fairness rules the day, she will be confirmed and hopefully by a majority of the senate and maybe pie in the sky to some but sometimes good things can happen in bipartisanship. >> she was confirmed to the court of appeals position nine months ago five bipartisan vote, 53 -- 44, she's 51 years old, undergraduate law degree from harvard and she would be former federal public defender to serve on the supreme court. elizabeth calling from maryland, independent. you are up first. >> i'm just wondering, what you think the republican senators on the judiciary committee are going to do? you think they will have a hard time with the republicans are not? >> you can watch the rest of this segment on the c-span now

video app. as part of our decades long commitment to live gavel together coverage of conflicts here on c-span2, we take you to the u.s. senate which is considering gestation to increase science and technology, research funding.

>>. [inaudible]

the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. the chaplain, dr. barry black, will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. most mighty and glorious god, full of incomprehensible

power and majesty, you are all we have. without your luminous presence, we will perish. lord, protect the ukrainian people as you would your very eyes. hide them in the shadow of your wings from the attacks of evil. empower these lovers of freedom to oppose and defeat their enemies. lord, continue to guide our lawmakers and make them instruments of your peace. give them the wisdom they need to do your will on earth even as it is done in heaven.

we pray in your powerful name. amen. the presiding officer: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance to the flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. the clerk will read a communication to the senate. the clerk : washington, d.c., march 21, 2022. to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable tammy duckworth, a senator from the state of illinois, to perform the duties of the chair. signed: patrick j. leahy, president pro tempore.

the presiding officer: under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved. morning business is closed. under the previous order, the senate will resume consideration of motion to proceed to h.r. 4521, which the clerk will report. the clerk: motion to proceed to calendar number 282, h.r. 4521, an act to provide for a coordinated research initiative to ensure united states leadership in engineering biology.

mr. mcconnell: madam president. the presiding officer: the republican leader. mr. mcconnell: over the weekend we learned that four u.s. marines were tragically killed friday night.

their training aircraft crashed during joint nato exercises in norway. one of those marines, colonel jacob more was born and raised in kentucky ken. so i want to take a moment to mourn this great loss and salute corporal moore's service. corporal moore joined the marines in 2018. he spent four years honorably serving our country all around the world. he was serving as an mb-22-b osprey crew chief based out of new river, north carolina. corporal moore was in norway along with other soldiers in 27 countries for nato's cold

exercises. every year nato soldiers train in northern scandinavia's frozen wilderness. this long-scheduled exercise is not directly related to russian invasion of ukraine, but the events of recent weeks have only reminded us of the incredible importance of the nato alliance to america's security and to world peace. corporal moore's service was hugely and directly important to our nation, to our allies, and to the world. so we will never forget corporal moore's service and sacrifice in defense of america's safety and freedom. we're thinking of and praying for his family at this terribly, terribly difficult time. on an entirely different matter. this week the senate will turn to a crucial constitutional

duty, deciding whether to provide or with hold consent to a lifetime appointment to the supreme court of the united states. president biden's nominee for this incredibly consequential position is judge ketanji brown jackson. judge jackson is currently a d.c. circuit judge of less than a year and nine months as an appellate judge, she has only offered two opinions both after this supreme court vacancy opened up. this time, unlike gorsuch, kavanaugh, and barrett, there is no meaningful sample size of appellate opinions for senators to consult. we know a lot about the time that judge jackson spent applying precedent as a trial judge, but little about her independent views of larger constitutional and legal questions. this makes the judiciary committee's work this week all

the more important. the country needs a respectful, dignified, but vigorous and exhaustive hearing. this is especially true in light of the disconnect between the thinness of judge jackson's record and why they wanted her. fringe groups that attack the court's legitimacy and want partisan court-packing spent a great deal of time and money promoting judge jackson for this nomination. once nominated, open borders pressures groip quickly rallied to her side. the senate needs to understand why. i enjoyed meeting with judge jackson recently. she's a likable person and she's obviously reached impressive heights in the legal profession. but i voted against confirming judge jackson to her current post last year and our meeting

the other week did not resolve my questions and concerns. here is what i will especially watch and listen for as our senate colleagues question the nominee this week. at the most basic level, i want to hear if judge jackson greece to follow the law as it is written. this is a simple, straightforward proposition. but the same liberals who spent decades imploring justices to do their jobs as legislators are eager to see her confirmed. meanwhile in the press, boosters of her nomination does say she has a philosophy and ensures us that it is mainstream. so which is it? i hope the committee can clear up any confusion. it is also the case that president biden has repeatedly declared that any judge he

appoints will pass certain litmus tests. he said they would have, quote, an expansive view of the constitution that includes the nontectal-based rights that activist judges favor. the president made reference to specific quotes about specific cases, for example. this he will in fact support roe v. wade. we need to know whether judge jackson passed president biden's policy litmus test explicitly or just implicitly. we also need to understand more about judge jackson's so-called empathy for a particular party and cases over others. this is not an accusation that republicans invented. it is the trait that judge jackson supporters happily ascribe to her. one law professor explained that judge jackson would, quote, bring a measure of empathy to

the criminal defense cases, the fourth and fifth amendment cases. i guess the judge entering a case with special preexisting empathy would be a great deal for the party with whom she empathizes. but it would be a raw deal for the opposite party. the judge's job is to bring neutrality, not an agenda. and yet, even as america grapples with the historic crime wave that the president chose in the nominee, her own supporters say the work as a criminal defense lawyer and work on the sentencing commission will tilt her judgment in favor of convicts. even as illegal border crossings are setting all-time records, political groups that support amnesty and functionally open borders are cheering that if confirmed judge jackson will, quote, shape the realities of millions of people who have come into our country. these confident policy

