
it would immediately sanction Nord Stream 2--Putin's premier energy
weapon against Europe and Ukraine, particularly.
The timing could not be more important. Ukraine stands on the brink
of invasion, and Europe is in the throes of an energy crisis created by
Russia. There is a reason Ukraine's President Zelensky tweeted an
urgent request in December for all friends of Ukraine and Europe in the
U.S. Senate to back these sanctions. That request is before us at this
moment.
We are now seeing the consequences of the administration's decision
to waive P.E.E.S.A. sanctions and the refusal to impose CAATSA
sanctions. Months ago, the administration set the stage for this mess
on Ukraine's border and emboldened Putin.
Russia has deliberately cut gas transmission to Europe through
Ukraine and is using high energy prices to pressure the European Union
into approving Nord Stream 2 as quickly as possible. Putin has publicly
stated that fact.
Meanwhile, Russian forces continue their buildup along the border
with Ukraine in preparation for what could be a full-scale invasion.
Clearly, the administration's efforts have failed to signal credibility
and resolve and have not deterred Putin from continuing along the path
to war.
U.S. diplomacy needs additional action, not just rhetoric, to stop a
Russian invasion. And these sanctions would provide that by putting
Congress in charge of waiver authority. A vote for these sanctions will
provide credibility to our threat, sending a strong message to Putin.
Remember, Nord Stream 2 is designed to replace Ukraine's gas transit
system, meaning Russia no longer has to worry about destroying its own
infrastructure in the event of a full-scale war. We must not allow
Putin's blackmail to succeed.
Nord Stream 2 has always been a bipartisan issue here in the Senate,
and it should continue to be. Not a single Member of Congress supports
the completion of this pipeline. I would like to think a similar number
of us feel we
[[Page S215]]
should not ignore our friends in Europe, particularly Central and
Eastern Europe, who stand to lose the most from Nord Stream 2.
Our bill would impose mandatory sanctions against Nord Stream 2 AG,
the company responsible for the project, as well as the companies
involved in testing and certifying the pipeline before it becomes
operational.
We do provide the administration with a pathway to lifting these
targeted sanctions, pending congressional review. This pathway is the
exact same process for congressional input that 98 Senators voted for
in CAATSA, just a few years ago. The time to act is now. I urge my
colleagues to vote in favor of this bill.
I yield the floor.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I rise today to condemn the enormous
Russian military buildup on the Ukrainian border, and the Kremlin's
reckless policies of coercion as it seeks to reimpose a new iron
curtain on the European continent. Moscow wants to secure an
unwarranted sphere of influence that would enable Russia to determine
by fiat the fate and the policies of other sovereign state--most
immediately in Ukraine, whose people and government desire further
integration into Europe and trans-Atlantic institutions
Make no mistake about it--the Putin regime's actions threaten not
only our friends in Ukraine. They are also an assault on the principles
of the Helsinki Final Act, the foundation of European security, which
today is enshrined in the Organization on Security and Cooperation in
Europe, the OSCE.
I want to commend President Biden and his very capable diplomatic
team for the sustained effort they have embarked upon to rally our
friends and allies--in NATO and the European Union and across the
OSCE--to present a united front against Vladimir Putin's mounting
aggression.
Russia has in recent months amassed over 100,000 troops and heavy
weaponry on Ukraine's borders, with many more poised to join them, and
have openly threatened war if its demands are not met. The Kremlin is
also waging a propaganda war preparation strategy for the Russian
people by broadcasting false claims that Ukraine poses a threat to
Russian interests and sovereignty.
At the barrel of a gun, the Kremlin has demanded not only that the
United States and NATO close its open doors to partners like Ukraine
and Georgia--a strategic nonstarter on its own--but also that the
Alliance security umbrella and even material security assistance be
retracted to pre-l997 borders, essentially reducing NATO to its
frontiers as of 1991.
