Jeanne Shaheen

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I come to the floor to pay tribute to Edward B. Garone, a long-time law enforcement official in the Granite State. There are many reasons to salute Ed Garone, including an incredible 50 years as police chief of the Derry, NH, police department and an extensive record of local involvement. I join Chief Garone's colleagues and countless friends in thanking him for his tireless work and recognizing the qualities behind his many contributions and accomplishments: a humble desire to serve others and strengthen his community. After a 3-year tour of duty in the U.S. Marine Corps, Chief Garone began his law enforcement career as a police officer in the Lebanon, NH, police department. He would serve the city of Lebanon for 7-and-a- half years, rising to the rank of captain, before accepting an offer in 1972 to become the chief of police in Derry, NH. At 29 years old, he moved with his young family--wife Blanche and children Vicky and Michael--to southern New Hampshire and planted roots in a community he would serve for the next five decades. A local newspaper noted at the time that he was ``an experienced officer with a lot of skill.'' Chief Garone would tap into these skills to guide the town of Derry through a variety of law enforcement challenges. He also managed considerable growth within his department and witnessed significant development in the community it serves. Derry's population has nearly tripled since the 1970s, and its police department expanded from roughly 20 full-time officers in 1972 to over 70 full-time and part- time personnel today. Chief Garone is their strongest advocate, always making sure his officers have the most current and effective equipment, technology, and training. He is also their loudest champion, and he's quick to deflect any compliment or praise toward his officers who share his belief of `service above self.' Chief Garone is a well-respected figure and sought-after voice in New Hampshire's law enforcement community. He has been on the board of directors of the Regional Information Sharing Systems--New England State Police Information Network for 17 years. He remains an active, 50-year member of the New Hampshire Association of Chiefs of Police and has served as its secretary for the past 32 years. So many of his fellow officers across the Granite State--from the longest serving chief to the newly-sworn-in patrol officer--look to Chief Garone for guidance, for leadership, and for encouragement as they work to keep our communities safe. Chief Garone's service goes beyond all he has given and all he has accomplished at the Derry Police Department. He is involved in a number of community and charitable organizations. Chief Garone is a 45-year member of the Greater Derry Boys and Girls Club board of directors and a past president of the club. He is currently the longest serving member and former president of the Derry Rotary Club. He has led the Viviana Leon Memorial Foundation, a charitable foundation that provides funds each year to local groups. He is the current director of the Derry Veterans Assistance Fund, a nonprofit that seeks to improve the quality of life for local veterans. Chief Garone also serves on the board of directors for the Alexander Eastman Foundation and the Seacoast Child Advocacy Center. He even lends his time and expertise to the public safety commission of his hometown of Bradford, VT. Exhaustive research conducted by his colleagues concluded that Edward Garone is the longest serving full-time chief of police in the history of New Hampshire and quite possibly the entire country. This distinction is a testament to Ed's unwavering commitment to bettering his community and helping others. The Granite State and the many communities he has served are grateful for Chief Garone's many contributions and acts of selfless service. In the coming month, friends and fellow officers will gather to salute Ed and thank him for all that he has given to the town of Derry and the State of New Hampshire. I am with them in spirit as they honor this good and generous man.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, it gives me tremendous honor and pride to offer remarks in recognition of this truly historic moment. I was first elected to the Senate in 2008 and came to Washington alongside our Nation's first African-American President. I remember the aura of historical significance that permeated the whole country during those early days of the Obama administration. In particular, I remember the awe and joy surrounding the inauguration, with Americans lining our streets, packed on the National Mall and glued to television screens in New Hampshire and across our country. I have thought a lot about this recently because I see that same excitement, anticipation, and recognition of history unfolding before our eyes as we as a nation are on the cusp of elevating our first female African-American Justice to the highest Court in our land. Our Constitution has served as a model for modern democracies around the world. Important pillars of our society like equality under the law, freedom of speech, press, and religion and the separation of powers are all innovations that have made America a beacon of democracy around the world. What makes our Constitution particularly exceptional is its ability to be adjusted and adapted to more faithfully reflect the interests and values of our diverse citizenry which it serves. Important amendments have expanded rights for women and communities of color, making our society more inclusive and pushing the needle toward justice. The Constitution guards our basic rights and freedoms, and the Justices of the Supreme Court serve as the guardians of that Constitution. It is precisely because of the importance of this Court and each of its nine precious seats that the seating of a new Justice is such a momentous occasion. And in this instance, the significance of the moment has been met by a singular nominee whose achievements, experience and integrity are fully worthy of the history books. In addition, for the first time in history, a former public defender will soon serve on the highest Court in the land. Judge Jackson has already--truly--rendered outstanding service to her country. Judge Jackson's lived experiences as a Black woman and a mother will bring essential insights to the Supreme Court which, for the first time in 232 years, will approach gender parity. While I fully believe Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg would have loved seeing Justice Jackson ascend to her beloved Court, we still have a long way to go before we get to Justice Ginsburg's vision of nine female Justices. But one step at a time, we are building a better, more