assertions are not selling points. they're actually red flags. so madam president, the supreme court sits atop one of the three pillars of american government. it is the ultimate back stop for the endurance of our constitution and the rule of law, and we rightly entrust that justices who lead it with life tenure. any nominee to the highest bench ought to welcome tough scrutiny, tough questions, and a rigorous review of their record. the country deserves nothing less, and this is what senate republicans will provide this week. mr. mcconnell: note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call:

quorum call: >> artist ben jensen, senior

fellow at the center for international studies and professor of strategicstudies at the marine corpsuniversity school of advanced war fighting . good afternoon mister jensen. >> thank you for having me on . >> glad to have you. i want you to start. we are now a little over four weeks into this invasion. i wonder if you can start by outlining your view of what you think russia's objectives were at the beginning of this invasion four weeks ago and how or if that has changed over the past 4 weeks. >> great question. if we look back at the campaign at least every indication is russia initially thought thiswould be a short campaign . they seem to think if they roll across the border it would produce aftershocks in ukraine. the armed forces wouldn't put up stiff resistance. they could that they could within 17 days be in the capital of kyiv and

effectively cause the administration to capitulate and put in some type of caretaker, frankly puppet government. very 19th-century of a man and aspires to be a new czar from the 21st century. what we've seen is that plan quickly ground to a halt and in fact it shocked most observers assumed because of the preponderance of russian military power that they would quickly overrun any assistance . frankly it started really with a series of stiff resistance at air force around kyiv where the ukrainians held off massive attempts to do an armed seizure of an air base, a difficult military operation. that seemed to be as i was watching one of those major turning points within the first 72 hours of the conflict and then what you saw is the ukrainian forces in the east put up extremely stiff resistance stopping the

russians from rolling through the second largest city of kharkiv and seeing the russian logistics problems manifest which isn't just the ukrainians causing them which they were. it shows there was a lack of planning on the russian side or anything longer than two weeks essentially and in warfare especially ground warfare usually after 48 hours, maintenance issues begin to come to the forefront and manifest so what you saw is that the russians meeting stiff resistance, ukrainians writing just aerobically in that first 48 hour and then couldn't repair their own vehicles and it turned out a lot of vehicles and dry rot in the tires, leaky seals . i know that sounds like rick and frank on npr but a sign of professional forces is how you can maintain your equipment and the russians have moved to contracted

professional force cannot maintain their equipment. that really marked a massive setback after the first 48 hours and then really into the end of the first week and you began to see the russians struggling to make any meaningful progress. even where they've broken out of the south they are still subject to large ukrainian counterattacks and that's important to note.most people look at this conflict and assume it's some kind of insurgency but the ukrainians are still fighting and mechanized brigade formations. that's large scale combat operations. this is not just lucky ukrainian insurgents ambushing russian vehicles. this is ground warfare combined with that type of partisan warfare that caused the russians to have to. and think more about siege warfare. how can they use terror and punishment targeting civilians deliberately which is a war crime to force the ukrainian regime, the ukrainian sovereign state to some type of negotiated settlement. that's where you're at.

the first week they lied to themselves in moscow and thought they could get this over with quick. now i think the life is proving difficult to sustain given the attritional nature of the conflict, the breakdown in more out, the breakdown in their own supply lines and all their left with is the ability to launch long-range ballistic and cruise missiles at ukrainian cities which is horrifying. >> the world all too familiar with these battlemaps showing the russian advances, one from the washington post in general we're looking fronts , crimea is. eastern front around their separatist control areas and then he is on kyiv. your assessment of the objectives for those three fronts, the goal as it were as russia had the most success and least success. >> will go from the capital to the east is out and i'm going to add the front and

the possibility of larger scale combat coming to western ukraine in the next two weeks . starting in the north, russia by effectively russia has done one thing successfully and without priority and forced belarus to become an utterly subservient state. so russian ground forces, air forces and missile forces are staging of belarus. belarus has changed its constitutionto have a taller fatter version of . a thug just like him as an indefinite term of office and it essentially is allowed now to have russia nuclear weapons from belarus territory so even if this war ends tomorrow that's one thing russia has done successfully and that absorb belarus even further than it has. they were able to use that territory to start to push the shortest distance from

belarus, large ground forces down to the capital and this is where you get those amazing stories of the 60 kilometer, 40 mile long traffic jams. that's a combination of that maintenance problems and you breathe ukrainian both partisans and professional soldiers actually continually ambushing those convoy lines with some of the weapons a lot of countries have seen fit to transfer so the objective of that north to south axis of advance is to at this point siege the capital andthere is a window of opportunity , begin to take territory. i think the russians at this point must be realistic enough even though they're taking more and more gambles by the day to realize that they don't have enough forces to fight the lock to lock in the capital. we're going to have to assume they want to get close enough with even to artillery so they're talking less than when he kilometer range. they can continually show the city so they don't have to

rely on long-range munitions and that's a key point for the west to consider as we are trying to help ukraine. swarming munitions so beyond the switchblade's thinking that 01 20 now looking at organic precision fire systems or even the israeli systems on display recently. you need to have an ability to do counter battery to stop them from frankly shelling civilian areas in kyiv so the russian objective is to encircle the capital so you're talking supply lines. it is 21st century siege warfare. and it's not position strikes like the us for our partners would do. it's just laying waste. so that their objective, get in position, hold the capital, force some type of movement in the actual negotiations. moving up to the eastern front i think there is really what we would call a fixed mission so i want remember, ukrainian forces have a