In other words, Mr. Putin insists that the United States and its
Euro-Atlantic allies remove any means of securing or guaranteeing the
defense of sovereign states that happen to lie near Russia. Such
demands are outrageous, dangerous, and impossible to accept.
In this troubling time, acquiescence to Russian aggression is not an
option. I support this administration's approach to unite with our
European allies and categorically refuse to give into the Kremlin's
ruthless militarism. I also support negotiating in good faith to see if
we can find a realistic solution with respect to arms control,
confidence-building measures, and the like--while making it clear to
Mr. Putin that the freedom and sovereignty of Europe are not on the
table.
The diplomatic engagements that have taken place in Europe in recent
days, in several concentric circles, have demonstrated remarkable unity
among our allies, and have clarified for Russia the costs they would
incur in the event of any further aggression against Ukraine.
This is thanks to the Biden administration's sophisticated campaign
to reclaim American leadership in world affairs.
One hopes the Kremlin has heard the messages that we and our allies
have sent to Moscow. Under the looming shadow of Russian mass
mobilization and martial rhetoric, however, we should suffer no
illusions. Mr. Putin's goal is domination, and there is no room to give
on that score.
Unfortunately, we find ourselves here today on the floor of the
United States to consider a measure, which the Senator from Texas has
introduced, that threatens to undermine the American effort to mobilize
the Western world's coalition to stand up to Russia at this critical
moment. We are here to debate, yet again, how to deal with Nord Stream
2, the ill-conceived natural gas pipeline between Russia and Germany
that promises to weaken Ukraine's economic and security situation while
it strengthens Russia's leverage over Western Europe.
In the ll6th Congress, we voted to condemn and to sanction those
involved in this misbegotten enterprise--most importantly in the
Protecting Europe's Energy Security Act, ``PEESA'', enacted in January
2021. This law imposes strong sanctions on all those involved in the
construction and operation of the Nord Stream 2 Pipeline. As is
customary and appropriate, the Congress also gave the Executive the
authority to waive sanctions against individuals and entities when it
determined to do so would be in the national security interest of the
United States.
Last spring, the administration chose to exercise that walver.
I disagreed with that decision. I have said so many times and in many
contexts. I retain the hope that the pipeline will never begin
operations, as I believe it would do enormous damage--not just to
Ukraine--but also to Europe at large.
The administration is focused on working with Germany to implement
the July 21 Joint Statement of the United States and Germany on Support
for Ukraine, Energy Security, and Our Climate Goals, which includes
clear commitments to act if Russia attempts to use energy as a weapon
or commit further aggressive acts against Ukraine.
Let us be clear that the bill before us would not actually accomplish
what the Senator from Texas claims. It would not stop Nord Stream 2 any
more than existing law does. It would not protect Ukraine any more than
existing law and policy does. All this bill would do, essentially, is
create a 90-day recurring cycle of revisiting the administration's
exercise of the waiver authority we wrote into the law last year. And
then it would create the option for a vote on a resolution of
disapproval of that waiver.
At a time when we should be using our time and energy to address the
mounting threat to Ukraine posed by Russia's massive buildup along
their shared border, today's vote is an unnecessary distraction.
Therefore, I oppose S. 3436.
The Senate should be considering serious proposals to counter Russian
aggression. The chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee has
introduced a bill that is worthy of our time, attention, and support.
The Defending Ukraine Sovereignty Act is a serious effort to address
Russia's aggression toward Ukraine, which is why I am an original
cosponsor of this measure.
If the President affirmatively determines that Russia has engaged in
a renewed invasion or escalation of hostilities, the Defending Ukraine
Sovereignty Act triggers a cascade of mandatory sanctions on Russia's
political and military leadership, financial institutions, extractive
industries--and Nord Stream 2.
As chairman of the U.S. Helsinki Commission and a senior member of
the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, I am especially mindful and
concerned about what Russia's actions and demands mean for European and
international security, as well as democracy and human rights.
