Ted Cruz

Mr. CRUZ

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 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.

Mr. CRUZ

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. CRUZ. 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. CRUZ

Mr. CRUZ. 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.

Mr. CRUZ

Mr. CRUZ. 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.

Mr. CRUZ. 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. CRUZ

Mr. CRUZ. 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. CRUZ. 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.

Mr. CRUZ. I would happily consent to a colloquy.

Mr. CRUZ. 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--

Mr. CRUZ. 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. CRUZ. 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. CRUZ

Mr. CRUZ. 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.

Mr. CRUZ

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. CRUZ

Mr. CRUZ. 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.

Mr. CRUZ. 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.

Mr. CRUZ. Is the Chair refusing to let me speak?

Mr. CRUZ. 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.

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

Mr. CRUZ

Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President.

Mr. CRUZ. 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. CRUZ. 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.

Mr. CRUZ

Mr. CRUZ. My prediction was accurate, and I object.

Mr. CRUZ. 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.

Mr. CRUZ. Madam President.