preponderance of their early in the. some of their better units to stop the russians they want to fix ukrainian combat power and easy to enable that north to south main effort, get into position to siege the capital and again, where they met resistance they started to bypass sunni, other cities because of such fierce resistance. that's going to create an interesting conundrum for the russians and that they have long exposed lines of communication that i imagine the ukrainians will have even more success in the coming weeks counter attacking so imagine you're a russian and forced to sign a contract to go fight in a country. you didn't want to fight and despite all the propaganda you see daily and now all of a sudden you're constantly getting hit. you're seeing banks tanks you thought were invincible blown up in frontof you . you are coming to steal food from the local economy because the officers didn't take care of you noncommissioned officers taking care of you and now

all of a sudden your rear area is getting counterattacks by a tank captured from your unit one week ago. you can see how this is creating an item away from around issues. moving to the south, here's where the russians have been most successful. you can call this crimea breakout. the idea was to push combat power out from crimea and turn right towards mariupol where you are seeing the large sea and turn left to create pressure on odessa though the majority of russians nato naval power and i include naval infantry is staged ready to conduct an amphibious assault of odessa. surprisingly they haven't yet . it might be coordination issues they had to repurpose supplies to actually support the other breakout. that's where you seen that fighting where even when the russians have taken territory, they've experienced counterattacks losing i think it's maybe as

many as 30 helicopters damaged and destroyed on an airbase on the ukrainian artillery and even experiencing mass civil disobedience by ukrainians who just hard content to see their cities occupied. where they are now turning to that writer is where you are seeing that the fighting and mariupol and you saw ukrainian government and the mayor of mariupol refused to surrender and their fighting block block in the city and while that might seem like the russians are about to win there's no hard harder fight than that hard urban fight. some of the footage coming out of there is deeply disturbing and fascinating at the same time period of seeing 30 millimeter guns on wheeledvehicles engaging tax , shooting their tracks so that other ambush teams can hit them. if the russian goal of this crimea breakout turns left turn right is to essentially if it's successful even in a

negotiated settlement ensure that ukraine no longer has a major port to connect it to the black sea which would force it to be subservient to moscow. north to south top access, and the capital. these, fix ukrainian forces south create that land corridor where you basically take you connect crimea to russia and then you connect your courses also do the mold open border where russia has a sizable military presence. >> let me open the phone for viewers to join and then jensen of the center for strategic and international study will bewith us . about another 25 or 30 minutes. start calling in with your questions. it is phone lines as usual in this segment. democrats 202-748-8000, republicans 2027 48,001. the center for strategic international studies is cs isi or on their homepage is the crisis crossroads ukraine

content there. all their writing by various dollars on this issue. then jensen byline go secretly if you see that webpage. then jensen, is. calling and one thing you didn't get to there i want to get to is how to assess the airport right now and you mentioned some of the drones as well for some of the names of the drones so how bars are playing in. how much do we know of the ukrainian air force is left and what has russiashown its able to deliver and how much of the sky that they will control in this fight ? >> first, if we think the russian ground forces havegot a feeling report card is even worse for their air force . given the massive disparity and number of airframes they were able to put up and the size of their inventory and crews and ballistic missiles they should have been able to with what we call joint cheating fire destroyed ukraine's ability to launch effects from airbases but

only use five minutes of joint cheating fire because their fear of victory was shocked at the system and then enforces political concession. that didn'thappen and they were capable of pivoting their plan and it looks like they don't have inventory of precision munitions so why does that matter ? that means they have to send old cold war era aircraft in the russian airspace and shoot long-range cruise missiles to ukrainian cities or targets in the west. that was that for front i talked about, russia wants to have affected the last to stop the supply lines that are keeping ukraine in the fight. ukrainian bravery is keeping it in the fight but weapons plus bravery equal a battlefield success. there airport, uk ministry of defense still defined the airspace as contested. what that means is russian aircraft are engaged by surface-to-air missiles and periodically by ukrainian fixed wing aircraft.

i don't know how they fixed wing aircraft ukraine has left. clearly they're uncomfortable with the amount they have left but they still lobbies tran tends to increase their inventory but at this point the airspace is contested. you can keep airspace contested by challenging someone aircraft and aircraft were challenging them with surface-to-air missiles which indicates ukraine becomes more important because many of those missile systems can also interdict some of those cruise missiles so you gettwo for the price of one there . >> the questions also from twitter as well. viewers at c-span tweeting in and jeff writes and wants to know more about ukrainian drone operators. what are they and do they operate apartments? are these civilians, are these operated out of military installations? >> i think probably all of the above that's a great question.

that's a twist in modern warfare. if you remember early on a number of ukrainian citizens and international folks donated class i ups, what we call group 1 ups. these are your hobbyist quad copter. dji is the company, the largest group 1 drone manufacturer so if you and i wanted to buy a drone we would probably have to buy a chinese built drone with a narrow frequency band. doesn't go high but difficult to stop and interdict so you have partisan warfare involve repurposing off-the-shelf capabilities so if jeff were to put up one of those drones and he had the right frequency, he could actually take the video footage, capacity ukrainian artillery while himself trying to

support his nation at war which we as americans have the tradition to understand . now you move up the level there were some older ukrainian drone systems, more for intelligence balance and reconnaissance but they actually using those 2q or two spots or artillery which a little history lesson here on profit, that was the origins of combat aviation in the u.s. army which led to the invention of the air force. originally the army and biplanes coming for artillery and that any old to shoot artillery at other artillery or troop concentrations so the drones have filled an interesting role there. moving up a whole but the real heroes of the battlefield has been the tv to so this is a turkish manufactured strike platforms is able to take full munitions, 2 to 4 depending on the payload and what's shocking is the russians despite the density of surface-to-air missiles that have been there, for the actions have not been able to really stop the tv choose