It is no mistake that Mr. Putin's war drums have been accompanied by
a concerted regime effort to erase and rewrite the Soviet Union's cruel
history; including smothering the domestic human rights network
Memorial, which has so carefully and painstakingly chronicled the
Soviet Union's brutal human and social toll on the people of Russia and
the former Soviet Union.
Russia's intervention to suppress popular dissent and prop up the
authoritarian regime in Belarus tells a similar story. Its deployment
of troops just last week under the umbrella of the Collective Security
Treaty Organization, the CSTO, to quell public unrest in Kazakhstan--
the first time the Russian-controlled CSTO has intervened militarily in
a crisis in a member state--also serves to expand Russian influence in
the region. The CSTO deployment has raised concerns among
[[Page S216]]
some of the Kazakhstani public, which may help to explain why the
troops have started withdrawing today. The rapid deployment, however,
certainly makes the government of Kazakhstan more beholden to Russia.
It weakens Kazakhstan's often-touted ``multi-vector'' policy under
which it aims to balance its relations with Russia, China, and the
West.
The Putin regime has erected a corrupt police state at home, which it
aggressively exports for greater dominion.
A broader Russian invasion of Ukraine could easily lead to tens of
thousands of deaths and threaten tens of millions more. Preventing such
an outcome should be our paramount concern. Peace on Russia's stated
terms would consign millions of free peoples to the Kremlin's
authoritarian whims, and would shatter the fragile miracle of European
peace and prosperity.
I believe we must present a strong, determined, and unified response
that makes clear that Russian aggression will only further unify the
continent, and complicate the Kremlin's security anxieties.
At the same time, the United States is willing, with its partners and
allies, to work toward listening to the Kremlin's legitimate security
concerns. Here, too, is an opportunity to make use of the OSCE's
institutional powers to build consensus and lay the foundations for a
durable peace.
I ask my colleagues to join me in condemning Russia's military
buildup and aggressive posture in the region, and calling for Moscow to
de-escalate immediately and negotiate in good faith.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be
allowed to complete my remarks before the vote begins.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, this is a pivotal week for the security
of Ukraine. Talks are ongoing to test whether the Kremlin wants to
engage in diplomacy or is intent on war, to see if the United States
and our allies can pull Putin back from the brink. And if the headlines
are any indication this morning, it is clear that this is an open
question.
This is a critical time. There still may be a window to deter the
Kremlin from deciding to invade. But we must be clear and united about
what awaits Russia if it chooses the unwise path. We must send an
unequivocal message: that, should Putin invade, the consequences would
be devastating; that there would be steep costs to the economy and to
the people of Russia if he further tramples on Ukraine's territory and
independence.
That message should be sent through every channel, at every level,
including by this body. And we have a chance to do just that.
The Defending Ukraine Sovereignty Act, which has in just 2 short days
39 cosponsors already, is a comprehensive response to the threat facing
Ukraine. It would impose massive, crippling sanctions on multiple
sectors of Russia's economy. It would impose the harshest sanctions on
Putin and senior Kremlin officials themselves. It would effectively cut
Russia off from the international financial system. That is the
sanction that I helped devise that ultimately brought Iran, years ago,
to the negotiating table.
This act also makes clear that the United States will make every
effort to expedite security assistance and defense articles to help
support Ukraine. And it expands our efforts to counter Kremlin
aggression across the region. It says the United States will not stand
for this bullying. And it makes clear that Putin has a choice to make.
But we are not voting on that comprehensive response. We are not
voting on how severe the consequences should be if Putin goes down the
path of invasion. Instead, we are voting on whether to sanction Nord
Stream 2--as if that alone would deter Putin from reinvading, as if
that alone would stop him.
Instead, sanctioning Nord Stream now at this pivotal moment would
have the opposite effect of deterring Putin. It might even be the
excuse Putin is looking for. Right now, the one thing we know Putin
wants is for Nord Stream 2 to be operational.
Now, let's be clear. If we don't sanction Nord Stream now, that does
not mean the pipeline goes online. It does not mean that Putin get his
way. What it does mean is that there is leverage.