inclusive country. More succinctly put: We are building democratic institutions that represent the public they serve. Justice Jackson will make history and bring the full bounty of her rich and diverse personal history to the Court, just as Louis Brandeis, Thurgood Marshall, Sandra Day O'Connor, and Sonia Sotomayor did before her. I will end with one last reflection: Judge Jackson's historic nomination offers hope and optimism at a time when partisanship and division threaten to unravel our very democracy. During my conversation with her, I was struck by her genuine candor in discussing how she would approach working with other Justices from different ideological backgrounds. She seeks to appeal to shared experiences and values with Justices whose ideological backgrounds differ from her own. This recognition that we all have more that unites than divides us gives me faith not only in Judge Jackson's ability to forge consensus, but also that we as a nation have a brighter future ahead of us than behind us, and that we can, and must, work together to bridge our divides-- ideological and otherwise. If I can paraphrase a fellow Granite Stater, the great Senator Daniel Webster whose desk I occupy today: ``Justice is what binds civilized nations together.'' And I believe that Judge Jackson will faithfully use her seat on the Supreme Court to deliver just that kind of justice. Judge Jackson is the very best of America, and I am honored and excited to cast my vote to confirm her to the Supreme Court of the United States.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Madam President, I rise today in support of my resolution to convey strong bipartisan opposition to Russian President Vladimir Putin's unprovoked aggression against the United States' partner, Ukraine. I was proud to lead this resolution with Senator Rob Portman, in addition to Senators Durbin, Cornyn, Menendez, and Risch, and was pleased to see 38 Senators join this resolution and push for its passage. As the Senate prepared to adjourn for the next week, Senator Portman and I believed it was absolutely critical that we deliver this message of strong bipartisan support for the brave and resilient people of Ukraine. It is important to send a message of bipartisan resolve and to stand up to Putin in response to his continued aggression and especially given recent indications that he is increasingly likely to eschew the diplomatic path available and further invade Ukraine. And as I join a large bipartisan delegation to the Munich Security Forum this weekend, lawmakers on both sides of the aisle agreed that it was paramount that the Senate pass this resolution. This resolution demonstrates the fierce bipartisan support for the NATO, for the transatlantic alliance, for our democratic partners in Ukraine and in repudiation of Putin's efforts to violate Ukraine's sovereignty. This Senate has a long history of supporting an independent and democratic Ukraine. Since Russia's initial invasion of Ukraine in 2014, this Congress has provided more than $2.7 billion in security assistance and supported critical reforms to help Ukraine on its journey to greater euro-Atlantic integration. I am proud to have been involved in a number of bipartisan efforts to support Ukraine. Last month, I traveled to Ukraine with Senator Portman as part of a bipartisan congressional delegation to meet with Ukrainian President Zelenskyy and his national security team to discuss the Russian threat and how the United States can help our Ukrainian friends. In January, I reaffirmed the United States' commitment to our democratic partners, which I also shared during a congressional delegation visit last June, that our Nation believes fervently that Ukraine and Ukraine alone should determine its future. In our meetings, the message from the Ukrainians was clear. They see their future in partnership with the West. They share our democratic values, and their people are proud of their hard-won independence. I would like to make one point perfectly clear: The unprecedented Russian threat to Ukraine's sovereignty is on Vladimir Putin and no one else. He has designed this crisis to advance his own revanchist agenda. The global community is not blind to his malign ambitions. He wants to reconstruct the Soviet Union and recreate his own sphere of interest. And he--wrongfully--sees Ukraine as part of this authoritarian future. Putin wants to diminish the U.S. presence in Europe and to rewrite the European security order for his benefit and in blatant disregard for previous international agreements and treaties that Russia signed. And Putin has shown repeated attempts to subvert democratic institutions in the United States, threaten our election security, attack our infrastructure, and compromise the sovereignty of our allies around the globe. This is why what happens in Ukraine matters to the United States. How we respond to Putin's aggression against Ukraine will have implications for our national security and global stability for decades to come. It is important that we stand up for our values. It is necessary that we stand up to protect our national security. And it is critical that we continue to uphold and protect the European security order that has afforded us peace and prosperity for over 70 years. As Putin tries to dismantle and divide the very alliance that has kept us safe for over 70 years, it is all the more important that we strengthen our resolve through a strong message of unbreakable unity. This is why the passage of today's bipartisan resolution on Ukraine is so important. I want to covey my appreciation to Senator Portman for his work and leadership. Especially on this issue, we believe that bipartisanship is critical in advancing U.S. foreign policy, especially in support of our partner, Ukraine. And we must lead by example and convey, as we have done to our Ukrainian partners and our transatlantic allies, that we must not leave any space for Putin to sow further discord. On Monday, I spoke on the floor and said that the Senate does not have a choice; we must send a message of strong, unequivocal bipartisan resolve. And today, we did just that. Along with my fellow Senators, I wish to send an unequivocal message to Putin; you will not divide this Senate. You will not divide this country. And you will not divide the transatlantic alliance. Diplomacy remains an option to deescalate this situation and pursue a peaceful resolution. But if Putin decides to further invade Ukraine, he will only succeed in uniting us all--Democrats, Republicans, Americans, and the transatlantic alliance--in sending a message of unmistakable resolve against his belligerence.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Would my colleague yield for a question?