from interdicting everything from fuel trains, supply convoys, even ask themselves one on why that is is the russian supply shortages are so problematic they don't necessarily have fuel to operate their surface-to-air missile systems. so a missile is done unless you have a radar and the radar requires power and power usually in combat comes from fuel. burning tons and tons of diesel fuel like a generator to turn on that radar wave to guide missiles and no fuel, no radar. you can't use the surface-to-air missile. >> back to twitter for another question. julia writing it appears russia is fighting a war of maintenance. there's more than enough russian military to take ukraine but the largest tank for supper is being fought to a standstill with javelins and blown up bridges population who have the will to fight. i want to focus on the jacqueline we've heard so much about them. you're at the associated press photo of a test of that

being used in ukraine before the actual fighting began but the javelin missiles and how many we provided that we know about. >> i don't think we have a clear number and that's probably a good idea because you want to keep the adversary guessing on just how many antitank weapons are circulating. even when countries go out of their way whether it's the united states, finland, sweden, the uk , the list goes on and on whose donated these antitank guidelines. you have thousands mentioned hopefully you might have ãor half that in. there's a benefit to a degree of strategic ambiguity despite the important role that revealing key information has played in this war to the state. that's great! about all four of maintenance , i don't think russia said enough forces to take over ukraine because of maintenance issues and even without the tremendous support the international community has given to

ukraine, the ukrainians are fighting a brilliant campaign by tying into terrain. this is the old military addict where you multiply the benefit of your combat forces by moving with, not against the terrain. the ukrainians in fact around kyiv flooded a major area. use waterways and dams to make terrain impassable. they've been using this seasonal change, use the money coming to the front to slow down armored vehicles and then really carefully dropping bridges exactly like we heard on twitter to create analyzing effects. for now russian armored column be moving towards the water crossing and now all of a sudden that watercrossing drops . you have a long drawn out line of vehicles and its ambush time. an interesting thing that happened and picked up his ukrainians are showing tremendous ability to have intelligence and operations

so if you look at some of the amazing battle damage assessments done by places like or ask on twitter using video or photographic confirmation, look at the number of bridging vehicles. that shows deliverance. that shows not just wild partisans attacking. that shows a deliberate command and control and intelligence effort to pick the right type of vehicles to hit if i hit fuel trucks that tanks can't go. if i had bridging acts assets i reduce the space of my mobility and armor has a benefit when it's out in the open mobile fighting in combined arms so when i hit fuel, i had braces i grind those text to a halteven before i can interdict .>> republicans 2027 48,001, independence 202 48 8002. before we leave talking about tax. i wonder are we finding a weapons system that is becoming the cavalry charge of world war i or the bismarck battleship in world war ii?

is there a weapons system at this conflict is moving to show is outdated in the modern battlefield? >> certainly looks like tanks are the leading for the price . ill-fated price but i would be careful assuming that yet. what we've noticed is the russians thought their armor the way we would in most other countries where armored fights in combined arms formation. so dismounted infantry are actually putting suppressive fire or hunting down those antitank guided weapons armor can be used as a breakthrough, a soul or explication force. ukrainians have fought brilliantly in a way that even if the russians were trained to do that which we thought they were written doesn't look like they were . it would have made it difficult to perform. armor, maybe. i give you a lady on that one but i think it's still too soon to say. it depends on how you fight it and how you integrate other elements.

>> down to alabama, this is kelly. go ahead. >> thank you for taking my call. ukrainians, zelensky, they become an inspiration to the world. i'm having a hard time understanding weapons and everything we're giving them. i am so glad that biden and nato, the european union that we all thought that's the right thing to do and i agree that there should be no fly zones at this time. nobody wants world war iii. the thing i'm having a hard time understanding with this administration is it does take money to conduct war. china i believe is the piece of the puzzle. we don't know where china stands but why would we turn off russian oil?

it makes sense but we still know that germany needs their natural gas and yet we're going to go and they other dictators. venezuela, saudi arabia. it's still giving money to russia and yet at the same time we all live in the same world where it's still the same environment. why can't we turn on our oil which is still ... >> host: a lot of points there so let me let jesse jump in. >> guest: thanks for your concerns about energysecurity and its relation to larger strategy . i think kelly hit the nail on the head in that white infrastructure is a bipartisan issue. it's not just a national security issue.

frankly what this war is showing us his energy infrastructure is an international security issue as well meaning if we would have had an increase in the number of liquefied natural gas terminals to export from the us and north africa , terminals to receive them in europe and also frankly viable green energy investments with also going to have a long way to go because of the battery storage issue. the combination of those investments over a 5 to 10 year period puts you in a place where you stop relying on corrupt autocrats for your energy and while climate change is a viable concern i think this war is showing us we need to balance our concern about climate change which also our reliance upon autocrats whether it's russia , iran which might be exporting again soon or venezuela or energy resources . kelly's point is valid. we have to look at infrastructure investments that will allow us to think in 10 years . timeframe not just the a kind

of late to the party arsenal of democracy where we clear out old stockpiles of weapons that are to ask a tory to keep key countries like ukraine and war for their life. >> host: mark, democrat. good morning c4 thank you for taking my call and i appreciate thisconversation . i feel like mister jensen is given us all a good education on what's going on in the war . my question has to go with the next days of the russian attack. >> caller: i feel like they're preparing us for putin just cause mass destruction. what i wonder is if i know this is asking for a bit of a prediction but misterjensen's opinion , what is the next phase will look like. what can we expect and how should we take this as americans considering we're effectively powerless right now in the struggle.