Right now, we have a new German Government that has blocked the
pipeline from moving forward. Right now, that German Government is a
productive partner with us on this critical issue. They are where we
need them to be--working to coerce Putin not to reinvade Ukraine;
making clear that if Putin advances into Ukraine, there will be no Nord
Stream; working with us to strengthen and support strong deterrence;
coordinating with us to enhance the impact of devastating sanctions, if
we need to pull that trigger. That is where we need the German
Government to be.
Sanctioning Nord Stream now, in the way that the Cruz bill would do,
would not just be a sanction on Nord Stream 2 AG. The bill would
sanction ``any corporate officer of an entity established for or
responsible for the planning, construction, or operation of the Nord
Stream 2 pipeline'' or a successor entity.
This broad scope would have a clear ripple effect on the entities,
many of them German, and individuals, many of them German citizens, who
work on the pipeline. That includes German companies involved in the
pipeline, industrial sites, rail operators, port operators, and any
entity associated with that deal.
So for an ally that is with us in this fight against Putin's
aggression, for an ally that is standing up with us when we need them
to be strong, this would be akin to a sanction on them. They have made
that clear to us. Now is not the time to take that step.
Again, the pipeline today is paused. They basically stopped the
regulatory process on it. At the earliest, it could be months before
anything happens, depending upon what Putin does--depending upon what
Putin does--and even if they allow it to move forward. Now is not the
time to take off the table a key piece of leverage.
I have to address some other points I have heard some of our
colleagues mention.
I listened to the Senator from Texas attempt to lay blame time and
time and time again at the feet of President Biden. He has tried to
blame President Biden for Nord Stream, and now he is trying to blame
him for Putin's illegitimate power-grabbing and military aggression. Do
you know what? I suggest he look back and review just how and when Nord
Stream came to be because it wasn't President Biden who could have
imposed sanctions back in 2017. It wasn't President Biden who did
nothing for years while 94 percent of the pipeline was being built. It
wasn't President Biden who waited until his last day in office to
impose sanctions on Nord Stream. There was someone else who could have
used his authority to put a stop to this malign influence project but
didn't. There was someone else who could have made the Kremlin's
weaponization of energy a priority but didn't.
The Senator already knows this, but how can I be so sure? Because he
said so at the time. In December of 2019, he said:
I want this to be very clear, if the pipeline is completed,
it will be the fault of the members of this [Trump]
administration who sat on their rear ends and didn't exercise
the clear power.
The fault of the Trump administration--his words--but now, magically,
it is President Biden's fault. Please. A pipeline that was 94 percent
complete by January of 2021--to me, that is a Trump-Putin pipeline.
It may be convenient to say that work on the pipeline stopped until
Biden became President, but that is just not the case. In fact, work
stopped on the pipeline for 6 months--6 months--from December of 2019
until the spring of 2020, because a company backed out of the project.
But did Russia stop? No. It was working furiously to finish the job by
retrofitting ships that could complete the pipeline. The moment that
was done, the moment the ships were ready, pipeline construction
started again.
A retrofitted Russian ship, the Cherskiy, showed up in Germany in May
of 2020, awaiting a permit by Danish authorities. The permit was
approved in October of 2020. The fact that it received a permit was
sanctionable
[[Page S217]]
by the then Trump administration. The Trump administration failed to
act.
On December 11, Nord Stream 2 AG said that the Fortuna resumed
offshore construction activities in shallow German waters. Nord Stream
2 AG was not waiting for Biden to be in office; it was acting. The
Trump administration could and should have imposed sanctions under
CAATSA at that point. As a matter of fact, it didn't need CAATSA; it
had IEEPA sanctions it could have imposed and chose not to.
Now, look, my position on Nord Stream has been clear. I have been and
remain strongly opposed to the pipeline. I supported sanction measures
on the project when they could have had an impact during the Trump
administration, before hundreds of miles of pipe had been completed.