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

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Absolutely.

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Madam President, I couldn't agree more with the comments of my colleague Senator Portman from Ohio. We are here on the floor today to convey strong bipartisan opposition that exists in this Senate to Vladimir Putin's unprovoked aggression against our partner Ukraine. Now, like everyone in this body, I have been closely following the deteriorating political crisis that has been fabricated by Russia because, as Senator Portman says, Ukraine has always been defensive. It has not been offensive going against Russia, but Russia intends to further undermine and threaten Ukraine's sovereignty. This Senate has a long history of supporting an independent and democratic Ukraine. Since Russia's initial invasion in 2014, Congress has provided more than $2.7 billion in security assistance and supported its government in advancing critical reforms to help Ukraine on its journey to greater Euro-Atlantic integration. I am proud to have been involved in a number of those bipartisan efforts to support Ukraine. As Senator Portman said, last month, we traveled with a bipartisan delegation of seven Senators--four Democrats and three Republicans--to meet with Ukrainian President Zelenskyy and other officials. We met with his national security team to discuss the Russian threat and how the United States can help our Ukrainian friends. The message from the Ukrainians was clear. They see their future in partnership with the West. They share our democratic values, and their people are proud of their hard-won independence. So it is worth asking, if Ukraine has made its sovereign wish clear that it wants a future with Europe, why does Putin have more than 130,000 troops at its border? As Senator Portman pointed out so well, it is not just its eastern border with Russia; it is its northern border with Belarus. So it has been said--but I think it is worth repeating--that this unprecedented Russian threat to Ukraine's sovereignty is on Putin. It is on no one else. He has designed this crisis to advance his own revanchist agenda. He wants to reconstruct the Soviet Union and recreate his own sphere of interest, and he wrongfully sees Ukraine as part of this authoritarian future. But make no mistake, this isn't just about Ukraine. Putin wants to diminish U.S. presence in Europe and to rewrite the European security order for his benefit and in blatant disregard for previous international agreements and treaties that Russia has signed. Senator Portman talked about the Budapest Memorandum. There have been other efforts to try and reduce tensions between Russia and Ukraine by Europe, but Putin has basically thumbed his nose at all of those efforts. He has shown repeated attempts to subvert democratic institutions in the United States, to attack our infrastructure, and to compromise the sovereignty of our allies around the globe. This is why what happens in Ukraine matters here in the United States. It is important that we stand up for our values; it is important that we stand up to protect our national security; and it is critical that we continue to uphold and protect the transatlantic security order that has given us peace and prosperity for over 70 years, since the end of World War II. As Putin tries to dismantle and divide the very alliance that has kept us safe for more than 70 years, it is all the more important that we strengthen our resolve through a strong message of unbreakable unity. It is critical that the Senate take up and pass bipartisan legislation that shows our support for Ukraine and our opposition to Russia and what Putin is doing. I have been working toward this goal. I especially want to commend Senator Portman for his work and leadership because he has also been working toward this goal. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman and ranking member, Senators Menendez and Risch, continue their efforts to find a bipartisan path forward. And I am sure Senator Portman would agree with me that when we say we are committed to doing our part to forge a path forward on this legislation, we mean that is what we want to do; that this is an opportunity for us to show the rest of the world that we are united. That is why we are here today, to send a strong bipartisan message to Putin, to Ukraine, and to our allies. We must lead by example and convey, as we have done through our Ukrainian partners and our transatlantic allies, that we must not leave any space for Putin to sow further discord. Therefore, the Senate doesn't really have a choice; we must send a message of strong, unequivocal bipartisan resolve. For many years, Senator Portman and I and others in the Ukraine Caucus have worked closely to support the Ukrainian people. We traveled to Kyiv to ensure the U.S. resolve for our Ukrainian partners was absolute. We teamed up to increase military assistance to Ukraine, and we have spoken to ensure, on the topic of Ukraine, that this Senate speaks with one bipartisan voice. So today we stand united here on the floor of the Senate to send an unequivocal message to Putin: You will not divide the Senate; you will not divide the United States; and you will not divide the transatlantic alliance. Diplomacy remains an option, I hope, to deescalate this situation and to pursue a peaceful resolution, but if Putin decides to further invade Ukraine, he will only succeed in uniting us all--Democrats, Republicans, Americans, and the transatlantic alliance--in sending a message of unmistakable resolve against his belligerence. I hope he chooses peace rather than war, but we plan to be ready.