and just want to know what his thoughts are on the next phase. >> mister jensen, go ahead. >> thank you from south carolina, beautiful state i wish it was in charleston even here in columbia, we can have this conversation by the day. i think you're asking me to make a prediction, my making a prediction and i'll directly see to the noble concern you raise about how the average american citizen can be a force for good in this time my production is that there's a current dilemma facing putin and what's increasingly a small sycophant is inner-circle. right now, i remember nobody likes to tell the truth to dictators or autocrats. like that movie horrible loss . nobody wants to pass that information out. for the first couple of weeks it was uncertain if he was getting correct information because nobody wanted to

confess outbad this was going. this point he has to be getting that information . what's going on is who didn't have to decide how far is going to press this in order to force some favorable concession my bet is he wants out but he has to have some type of face-saving measure. he had have something he can turn around to the russian public has lied to sar and say i actually was successful . id 25 ukraine whatever that means. and then he can actually go back to them reversing the economic sanctions and frankly arresting probably another 20,000 of his own citizens who shown that they are unwilling to prosecute this war that means the real decision-maker that is driving this in the next really weeks will be putin. peace talks, doesn't get as much press as it should have been making progress. this is just ukrainians, as multiple parties looks like ukrainians are signaling they would be willing to accept some form of armed neutrality

and probably what's going to be done now as high-level delegations are trying to decide what territorial concessions would be in the mix as well. russia clearly wants crimea to be formally recognized as part of russia and likely is pushing but has less legs to stand on for lujan's and dona . industrialized nations in the ukrainian sea. so war is a continuation of politics. politics, whether that be an intern for the battlefield? it means russia is only able to conduct seat warfare so that right now they're going to use that bargaining time to reconstitute, resupply. put forces forward and even do crazy things like calling syrian mercenaries in the site so they're trying to basically reconstitute, resupply their frontline forces which are digging in. that's why you're not seeing a lot of advances while telling ukrainian cities,

bombing ukrainiancities to put pressure back on the negotiation table . what i do think that happened in the next two weeks as well so this order position i expect to see an acceleration of strikes in the western ukraine . russia will try to increasingly signal to ukraine international backers that it is unacceptable to supply weapons that are used kill russian soldiers in ukraine. so be on the lookout for large-scale expansion of the conflict in the west. this point they can't push the russian army because of logistical difficulties but they could compel belarus to invade. they haven't been successful indoing that yet . belarus is at least the first week of the conflict has had its entire military mobilized . they call ready to interdict into the western ukrainian regions but they haven't gone so lightly lukashenko displaying a weird game where putin's telling him to go and he's coming upwith every excuse on why he won't join a party . that's my production. watch the negotiations, while

the negotiations areongoing , watch for russia to increase the punishment is laying upon ukrainian cities. the same time, be on the lookout for possible expansion of the conflict into the last of those supply lines or atleast make it more difficult for other countries to supply weapons . >> we spent the first hour talking about the invasion as well and in that time there were one or two colors that were wondering why ukraine had been brought to war into russia property itself so a question on that subject from spencer on twitter as well and he says why does it ukraine the russian military compounds whether by long-range missiles or otherwise better stages in russia near the ukrainian border to take their tax or the military equipment, their support personnel, what are your thoughts on that ? >> actually did get a lot of play but they have ukraine as a limited number of short-range ballistic missiles and the fire goes on

at least two occasions into russian military bases on the border of eastern ukraine. that has happened. the other thing to bring to the forefront which he did a great job and the best tradition of c-span talking about in the morning is escalation. another dimension of this is in modern warfare especially when you're fighting nuclear arms you will always manage escalation thresholds. it means you are trying to get the best possible outcome short of entering the next rung of the escalation ladder whether that's chemical weapons, biological or nuclear weapons . even if ukraine the range intermediate range ballistic missiles they would have to be real careful consideration of if i destroyed a russian tank or fuel depot outside of moscow, i now done something that gives them the pretext to do even more ukraine. frankly the ukrainian military is doing a

phenomenal job really, this is not doctoral, laying waste to russian formations. i recommend looking at twitter feed, they do the best job of conflict compiling information. you're talking about 1 to 5 exchange ratio lost for for everyone if a lost five russian vehicles lost even weirder for modern war five russian lost at least 2 to 3 times are repurposed by ukrainians. that means for every vehicle ukrainians lose, they add to the three new vehicles so they're actually recapitalizing the armed forces while they're fighting the russians. the tragedy of war and that is the only truth in war is there will always be tragedy is it comes at theexpense of the ukrainian population .

putin decides to put his money and russia's money ukrainian financial system and mix it together so russia and ukraine and the banking systems gelled together. our financial sanctions don't have an effect on the country decimated, we are not going to mention ukraine and their banking system. how can we avoid that? >> great question about some they are gross. we been starting to run a series of crisis relation and more gains on ukraine using great support from carnegie and other first to model these critical junctures in the scenarios you are speaking about. the scenario you're talking

about deals with economic warfare self one of the major ways many countries ban together and putin didn't anticipate was an agreement of sanctions and short order. if they've gone far enough is highly debatable. they can still process energy payment because the earlier collar pointed out, especially germany and italy highly dependent upon russian oil and gas so they haven't gone as far as they could but they are devastating to the russian economy in public. if for some reason it was some form of expect access, he would see a large scale in ukraine to continue and sanctions could quickly pivot to target russian interest, i think they could pivot quickly to cut off the scenario you are talking about. more interesting is looking at financial loss and customary laws around international debt,

what happens in that area. russia what essentially potentially be absorbing the debt by truck trying to formally annexed it and that's why you see this move for russia almost perverse warfare of the middle ages were you make states kind of loosely independent but they owe foreign policy and economic interest back in moscow so i think the scenario where you're taking it would be like that, russia fighting insurgency, they try to essentially seize ukrainian assets and use what's left of the ukrainian financial sector to try to escape sanctions but we could quickly pivot from back. more horrifying aspect of economic warfare is any scenario even now, the season has already started, he will see massive spike in food prices and shocks the global food system given the war in ukraine as a suggestion