And President Trump had those tools. He had them. We passed them
overwhelmingly, and then we gave him more tools and more sanctions.
What did he do? Nothing. Not until his last day in office did he impose
sanctions on Nord Stream--his very last day. So let's stop with the
games. By the time the Biden administration took office, the pipeline
was 94 percent complete--94 percent.
Senator Cruz wants to stop the pipeline, and so do I, but it is far
from clear that sanctions at this point, when the pipeline is already
built, will do just that. In fact, it isn't clear to me at all that the
Senator's proposal would even change the status quo. Instead, it would
most certainly tie up this body and this floor so that we would be
voting time and time again on resolutions of disapproval related to
Nord Stream.
Now, of course, I get it. I get it. I understand why the Senator
would rather tie up this floor and hamstring the President's agenda
instead of voting on nominees or voting rights or Build Back Better or
judges or a whole host of other critical elements before the country.
But that is the reality of the Senator's proposal.
So I ask my colleagues, what is the urgent threat that needs
addressing? Is it attempting to score political points and tie this
President's hands intentionally and internationally or is it addressing
the very real and potentially imminent threat amassing along Ukraine's
border?
I believe we need to address the real threat and the whole threat
facing Ukraine and the region, and that is why I drafted the Defending
Ukraine Sovereignty Act.
I have stood up for and alongside Ukraine time and time again in the
face of Ukraine's aggression. In 2014, I was in Ukraine right after
Russia's invasion took place. After Russia's illegal occupation of
Crimea, I drafted the Ukraine Freedom Support Act, which passed into
law, to impose sanctions on Russia and increase support for Ukraine. In
2016, I introduced the STAND for Ukraine Act to help restore Ukraine
sovereignty and territorial integrity in the face of Kremlin
aggression.
I will continue to ensure that the United States does all it can to
help Ukraine defend itself against Putin's bullying, to provide the
assistance it needs, to support its integrity, and to bolster its
security in the region, and I urge this body to do just that.
Finally, Senator Cruz would like to suggest that partisan loyalty is
why we believe his approach at this time is wrong. What is wrong is to
break the coalition we now have against Putin at one of the most
critical times of Ukraine's history. Germany is a critical part with us
and ally with us to deter Putin. If you end Nord Stream today--not that
this legislation would--one less reason for Putin to say: Well, that is
gone. Why shouldn't I invade anyhow?
I urge my colleagues to address the actual imminent threat amassing
along Ukraine's border, to make clear to Putin what the massive cost of
his actions will be. We might still be able to turn Putin back, but we
must be laser-focused on what it will take to get him from taking one
more step towards Ukraine's border.
I urge my colleagues to actually address the threat at hand, one that
extends far beyond a pipeline but threatens an entire country's borders
and the security of a region. It is a threat that demands a
comprehensive, resounding response. That is what we will be offering in
short order.
So I urge my colleagues to vote no on this approach, to make sure we
keep the unity that is essential at this time to deter Putin, and to
work with me to make sure that this body sends the united, strong
message to deter Putin, stand with our allies, and support Ukraine.
I urge a ``no'' vote on the Cruz legislation.
I yield the floor.
Vote on S. 3436
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, all time is expired.
The clerk will read the title of the bill for the third time.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading and was read
the third time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill having been read the third time, the
question is, Shall the bill pass?
Mr. MENENDEZ. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
(Ms. CORTEZ MASTO assumed the Chair.)
(Mr. WARNOCK assumed the Chair.)
(Mr. KAINE assumed the Chair.)
(Mr. OSSOFF assumed the Chair.)
(Ms. KLOBUCHAR assumed the Chair.)
(Mr. OSSOFF assumed the Chair.)
(Mr. CARDIN assumed the Chair.)
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Schatz) is
necessarily absent.
The result was announced--yeas 55, nays 44, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 8 Leg.]