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Certainly, the Presiding Officer would agree with me that in the Democratic caucus we are also united with the Republican caucus in wanting to support Ukraine to ensure that they can determine their own future and to hold Vladimir Putin accountable. As you say, hopefully, diplomacy will win out, and there will be some way in which we can work with Vladimir Putin to address some of his concerns. We are certainly not going to allow Putin and Russia to determine Ukraine's future--to say to Ukraine ``You can't join NATO'' or to say to Europe and NATO ``You can't expand into Europe if countries want to join.'' Hopefully, he will choose a path that is going to be good not just for Europe and the United States and Ukraine but for Russia, because, as the German Chancellor said to us last week when he met with a number of Senators: In the long run, this will not be good for Russia--for its energy future--because Europe is going to get off Russian energy a lot faster if Russia invades Ukraine, and it is not going to be good for Russia's standing either in Europe or in the world. So, hopefully, Putin will choose the reasonable approach, which is that he will choose diplomacy and not choose war. It is our job--that of the transatlantic alliance and those of us here in Congress--to hold Putin accountable if he makes the wrong choice, to make sure that we put in place crippling sanctions, that we provide the assistance that Ukraine needs in fighting Russia, and that we make it clear to the world that the world order that we have defended for the last 70 years we are going to continue to defend.

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to support three extraordinarily qualified Department of Defense nominees: Melissa Dalton, to be Assistant Secretary of Defense for Homeland Defense and Hemispheric Affairs; Dr. David Honey, to be Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering; and Dr. Celeste Wallander, to be Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs. These three individuals have been nominated to serve in critical national security positions, and they are tasked with confronting those challenges of national security and securing U.S. interests at home and abroad. As a senior member of the Armed Services Committee, I attended the committee nomination hearings for all three nominees, and I came away convinced that all three were qualified for their positions and deserving of swift confirmation. Melissa Dalton previously served as a career civil servant in various positions at the Department of Defense--for a decade--under both President Bush and President Obama. So she had bipartisan support, clearly, in that position. She also was a senior fellow and director at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. If confirmed, one of Ms. Dalton's core responsibilities as Assistant Secretary for Homeland Defense would be overseeing the Department's ability to operate through impacts to critical infrastructure, an area in which we have increasingly seen our adversaries are trying to exploit, particularly through cyber attacks. As Ms. Dalton has said, the resilience of our capabilities and infrastructure at home strengthens deterrence of aggression abroad, and DOD must be able to demonstrate its resilience. The recent news of increased threats from Russia's cyber attacks, associated with their unprecedented troop buildup near Ukraine, underscores the need for this position to be filled as quickly as possible. I also want to express my support for Dr. David Honey, who has dedicated a lifetime of service to the defense of this country. Dr. Honey has served in various research and development positions at the Department of Defense, including roles at the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, or DARPA, which is so important to our innovation. He has also served on the Air Force Scientific Advisory Board and as Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Research. Today, more than ever, we need talented, qualified individuals like Dr. Honey at the forefront of DOD's innovation and technological efforts. Seemingly every few weeks we hear in the press about shocking technological breakthroughs made by the Chinese military that raise concerns about eroding our technological advantage. Former Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Hyten, described the Chinese test of a fractional orbital bombardment system last summer as ``stunning.'' Our technological advantage has been a foundational part of deterrence for decades, and if lost it would be enormously destabilizing for global security. But if we are truly committed to preserving our defense technological superiority, it is vital that we confirm Dr. Honey as quickly as possible. Finally, I want to speak to support Dr. Celeste Wallander, who is the nominee to serve as Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs. And as part of that role, she is responsible for defense policy toward Europe, NATO, the Middle East, and Africa--all places right now which are hotbeds of potential conflict. In light of the ongoing and unprecedented Russian threat to post-Cold War European stability and Ukrainian sovereignty, Dr. Wallander's nomination comes at a particularly critical time. Dr. Wallander has demonstrated a history of expertise on Russia. As former President of the U.S.-Russia Foundation, top Russia expert on the National Security Council, and former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Russia, Ukraine, and Eurasia, Dr. Wallander is highly respected on both sides of the aisle. With a bipartisan delegation, I traveled to Ukraine several weeks ago. We met with Ukrainian President Zelenskyy and his national security team to discuss the Russian threat and how we can do everything possible to help our Ukrainian friends. You can't turn on the radio, read a paper, or watch the news at night without seeing the Russian troops that are massed on Ukraine's border. The message from the Ukrainians was clear when we met with them. They see their future in partnership with the West. They share our democratic values, and the people are proud of their hard-won independence. And every step that Putin takes toward escalating the situation at the border is a step closer to threatening not only Ukraine's future but the liberal democratic system that he fears and that we all have benefited from. I can think of no one more qualified for this position at DOD at this time of immense instability than Dr. Wallander. So, for these reasons, I believe we must move to confirm these three nominees as quickly as possible so they can fulfill the duties of these crucial positions that are so vital to our national security. So with that, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of the following nominations en bloc: Calendar Nos. 476, 692, and 694; that the Senate vote on the nominations en bloc without intervening action or debate; that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate; that any statements related to the nominations be printed in the Record; that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I appreciate my colleague's grandstanding on Afghanistan when he knows that in the NDAA, we passed a provision to create a Commission to look at Afghanistan. And I want those answers just as much as he does. I stood up and said, when the President announced the withdrawal, that I didn't support that withdrawal. But that is beside the point that we are dealing with now because what we are dealing with now and what my colleague from Missouri is doing is making us less secure because he is holding nominees--he is complaining about the problems we have in Russia and Ukraine, and he is making it worse because he is not willing to allow those nominees who can help with that problem to go forward. He is absolutely incorrect about Nord Stream 2. I opposed Nord Stream 2. I authored the legislation with Senator Cruz to sanction Nord Stream 2. For the 4 years that the previous President was in office, they didn't take any action to sanction Nord Stream 2 until the day Donald Trump left office. The fact is, that pipeline is not operating now because it hasn't been certified, and so Russia is not making any money from the Nord Stream 2 Pipeline. So he needs to get his facts correct. He sits on the Armed Services Committee with me, where he has access to the same information about our pressing national security challenges. Yet he is holding up these nominees. He is disregarding the threats that we face because he would rather stand here and grandstand on Afghanistan. Well, we do need to get answers, and I am willing to work with him on that, but this is not the way to do it. So let's remember that Senator Hawley declared China as the biggest threat to American security, and that is a quote. Yet he is blocking the confirmation of Dr. Honey, whose job would be to ensure that our defense research and development efforts are continuing on par with China's. So if his goal is to ensure that China's technological capabilities surpass ours, I can think of no better way to do that than to refuse to confirm Dr. Honey. On Russia, my colleague has claimed that the Biden administration has coddled Russia. We heard him say it just now--that they failed to aid Ukraine. But in a recent op-ed, my colleague made his views clear on the current Russian-created crisis. In it, he suggests that the United States is better off closing NATO's doors to Ukraine and stating that our Nation's history of promoting and defending liberal democratic values across the globe has been a failure. Well, I am not going to agree to that. We have an international order that developed after World War II that has had as a large part the containment first of the Soviet Union through NATO and now of Russia. Part of that world order says that a sovereign nation should be able to help determine their own future. So I am not going to be part of some agreement that says we are going to turn our backs on NATO, we are going to turn our backs on Ukraine, and we are going to say to Russia: You go ahead; you go into Ukraine. He argues that we should reduce our commitments to places like Europe because, he claims, Russia poses a greater threat to our European allies than to the United States. Well, the last time I looked, when the United States got attacked in 2001--and maybe he doesn't remember 9/11 because he was too young--the countries that came to our aid were our NATO allies. So, with all due respect, I find my colleague's assessment both disturbing and shockingly uninformed. As members of the Senate Armed Services Committee, my colleague and I have been briefed on the multitude of evidence of Russia's attempts to subvert democratic institutions--including right here in the United States, by the way--to attack our own infrastructure, and to compromise the sovereignty of our allies around the globe. In 2018, Russian private military contractor forces even assaulted an outpost of Americans in Syria. They were forced to defend themselves, and, of course, they did, and they ultimately routed the Russian force. So my colleague's stated sentiments do just what Vladimir Putin wants. He wants to divide the United States from our NATO allies and other democracies. He wants to diminish U.S. presence in Europe and to rewrite the European security order in a way that favors his authoritarian interests. We simply cannot allow that to happen. I could not disagree with my colleague any more on how he has chosen to associate himself. Continuing to block qualified leaders such as Dr. Wallander, Dr. Honey, and Ms. Dalton does not make us stronger, it does not contribute to productive discourse over our national priorities, and it doesn't accomplish what he is trying to accomplish. If what he wants is answers on Afghanistan, then work with us. Let's work together. Let's make this Commission that we passed in the NDAA-- let's make it work. What he wants casts us an unreliable partner to our allies, and it forces the Department of Defense to operate with one hand tied behind their back. So I am disappointed to hear my colleague--and he talks about regular order. Well, in the last 24 hours, we have confirmed three nominees by regular order. We held up the Senate to get cloture votes. Then we passed Alexandra Baker, the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, 75 to 21. We passed Douglas Bush, Assistant Secretary of the Army, 95 to 2. I don't know if Senator Hawley was one of those two. I assume he was. We passed Patrick Coffey, general counsel for the Navy, 79 to 17. Then on February 2, by unanimous consent, we passed Gabriel Camarillo, Under Secretary of the Army, and Andrew Hunter, Assistant Secretary of the Air Force, by unanimous consent. So this is not about regular order; this is about trying to use the Senate process for his own personal ambitions, and that is unfortunate. It is unfortunate because it doesn't get us the individuals we need to get confirmed to make government run, and it is unfortunate because it doesn't accomplish what he says he wants. So I am disappointed to hear that we are not going to move these nominees forward, and I hope at some point my colleague will reconsider. I yield the floor.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