supplies so another aspect of economic warfare is resources and how it rippled through earlier collar about this, what does it mean we can do as american citizens? i think it shows the best of us how we work in our communities and donate humanitarian relief efforts in ukraine and start to really look at donating to programs because this will spread beyond ukraine in food prices, i cast up my car last night, it seems more expensive each time. i think that's where we need to do, dedicate our time and hearts and resources to the broader humanitarian effects, especially ukraine. the war will end but the rebuilding of ukraine will take decades and we can't forget that when it's time to do that. >> a couple of minutes left, let me get to ken in fort lauderdale florida, republican, go ahead. >> a sorry excuse we have a

liberal skin of his own shadow running to the base every time putin yells nuclear weapons, command step up, be undermanned and be the president of the united states. if i was the president, i would've dropped black ops on putin's manchin, the black seat and leveled it and brought bombers and flattened his manchin to the ground. >> ben johnson promote the idea of escalation one more time, some of these other operations proposed for the u.s. >> i think it's always easy just like we all watch football on sunday, it's easy to say could of would've, should've, tom brady, he should have done this but when you look behind the curtain, escalation israel. i've encouraged our watercolor to google the radius and plot,

how radioactive material spreads. there is no winner of a nuclear war, there's only degrees of loss management so while everyone loves, i get myself into it, and with you, tom clancy novel in black ops doing this or that, this is not a game, it's not fiction, this is real life and real life against an adversary that retold it nuclear capability of limited use and position strike nuclear attacks showing they are willing to assume more risk than we are so i'm all about finding creative ways to conduct position relative to the corrupt kremlin but a has to be done with an eye on escalation management and for most of us i know that seems weird because we unfortunately think violence is scalable so we try to use comparisons, if i was fighting

back i and the street, to individuals fighting with their fists for broken bottles is not the same as nation states are met nuclear weapons engaging proposition and crisis so sometimes search for examples that can service, it's about u.s. versus russia or ukraine and nato versus russia because the war has a long way to go still. >> why isn't putin worried about escalation and why isn't he worried about us? >> i think putin is worried about escalation, i just don't think he's going to give an interview about it, you will not see him sitting on oprah's couch talking about his greatest fears and coming to terms with it, this is a kgb thug so i think he's deeply afraid. this is a man who won't sit within 20 feet of his own security officials so i guess is he's a man full of fear, afraid of his generals in fsb and his

elites, afraid of the u.s. military, even increasingly won't admit it but afraid of the ukrainians and most afraid of his own population because russians continually have taken to the street and brutally repressed them, walking them up. for as many russian servicemen who died fighting in ukraine, an equal number of russians have been arrested across the country and likely there will be more going forward as sanctions take hold. the art for us will be to match that narrative, we can learn a lot from resident zelenskyy on how to manage a narrative and make sure the russian people lamed their own regime blaming us for the economic winter over the next six months. >> will have to and that but drink as again down the road, senior fellow at the international studies csis.org. professor of strategic studies

at the marine corps university school of advanced warfare, thank you so much. >> thank you, and thank you for c-span. >> as we look ahead, first day of judge ron jackson supreme court nomination went by carrie, president of the judicial crisis network, two perspectives on the confirmation hearing but remind viewers what the crisis network is and how long you've been around and how you are funded. >> our organization is a 5124, been around since 2005, there was a lot of hostility toward bushes nominees and first-time historically the filibuster was used to block nominees so we were helping to make sure nominees faithful to the constitution of locke were able to get through the confirmation process and continue to do that today to advocate for that type of nominee as well as major supreme court issues. >> what type of nominee is judge

ron jackson? >> unfortunately she has a record on bench but her record does not show to someone committed in the interpreter in the constitution as written. when she was asked what her method of interpreting the constitution would be by senator cruz and grassley and others in her court nominations, she said she has no approach to interpret the constitution i find that troubling. that's a surprising statement from somebody who had law school through that process, it's really surprising from someone at that time for eight years on the federal bench, saying i don't have an approach to interpreting the constitution so i'm concerned her public statements are i don't even know how to interpret it and that means we are asking senators to vote for effectively just a blank slate on the issue but for record, she shows a pattern of particularly high reversal rate

not just in a vacuum that might not be concerning because the public court could see a different ideological background for a lot of reasons that could be but we have some of the most liberal judges on an already liberal circuit saying she's going beyond her authority as a judge, in particular doing so and political cases with regulations an executive order, something that concerns me she doesn't fully understand the limits on the judicial role and policy is getting mixing those analogies and i think in my mind does not bode well for her nomination. >> for folks not in the weeds of this as you are, explain or when a reversal rate is and what it means and how that compares to other judges, not justices on

the supreme court. >> judge jackson has a different background but a lot of judges, she had her career mostly as a district judge and most don't have that experience so that is an interesting experience to bring to the table. the federal judicial system there are three levels a district judge with your trials and deal with first level of litigation. after that, say you lose a trial and opportunity to appeal that decision. of her opinions, her decisions appealed to the d.c. circuit, the court she sits on now, an appeals court, small in the d.c. case but large and significant cases, the cases appealed of her decisions, 10% were reversed, that's a high number for a district court judge. that might not mean much but if you look at the opinions, one in which she was dealing with immigration regulation had to do

with when immigrants would be -- illegal immigrants could be expedited and removed, she said a lot of time in the opinion talking about immigration, the policy issues, that's not really a judges role and when ultimately she came to her conclusion, she said she tries to overturn the department of homeland security determined during the trump era on that issue, expanding eligibility for removal. the d.c. circuit including two of the most liberal judges said you don't have the authority to do that. that's something she was interpreting, less entirely in the administration. you might not agree the administration but you are bound by the limits, you can't second-guess that because you think it should come to a different result. that shows to me the incorrect understanding of buttigieg should be doing and in particular, you think a judge on the supreme court needs to be