YEAS--55
Baldwin
Barrasso
Blackburn
Blunt
Boozman
Braun
Burr
Capito
Cassidy
Collins
Cornyn
Cortez Masto
Cotton
Cramer
Crapo
Cruz
Daines
Ernst
Fischer
Graham
Grassley
Hagerty
Hassan
Hawley
Hoeven
Hyde-Smith
Inhofe
Johnson
Kelly
Kennedy
Lankford
Lee
Lummis
Marshall
McConnell
Moran
Murkowski
Portman
Risch
Romney
Rosen
Rounds
Rubio
Sasse
Scott (FL)
Scott (SC)
Shelby
Sullivan
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Tuberville
Warnock
Wicker
Young
NAYS--44
Bennet
Blumenthal
Booker
Brown
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Coons
Duckworth
Durbin
Feinstein
Gillibrand
Heinrich
Hickenlooper
Hirono
Kaine
King
Klobuchar
Leahy
Lujan
Manchin
Markey
Menendez
Merkley
Murphy
Murray
Ossoff
Padilla
Paul
Peters
Reed
Sanders
Schumer
Shaheen
Sinema
Smith
Stabenow
Tester
Van Hollen
Warner
Warren
Whitehouse
Wyden
NOT VOTING--1
Schatz
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Ossoff). On this vote, the yeas are 55,
the nays are 44.
The 60-vote threshold having not been achieved, the bill does not
pass.
The bill (S. 3436) was rejected.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
Order of Procedure
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I have a short announcement about the
schedule.
Due to the circumstances regarding COVID and another potentially
hazardous winter storm approaching the DC area this weekend, the Senate
will adjourn tonight. However, we will be postponing recess so the
Senate can vote on voting rights. We will return on Tuesday to take up
the House-passed message containing voting rights legislation.
Make no mistake, the U.S. Senate will, for the first time this
Congress, debate voting rights legislation beginning on Tuesday.
Members of this Chamber were elected to debate and to vote,
particularly on an issue as vital to the beating heart of our democracy
as this one, and we will proceed.
If the Senate Republicans choose obstruction over protecting the
sacred right to vote, as we expect them to, the Senate will consider
and vote on changing the Senate rules, as has been done many times
before, to allow for the passage of voting rights legislation.
I will close with this: If the right to vote is the cornerstone of
our democracy, then how can we, in good conscience, allow for a
situation in which the Republican Party can debate and
[[Page S218]]
pass voter suppression laws at the State level with only a simple
majority vote but not allow the U.S. Senate to do the same?
In the coming days, we will confront this sobering question, and
every Member will go on record.
Finally, Members should expect that the next State work period would
begin on the week of January 24.
Nord Stream 2
Mr. President, now on Nord Stream, a few minutes ago the Senate voted
against passing legislation proposed by Senator Cruz to address Nord
Stream 2.
Probably every single one of us in this Chamber agrees that the
United States must be strong in confronting Putin and his destabilizing
tactics in Eastern Europe and in Ukraine. But as my colleagues made
clear this morning, Senator Cruz's bill, in our opinion, is the wrong
answer at this time to deter President Putin's aggression. I commend my
colleagues who came to the floor to make the case against today's
misguided proposal: my friends Chairman Menendez, Senator Shaheen, who
cochairs the Senate's NATO Observer Group, and Senator Murphy.
After today's vote, this issue is not behind us. The work is not
done. President Putin remains a threat, and we must address this
matter.
I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to work with Chairman
Menendez and Chairman Brown to support Chairman Menendez's
comprehensive sanctions, security, and humanitarian aid package.
I believe the Menendez bill is the answer and an important step in
the right direction. But, of course, I am willing to consider
reasonable additions and modifications.
From interfering in elections to conducting a plethora of cyber
attacks that target us here in the homeland, to what is happening today
on the border of Ukraine, President Putin has left no doubt of his
desire to stir up instability. His action with respect to Ukraine calls
for a robust and severe deterrent action.
I hope my Republican colleagues will come forward and work with the
chair so we can truly confront Putin's dangerous aggression.
____________________