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

Mrs. SHAHEEN

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

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Madam President, I am actually on the floor to speak to a different issue, even though I think expediting votes is an important one, and I support that. But I am really here to highlight the negative consequences for our country of continuing to fund our government through continuing resolutions. One of the most basic constitutional duties of Congress is the appropriations process. The Nation relies on this body to provide Federal funds for programs that support national defense, small businesses, our border defenses, conservation of public lands, food assistance for low-income families, and so much, much more. And as a long-serving Member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, I am extremely disappointed that Congress is about to pass yet another CR that is going to take us to March 11, nearly 5 months past the start of the fiscal year. Now, on a positive note, I understand that there is a tentative agreement on top-line funding, so that we should have budget numbers for an omnibus that would fund the remainder of the fiscal year. And that is good news. But the fundamental problem remains; long-term CRs create uncertainty and inefficiencies inside and outside of the Federal Government. CRs prevent Agencies from issuing new grants or expanding programs. They curtail hiring and recruitment. And moreover, those who rely on government programs and Federal resources--and that could be either SNAP recipients or defense contractors, but everyone is forced into a budgetary limbo. And simply put, when Congress refuses to act, people can't do their jobs, and this is especially true for our military men and women who are serving. From Russia's efforts to undermine democracies in Europe to China's rapidly expanding sphere of influence, to the unpredictable threat of rogue actors like North Korea and Iran, the threats we face today are varied and numerous. And nothing hinders our national security more than funding our national priorities in piecemeal fashion. Make no mistake, as we are engaged in this crisis right now in Europe, where Russia is on the borders of Ukraine, threatening to invade, we can bet that Vladimir Putin is watching our Congress to see if we can actually get an agreement to get a budget funded for the rest of this year. Recently, several of my colleagues from the Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense and the Armed Services Committee met with Marine Corps Commandant General Berger to discuss the challenges that are facing the Marines. The message from General Berger was clear: If we continue to fund our government through CRs, it will erode our military readiness, and it will cut training time and impede the maintenance processes we rely on to keep our soldiers safe. The impact of continued CRs on our military would be wide-ranging, and the negative effects would continue to ripple for years. And we had this experience since I have been here. In 2012 and 2013, when we had the budget cliff, we saw what happened to our military. We saw readiness of our men and women in uniform erode. Thousands of pilot flight hours would be lost. Critical exercises within our national allies would be canceled. Our overall global presence diminished at a time in which our adversaries are seeking to outcompete us in multiple theaters. Aircraft like the brandnew KC-46 tankers that we are so proud to have stationed at Pease Air National Guard Base in New Hampshire, they are such a point of pride. They are an invaluable strategic national asset, but they would spend more time on the ground rather than flying the missions that they were designed for. And submarines, the backbone of our nuclear deterrence and technological overmatch against our adversaries and, by the way, the ships that China is most concerned about, are an instantly recognizable symbol of American military might and the values of our country, they would be sidelined due to maintenance disruptions. That would have significant impact not just for our readiness but also for places like the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard, which has as its responsibility the maintenance and repair of our attack submarines. So what kind of a signal does it send to adversaries like Russia, as they continue amassing troops on the Ukrainian border and threaten the stability of Europe, when we can't get a budget? Long-term efforts to recruit and retain the best and brightest to serve in our military would be undone as bonus and incentive pays are cut and overall end-strength numbers decrease by thousands. Military families would be forced to bear the burden of greater financial uncertainty on top of the many sacrifices that they already make for our country. We would be left with a smaller, less capable force that is demoralized from pay cuts and forced to shoulder greater risks for their safety. Now, in addition to the harm to our servicemembers and military families, we would also be undermining the critical modernization efforts that we need to keep pace at a time when competitors like China are experiencing technological breakthroughs. Just 8 months ago, I am sure we all remember that China tested an advanced hypersonic missile that was launched into space before reentering the atmosphere and nearly hitting its target. This test should serve as a wake-up call about the urgent threat that China's military breakthroughs pose. And if the U.S. research and development efforts are slowed down due to the constraints of operating under a continuing resolution, we will not be able to drive the innovation needed to keep pace with China, let alone regain a convincing advantage. And make no mistake, Putin isn't the only one watching to see if we can get a budget agreement in this Congress. Xi is also watching from China. The development of our next-generation fighter to ensure we maintain air superiority in the air will be slowed. Our efforts to defend against cyber attacks that could cripple critical infrastructure or expose national security secrets would be hamstrung. Simply put, for all the might and selfless service of our service men and women, we would be asking them to defend us while tying their hands behind their backs simply because we in Congress can't find the courage of compromise. I would say to my colleague Senator Cornyn from Texas, who talked about the narrow focus of Democrats--who are in the majority in this body right now, very slim majority--worrying only about our own parochial interests, that this is an opportunity for us to work together. Let's work across the aisle and see if we can't find some agreement on budget that will get this done not just for the remaining months of this fiscal year but next year and the next year and the next year. China doesn't just compete with us on military technology; China and our other economic competitors are pouring resources into scientific and technological innovation. And if we want to sustain our global prosperity, global leadership, and national security, we cannot afford to be caught flatfooted. That is why last week the House of Representatives passed the America COMPETES Act, which is a companion to the Senate-passed U.S. Innovation and Competition Act, which passed the Senate months ago with a very strong bipartisan vote. These bills will soon be in conference, and, if passed, they will bolster innovation and international trade, but the investments to meet the authorizations that are contained in these bills can't be made under a continuing resolution. I chair the Commerce, Justice, and Science and Related Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee, the CJS Subcommittee. Our bipartisan CJS bill included a $1 billion increase for the National Science Foundation to keep pace with scientific discoveries that can power the economy in fields like artificial intelligence, quantum computing, microelectronics, and advanced communications. Under a CR, we would forfeit the chance to fund 2,300 additional research and education grants that will support 27,500 more scientists, technicians, teachers, and students compared to fiscal year 2021. That means a lot of innovative research projects, and therefore potentially new discoveries, technology, and industries would never get started. It also would diminish our ability to train the next generation of innovators. It isn't just the National Science Foundation; under a CR, NASA wouldn't have the needed increases that will help us return humans to the Moon--the high ground that China is also eyeing. We will lose out on the opportunity to provide the Department of Commerce additional funding to build next-generation climate and weather satellites, help small- and medium-sized manufacturers, enforce export and trade laws, and invest in economic development. Furthermore, a CR would delay implementation of the bipartisan infrastructure bill. Last year, along with nine of our colleagues, we drafted the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, which is bipartisan legislation to make historic investments in our Nation's infrastructure. The legislation provides $550 billion in new Federal investment to respond to the needs of the country, from rebuilding crumbling roads and bridges to providing clean drinking water and addressing harmful contaminants, to expanding broadband coverage to even the most rural parts of our country. The Senate passed that infrastructure bill by an overwhelmingly bipartisan vote of 69 to 30. When President Biden signed the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act into law, it became the single biggest infrastructure investment in U.S. history. It is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for us to invest in this country. But if we continue with CRs, the implementation of this bipartisan infrastructure law could be delayed. In addition, as a result of its flat obligation limitations, a CR would prevent State departments of transportation from accessing higher amounts of formula funding provided by the highway trust fund. The CR would also prohibit new starts for new formula programs authorized by the bipartisan infrastructure law, including the fiscal year 2022 portion of the carbon reduction program that supports emission-reducing transportation projects and the PROTECT formula funding to States to support transportation infrastructure resiliency. Now, in addition to slowing meaningful infrastructure investments, a CR also fails to address urgent needs in our communities. Americans want to be safe from international threats to our national and economic security, but more important, they want to be safe in their communities. Yet, in 2020, murders rose by 30 percent. The Senate Commerce-Justice-Science bill includes significant funding to help local police departments fight crime and put officers on the street. It also includes a new Community Violence Intervention Initiative to implement strategies to reduce homicides and gun violence. But with a CR, we wouldn't have funding for this promising strategy. We would also lose the chance to provide historic levels of funding for the Office on Violence Against Women. Today, it is particularly important because a bipartisan group of Senators will introduce a reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act. But without a CJS appropriations bill, we can't provide additional funding for the Sexual Assault Services Program, which is a formula grant released to States, Tribes, and other coalitions in order to provide support services like medical services, counseling, and crisis intervention for victims of sexual assault, and we cannot start new programs like Restorative Justice, a growing area in criminal justice to repair and address the harm experienced by victims. Continuing to rely on last year's funding levels and last year's programs undermines our chances to improve our military readiness, to invest in our economy, and to address emerging challenges. This week, instead of enacting funding bills for the fiscal year that began on October 1, 2021, Congress will instead extend the deadline again, passing another CR through March 11. Now, don't get me wrong, I am glad we are continuing to keep the government open, and I understand that Senate leadership--Chairman Leahy and Vice Chairman Shelby, along with their House counterparts--has reached a tentative agreement on total spending levels to allow us to use the next month to finish our work and enact a remaining year appropriations bill, but it is way past time to have made that happen. The American people deserve no less, and we need to do better next year. I yield the floor.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