one who has really thought through, how to write interpret the law and constitution? before in the lower courts, she's bound by other decisions from appellate court when she was a district judge for u.s. supreme court so even if she disagrees, she has to follow those. now it's really how do you personally think it should be determined under the constitution, how would you interpret the constitution becomes critically important to know is if someone, but her former boss justice breyer sank the constitution is what we call living, it can expand and change and evolve and the judges can breathe new life into old phrases and make them mean different things. if that's true, we will need to know a lot about her opinions and i think the best way to interpret if she said i am actually bind by these rules of how to interpret the text, the

text was ratified by the american people and text of the law was passed by elected representatives even if we disagree, we have to follow it and leave it to the proper role to change that, it's important to note that, a huge difference in how you interpret our founding document, we don't know from her mouth how she would interpret, all we know the people supported her who are very much in favor and president biden said he wanted to appoint somebody, this is the litmus test is he said what enforce the rights in the constitution, he said he wants someone who will enforce the constitution aspects that are not written down. reading into it, other rights we don't even know what they are, they are literally not in the document, that a huge difference saying i could read a new right and who knows what it's going to

be a must think i'm just going to read my own views of what should be in here versus and want to consider myself bound by the text and they can do that and if congress wants to read what a lot i'll be bound by that but i won't bring my own views in to the law because that's not the role of a judge. >> the american people to call in from across the country about 20 minutes left, if you want to drink the conversation, democrat 2,027,488,000. republican's (202)748-8001. independent (202)748-8002. 11:00 a.m. today, the first day of the confirmation hearings will begin in the senate judiciary committee hearing room and judge jackson will be there, 51 years old confirmed u.s. court of appeals for the d.c. circuit court june 14 of last year, by a vote of 53 -- 44.

she had her undergraduate degree and law degree from harvard and as pointed out, clerk for justice breyer in 1999 and 2000, the former federal public defender to serve on the supreme court and we heard about president biden even before we knew who he would nominate, she'd be the first black woman on the supreme court. i wonder what role if any do you think judge jackson's race and gender court or will play in the hearings in the next couple days next. >> obviously according to the president it plays a role in narrowing the field for him but i think at the end of the day, the question isn't her race or gender, the question is what is her approach to the constitution? we know that's not determined by race and gender, we have women on both sides of the bench right

now, first black justice in the far left, second black justice on the opposite end of the spectrum so the end of the day the real question to the senators, what is her approach to the law and how would she carry out the role as a judge? >> you mentioned clarence thomas out of the supreme court yesterday, justice thomas i think friday after experiencing flulike symptoms the statement from the supreme court yesterday being treated, antibiotics for infection and expected to be released in the next day or two, that news comic the first day of judge jackson import confirmation hearing and plenty of calls for you already, clarksburg west virginia, democrat, good morning. >> good morning, i just

wondered, do you have problems with justices answering the questions to the senate and they bypass the answers to the questions after the ripoff republic is pulled from why is it such a crisis now? >> well, we've had crisis for quite a while now and i think the crisis is when we have judges want considering themselves bound by the actual loss passed by representatives in the constitutional text ratified by the american people so returning judiciary to that will be key because something that crosses the ideological spectrum, you have to interpret laws passed by democrat legislature or republican legislature. as to how judges or potential judges or judicial nominees answer questions, this is something long and frustrating

to a lot of people, even elena kagan while before she was a judge in the judiciary committee, wrote a law review article complaining, we can't get answers and when she was up for hearings, she was the exact opposite, didn't give clear answers and the reason is, as a federal judge, she wasn't a judge at the time but names to become one, you have to be careful not to answer questions that commit meet on a case that might become before the case because that is prejudging the case. any judge realizes if he got into it thinking i know this area of the law, you will find things that will come up in the briefing and argument and say actually i think i was wrong, justice thomas had a recent decision in which he wrote that in his opinion that when i voted to take the case, i thought it would go one way and after hearing the argument and briefing i realized is the history and text, it went a

different way and that's what judges should be open to doing so will she be able to talk specifically about cases like this? no. however, that is not mean nothing you can talk about otherwise it would be a boring four days. you can still talk and judges regularly to talk about cases they've decided, that will be a topic we will hear about from a questions about those cases reversed or in which she's begun beyond her jurisdiction and was going through her mind. she handles when she was private attorney or public defender and her overall philosophy and approach to the law, something nominees on both sides of the aisle have talked about and should be willing to talk about, another issue to come up she can comment on is whether she would sit on a case because she's on the board of overseers for harvest and normally if you are on the board of an entity, even if you just own stock in a company, you can't then sit on a

case where that is so the senator will want to know are you really going to send this? finally, she can talk about broader issues that come up for an issue like court packing, something some of the liberal dark many groups who have been the strongest proponents of her nomination have advocated firmly, one board member from demand justice, her biggest defense upfront has said he be happy with 40 members on the supreme court has also set shocking things like the constitutional trash, i think she might be asked about things, do you embrace those views? were you distance yourself from them including the key issue of court packing which we know justice breyer talked about so a sitting judge can comment on those issues. i hope we have the opportunity

to learn about anomaly because this is someone who could sit on the court for 30 years so we can't just brief through this info on complete lack of information. >> there's always the case, he mentioned a moment at being asked about court packing in her confirmation here is that moment with judge jackson being asked by senator john cornyn of the judiciary committee. >> are you familiar with the organization called demand justice? >> i know of demand justice, yes. >> do you know that they are spending money to promote candidates, your nomination to the circuit court? >> if you mean by advertising or placements in various publications, i am aware of that. >> on their website, they say they advocate adding additional seats to the supreme court, do you think congress should add