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

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I rise in recognition of the 36th anniversary of the Challenger Space Shuttle Disaster and to pay tribute to the memory of all seven Challenger crewmembers: Gregory Jarvis, Judith Resnik, Francis Scobee, Ronald McNair, Michael Smith, Ellison Onizuka, and Christa McAuliffe. On January 28, 1986, the world witnessed a fatal accident that claimed the lives of all seven of the Challenger's crewmembers. As many of my colleagues will remember, just moments after launch, the shuttle exploded, never having left the Earth's atmosphere. It was later determined that unusually cold temperatures caused several seals within the shuttle's right rocket booster to fail, ultimately resulting in this devastating tragedy. This anniversary is a particularly difficult day for the people of New Hampshire as we pause to remember the Challenger crew, including Granite Stater Christa McAuliffe. The Challenger mission had been chosen to pilot President Reagan's Teacher in Space Program, and Concord schoolteacher Christa McAuliffe was selected to be the program's first participant. Christa looked forward to the opportunity to teach two lessons from space and share her once-in-a-lifetime experience with students across the country. Although the Teacher in Space program was discontinued following the accident, the families of the Challenger's crew established the first Challenger Center for Space Science Education to promote science, technology, engineering, and math--STEM--education. The center is a nonprofit that engages with students and teachers, providing hands-on education in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Today, 40 Challenger learning centers have opened globally, and they are continuing to expand opportunities for innovative programs and activities in STEM. Though we lost five dedicated astronauts, a hard- working engineer, and a passionate and devoted educator 36 years ago, the Challenger's poignant legacy continues to live on. So many of our students and teachers can point to Christa McAuliffe and Challenger learning centers as having inspired them to pursue careers in education, science, mathematics, and innovation. New Hampshire has both the McAuliffe-Shepard Discovery Center, an air and space museum and planetarium, as well as the Christa McAuliffe School, an elementary school in Concord. I have no doubt Christa would be glad to know that a great number of young women have chosen to follow in her footsteps and embrace the values she worked so hard to espouse. Christa lived by the words, ``I touch the future. I teach.'' More than three decades later, her enduring impact on the future is clear. In 2019, the Senate passed the Christa McAuliffe Commemorative Coin Act, legislation I sponsored with the late Senator Mike Enzi of Wyoming. The legislation was advanced through Congress with overwhelming bipartisan support and was subsequently signed into law. The enactment of this legislation meant that a commemorative coin in Christa's honor was minted by the U.S. Treasury in 2021. Proceeds from the sale of this coin are going to support STEM education, helping to cultivate a new generation of scientists, engineers, and educators. Today, we take pause to honor the seven outstanding professionals lost in the Challenger accident and acknowledge that this is a very difficult day for their colleagues at NASA, family and friends. Our hearts are with them on this day of remembrance.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Madam President, today, the Senate will consider S. Res. 345, legislation I authored with Senator Roger Wicker to bring attention to the people of Belarus and their pursuit of democracy. Since Alyaksandr Lukashenka egregiously stole the Presidential elections in 2020, we have witnessed a continued crackdown on the people of Belarus, who are being denied their basic human rights. After unjustly claiming victory, Lukashenka responded to peaceful, pro- democracy protests across Belarus with violence and oppression, throwing thousands of Belarusians in jail. In May last year, his regime forced a commercial airliner flying between two European states to land in Minsk so his security forces could arrest a journalist and his partner, an action for which the U.S. has charged four Belarusian officials with hijacking. Then last fall, his regime exploited vulnerable migrants by bringing them to Belarus and forcing them at gunpoint across the border into the European Union, leading several countries to declare a state of emergency. These abuses are demoralizing to the Belarusian people, who keep up the fight to bring Lukashenka to account for his egregious behavior. But now, we are witnessing a new level of desperation by Lukashenka, who is supporting Putin in his campaign of aggression against Ukraine. He has endorsed Putin's agenda and invited Russian troops for major military exercises on Belarusian soil. Lukashenka has effectively given Putin permission to use his own country for a training ground to undermine a sovereign nation. As Lukashenka supports Vladimir Putin's efforts to destabilize the democratically elected government in Kyiv, at home he has proposed a constitutional referendum that would allow him to stay in office indefinitely. Indeed, life under Lukashenka is perilous. Today, there are more than 1000 political prisoners in Belarus, 1000 people imprisoned because of the insecurities of one man. I welcome the recent statement from the Department of State bringing attention to the ill treatment of these prisoners. And I call on the Lukashenka regime to release these prisoners without conditions and abide by their commitments to human rights as a member of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe. Lukashenka has ruthlessly attacked independent media in Belarus, including Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, which he declared an extremist organization. Anyone who subscribes to RFE/RL can be arrested and jailed. RFE/RL's journalists who reported on the 2020 elections have been harassed, detained, arrested, and stripped of their credentials. I want to highlight the stories behind the names of these journalists. They have been arrested and torn from family and friends indefinitely, simply for doing their jobs to shed light on the truth. Ihor Losik was sentenced to 15 years in prison in December after a lengthy, closed door trial. Andrey Kuznechyk has been detained since November on unknown criminal charges. Aleh Hruzdzilovich has been detained since late December for his reporting activities, after previously serving two stints in jail following the election. The Lukashenka regime's cowardly attacks on the free press do not project strength. They show that regime is, in fact, weak, desperate and afraid of the truth. And the truth is--the Belarusian people want to live in a free country and choose their own future. This is why I have been proud to lead efforts in the Senate to condemn the actions of the Lukashenka regime and support the brave people of Belarus who continue to stand up to an increasingly autocratic government. Last year, Senator Wicker and I cofounded the Free Belarus Caucus to advocate for the pro-democracy movement and continue to push for free and fair elections in Belarus. I have met with Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya numerous times and others from the Coordination Council who are leading the effort to bring a peaceful, democratic transition of power to Belarus. She is an admirable woman who did not seek the spotlight, but stepped up on behalf of her people when they needed her most. Her leadership is critical for the future of democracy in Belarus, and we must do everything we can to assist her and the Belarusian people. And today, I am calling on my colleagues in the Senate to join me in supporting this resolution, which expresses solidarity for the Belarussians' pursuit of freedom and a future of their own making. As we work together to respond to Russian threats against Ukraine, we must not forget the plight of Belarusians. We must be steadfast in our strong support to those suffering under the rule of authoritarians. So I urge my colleagues to join me at this critical moment and support this resolution.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, on Monday, our Nation celebrated the life and legacy of Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. Like many Americans, it was a day of self-reflection for me. While leading a bipartisan delegation to Ukraine, I had a front-row seat to a nation struggling to hold on to its democracy in the face of a potential outside attack. This comes at a very poignant moment in America's history when we were reminded of the strength and fragility of our own democracy. One year ago, a violent mob fueled by false claims of widespread election fraud stormed the U.S. Capitol. This was the most significant assault on the Capitol since the War of 1812. Although State and Federal judges ruled against efforts to overturn the results of the election, this lie of election fraud has continued to propagate. And now, those who didn't like the 2020 election results are trying to rewrite the rules. Since the 2020 elections, Republican State lawmakers have passed an unprecedented number of bills to erode the authority of state and local election officials. These new laws would strip secretaries of state of their authority, allow partisan ballot reviews, and even make local election officials criminally or financially liable for technical errors and actions, such as proactively sending out absentee ballot applications. In total, 19 States have passed regressive laws that make it harder to vote and, in some extreme cases, may even allow Republican- controlled legislatures to overturn the results of a legitimate election by using false claims of voter fraud. In New Hampshire, over the past year, we have seen efforts to eliminate same-day voter registration, a measure that would disproportionately impact young voters, including college students and first-time voters. Similarly, other efforts to prohibit students attending college in New Hampshire from voting in our State's elections would unduly burden--if not outright disenfranchise--many of those young voters. Other attempts to make voter registration more complicated have failed in court, including requirements for additional documentation for same- day registrants, and restrictions on which types of addresses are valid for registration. These efforts are ongoing, with additional restrictive and burdensome measures being introduced as recently as the current legislative session. And it is not just our voter laws. Earlier this month, the Republican-controlled New Hampshire House approved a redistricting plan that can only be described as gerrymandering. Taken together, these measures represent a comprehensive and coordinated attempt to burden-- or even deprive--certain Granite State citizens of their right to vote. Such blatant efforts to suppress the vote must not be tolerated. The right to vote is one of the most fundamental and cherished principles of our democracy. The history of our Republic is marked by those seminal moments when we as a nation extended the right to cast a ballot to broader populations, thereby including more voices in our representative government: first after the Civil War with the 15th Amendment, then to women with the 19th Amendment, and then notably with the 1965 Voting Rights Act. As others have noted, the Voting Rights Act has historically drawn great bipartisan support for its reauthorization because the principles embodied in it go to the very heart of our democracy. But the issues and challenges that are increasingly facing our voters are very real and very troubling--and we must take them seriously or risk eroding that most fundamental of rights. Making voter registration more difficult or making the process of voting more burdensome has disproportionate effects on some of the most vulnerable voters--whether those be young voters, communities of color, the poor, the homeless, among others. Eliminating or limiting opportunities for early voting, same-day registration, voting by mail, automatic registration, or the use of absentee ballots are all different pathways to the same pernicious effect--the suppression of the vote. That is why I am proud to cosponsor the Freedom to Vote Act and the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act. Together, these bills would standardize voting election laws across the country, expand voting access and restore key provisions of the 1965 Voting Rights Act that have been struck down or weakened by the Supreme Court. The right to vote isn't determined by political affiliation. It is the most sacred right enshrined in the U.S. Constitution for every eligible American and ensures that our country is, as President Lincoln said, ``government of the people, by the people, for the people.'' I am deeply disappointed by the inability--or unwillingness--of this august body to come together today to take this basic step in defense of our democracy. We, the U.S. Senate, ought to be the foremost champions and defenders of democracy, but today, I fear that we have allowed partisan considerations to distract us from that duty. We cannot afford to stay silent and ignore these measures that attempt to undo the progress that we have made over decades. We especially cannot stay silent when all of us here witnessed the horrific events of January 2021 and the attempt to undo a legitimate election. Protecting voting rights for every American is the first and irreplaceable step towards protecting our democracy. We must take it seriously, we must not let it wither in the dark, and we must not stay silent. It is far too important--and once damaged, it is far too hard to rebuild.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Madam President, I come to the floor today to speak in opposition to S. 3436, which is the Nord Stream 2's sanctions bill sponsored by Senator Cruz. I certainly share the concerns that have been expressed just a few minutes ago by Senator McConnell about the threat that Russia poses to Ukraine and to Eastern Europe and the role that Nord Stream 2 plays in that critical issue. I have been a strong and longstanding opponent of Nord Stream 2. I believe now what I believed at the time that I originally cosponsored the Nord Stream 2 sanctions bill with Senator Cruz; that the Nord Stream 2 Pipeline is a long-term threat to the energy security of Europe. But right now we are in a different place on this, and while Senator Cruz and I worked together on sanctions legislation to stop this pipeline, my disagreement now with Senator Cruz is in his approach to what we need to do to address what is right now a much more serious threat to Europe, to NATO, to the transatlantic alliance, and that is Russia's threat against Ukraine. And what Senator Cruz's bill would do is not stop Nord Stream 2; it would undermine the current diplomatic situation that is absolutely critical if we are going to respond to the Russian threat. His bill is a vote--supporting his bill would be a vote to compromise the transatlantic community. It is a vote that breaks the message of bipartisan support in the face of Russian aggression and, furthermore, not just bipartisan support but allied support with the United States and Germany and Western Europe against the threat that Russia poses to Ukraine and really to Eastern Germany if they take this action. The dynamics on Nord Stream 2 have changed since Senator Cruz and I fought for the passage of legislation to prevent the completion of that pipeline. At the time, we worked together to provide the Trump administration with critical tools to sanction this pipeline, and we did that because there were some members of the Trump administration who came to us and said: We need this legislation because the administration has not acted. And the fact is, 95 percent of the construction of the Nord Stream 2 Pipeline was completed during the Trump years. Unfortunately, the Trump administration, even after we passed that sanctions legislation, sat on those sanctions. They waited until literally the last day of the Trump administration to sanction just one entity, just one entity in 4 years. And so what we saw is what I just said; that 95 percent of that pipeline was completed during the Trump years. Now, we are in a very different situation right now, unfortunately, because we are in a situation where Russia is threatening Ukraine, and we need to work closely with our European allies to present a united front against Russia. We have strengthened our relationship with our German allies. The Biden administration has restored a diplomacy-first foreign policy, which seeks to advance American policy interests through dialogue and not through threats. There is a new German coalition government in place that we are now engaging with. It is a government that appears to be more skeptical about the Nord Stream 2 Pipeline. They have paused certification of the pipeline and stalled its operation until at least later this year, and the new government has indicated that this pipeline is not just an economic project. So it is very clear that the dynamics have changed, and when the dynamics change on the ground, then our approach and our foreign policy should reflect those changes. We can't look at this legislation in isolation. This legislation that Senator Cruz is proposing that we are going to be voting on today is coming at a time when the administration is exhausting every single diplomatic avenue to deter Putin from further violating Ukraine's territorial integrity. Russia has amassed over 100,000 troops on Ukraine's border, and, of course, the next month or so is really going to be critical in changing Putin's calculation that any invasion would come with a hefty price. Nord Stream 2 right now presents a potential incentive for Putin to use against our European partners, but it is also leverage. It is leverage that the West can use at a pivotal moment as Russia is thinking about--Vladimir Putin is thinking about what he is going to do in Ukraine. So I believe we need to stop this pipeline long term, and there may be a time in the future when another change in our approach on the pipeline may be necessary. As we know, that happens with foreign policy. We don't live in a static world; it is dynamic, and it demands that we adopt our responses. I have joined Senator Menendez and 38 Democrats in introducing the Defending Ukraine Sovereignty Act of 2022, legislation that does reflect the reality on the ground, that would impose swift and crippling sanctions on Russia's economy if Putin decides to invade. It would provide critical additional military support to our Ukrainian allies, and it would strengthen support to our Eastern European allies in the face of Putin's attempt to look backward, not forward. We are not going to give Vladimir Putin and Russia the ability to veto who joins NATO. We saw that very clearly at the session yesterday with Russian and NATO officials. Russia didn't like it because they didn't get the answer they wanted, which was a veto over who should be able to join NATO. We are going to continue to take a strong stand with our allies in opposition to what Russia is doing, but we can't use yesterday's solutions to help us solve today's problems. The immediate threat that we are facing right now is the threat of a Russian invasion of Ukraine, and we need to do everything possible, work as closely as possible, show no daylight with our allies in standing up to that threat. Unfortunately, what Senator Cruz is proposing with the Nord Stream 2 sanctions legislation would do exactly that. It would drive a wedge between us and our allies, particularly between the United States and Germany, at a time that we cannot afford it. So I intend to vote against this legislation and support Senator Menendez's legislation that will give us the tools we need to continue to address potential Russian aggression. I yield the floor and look forward to hearing Senator Murphy's comments because I know he shares the same concerns that I am expressing.

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Would my colleague yield for a question?

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Senator Murphy, I am really pleased--sadly pleased, but I think it is really appropriate that you brought up the issue about holding State Department nominees, because one of the things that have been unfortunate about Senator Cruz's approach to Nord Stream 2 in recent weeks has not just been his holding up of nominees but has been his suggestion that the change in response on my part and on others' who oppose Nord Stream 2 has been partisan. But, as you point out, during all of the Trump administration, Senator Cruz did not hold one nominee because of Nord Stream 2. Is that your understanding?

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Well, I think the other important point that we both made is the fact that what stopped policies and the pipeline when the first sanctions bill was passed was the threat of sanctions; it wasn't actually implementing those sanctions. In fact, it was then Russia's ability to come back in, retrofit ships, and do the work themselves, Gazprom and Russia. Russian ships did the work themselves, and throughout the last year of the Trump administration, they refused to take any action to address that. In fact, I remember being in a meeting--I can't remember if you were in that meeting or not--with Senator Cruz and some of our Republican colleagues and a member of the administration urging us to pass another sanctions bill because the administration had not acted. So I think it is really important, as you say, to point out that 95 percent of that pipeline was done under the previous administration when Senator Cruz and our colleagues who would like to stop the pipeline had the opportunity to hold up his nominees to raise those concerns, and that did not happen. That puts us at a disadvantage today as we look at the threat of Nord Stream. Would you agree with that?

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Thank you, Senator Murphy. I couldn't have said anything better. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I come to the floor to pay tribute to John Victor Amrol, Jr., a long-time New Hampshire resident, State employee, and labor advocate who passed away recently at the age of 85. Born in our State capital of Concord, John was in many ways a quintessential Granite Stater. He had a warm personality, an exceptional work ethic, and a passion for service that enriched his community and improved the quality of life for so many across our great State. After graduating from nearby St. John's High School in 1953, John took a job with the State of New Hampshire in our department of transportation, DOT. It was the start of a 44-year career in highway road design. Throughout his long tenure with DOT, John played a role in ensuring that our roadways were developed in a safe and efficient manner. He also served his community and State as a member of the Army National Guard from 1953 to 1978. He retired as a master sergeant, and he was a proud member of American Legion Post 21 for 26 years. John achieved so much with the department of transportation; yet as a longtime member of the State Employees Association (SEA)/Service Employees International Union (SEIU) Local 1984 and its president from 1991-2000, his true impact transcends all that he accomplished in his decades of work with the DOT. John was a pillar of the SEA/SEIU, serving on nearly every committee and always diving deep into the issues that affected working people and their families. The union represents a wide range of occupations in the public and private sector workforce that provides critical services to our State. Each and every member owes a debt of gratitude to John. He was a force in fighting for their well-being, dignity, and fair treatment. As a negotiator, John was as tough as New Hampshire granite. In fact, his wisdom and judgment at the negotiating table earned him the nickname ``The Father of Collective Bargaining for State Employees'' among his SEA colleagues. They also paid tribute to John by dedicating their office building on North State Street in Concord in his name. John was the president of SEA/SEIU Local 1984 when I was elected Governor. We shared a vision of a strong, secure middle class in New Hampshire where hard-working Granite Staters get a fair shot and their fair share, and we knew that unions play an important role in achieving that vision. I could always count on him for a fair, honest, and informed assessment of labor issues. The Granite State and the many people John served are grateful for his many gifts and powerful advocacy. In the last couple of weeks, family and friends have gathered to share and cherish their many fond memories of him. I am with them in spirit as they reflect on the life of this good and generous man.

Mrs. SHAHEEN

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 5 minutes before the vote.