additional seats to the supreme court? >> senator, as a sitting judge, i am bound by the supreme court and i don't think it's appropriate for me to comment on the structure or size of the court any more than it would be for me to comment on the court rulings. regardless of size, i would follow the president's of the court. >> she claims the supreme court broken from if you think the supreme court is broken? >> senator, i've never said anything about the supreme court being broken. again, i am not able to comment on the structure, size, functioning of the supreme court. >> and finally, demand justice says the supreme court has been

captured by partisan republican interest on their website. missus jackson, do you agree with that or disagree or do you have no opinion? >> again, i am not may able to make comments about whether supreme court is influenced in the way as you say, weeds and the way that it is. i do not have a comment. >> watching the exchange, are we likely to see a replay of that exchange? >> i hope not because listen to her comments she said she's bound by this, which is true she wouldn't be in this case so she won't have that available to her, she may still try to take it but i don't think senators

should allow her to say she's bound because she's not. every one multiple times has overturned former president so she can't simply say i am bound. on top of which, not speaking to the supreme court, that can be changed and has been changed multiple times in our history. >> there's no ruling is a sitting judge commenting on this and so while another she's going to want to say that, really hope we don't have 40s or simply i'm not going to answer that i cannot answer that are not going to answer that in because it's winter provided, why are we wasg our time for going to do that and this is a crucial moment for country and historic moment every time we have a supreme

court justice and there's only been a few hundred in our history so it is not something that happens every day we need to make sure that we are doing due diligence in understanding the judge's approach not just a rubberstamp anybody comes across the desk, because that's the roll of the senators that constitutional check on the president and they have a duty and an oath to uphold the constitution and this is part of the. >> rick, republican. >> good morning. >> i hope she's given a fair chance and watch the kavanaugh hearing and was definitely not fair and it was biased. i would be disappointed if they go that route again. >> 100 percent i agree i think that is something you will not see the crazy like all of the protesters and you're not going

to see personal smears being brought against his nominee and think that all should be unfortunately one party only. kavanaugh in the justice, and this would not happen support a happening that does not mean that we let the nominee through because otherwise it is a serious debate. the ability to have this serious discussion it and engage with real fact doesn't mean you have to vote for every single person have to have a civil discussion but has to be a civil discussion really gets to the meat of the issues and the really hold someone in close scrutiny

because that's what we are required to do. >> and what are your thoughts on that twitter thread by josh hawley and member of the committee who will be asking questions on judge jackson's record. the analytic push back after that and i want your thoughts. >> i think that's an issue that will be in debate. and it is hard to be transferred after she is engaging in the conversation was a real santa she taken seriously some of and she really just reflecting the arguments being made to her. she definitely does have a pattern level of the guidelines and is to be particularly in the area where this guideline is correct when i feel that when you look at the whole record,

that pattern of sentencing well below the guidelines, also plays out in other areas and she was on the commission's or broadview avenue in general are these crimes in particular this that i actually do not think they should be treated by god in which a to publish a note and a suggested that for example even registry, came out of the climate of fear and constitutionally be allowed and that might be you know, the idea there should not be real concerns about this of these offenders that something that will or a lot americans might disagree with and there is a lot of room for discussion it they say so i think that the challenge will be to get to the bottom of what the judge

jackson's rule approach should be that i hope that she is willing to answer the questions on this and again come this is something that she has dealt with as a judge you can talk about with her reasoning was in these cases were we can point, does she still stand behind word in that note that she has written, and that suggests that we should not be as careful and tracking. abuse comfortingly the women and children. >> people believe, this topic it, if i things from yesterday and you see a lot of him now in the days, he was responding to that series of tweets and he was asked about it and here's what he had to say. >> was far as the senators concerning them off here's the bottom line predict he's

inaccurate and is inferior and he's been scrutinized more than a person i can think of, the fourth time and before the senate issued. >> i asked unanimous consent the quorum be dispensed with. >> without objection and first madam president, i want to offer an offer condolences to the family and the longest-serving republican in history, estimate last friday at the age of 88, the state of alaska, and my thoughts are with his family in this difficult time. and now, earlier today, the senate judiciary committee commission hearings on judge ketanji brown jackson, historic

nomination to the united states supreme court, the daughter of public educators, miami paul levels high school the federal judge for nearly a decade, such hundred judge ketanji brown jackson began by turning to what matters most of her family, her qualifications, most of all, the fidelity and fidelity to the constitution and of the coast of the week, i expect the american fpeople expect why she is one of the most qualified individuals . unanimously rated judge jackson as well qualified for the supreme court, their highest rating possible. they will see why the president of the fraternal order of police said there is, quote, little doubt that judge jackston has the temperament, intellect, legal experience and family background to earn this appointment, unquote. they will see why even conservative judges, like retired d.c. circuit judge

thomas griffith who introduced judge jackson today wrote that quote, judge jackson is immensely qualified to serve on the supreme court and should be confirmed by the senate. unquote. and i also trust that americans will see right through the misleading and desperate broadsides that a few members of the other side have launched against the judge in recent weeks. we need not pretend that wild accusations from self-interested actors deserve to be taken seriously. so color me skeptical that the american people will give them much weight. finally, as these hearings begin, i want to thank chairmann durbin for organizing a speedy and fair confirmation process. his work has been outstanding. every member of the senate judiciary committee committee has met with the judge which will allow for thoughtful and thorough hearings just as the chairman had promised. i thus remain confident that as these hearings begin, the senate is on track to confirm judge jackson as the 116th justice

of the supreme court by the end of this work period. now, on senate business. as the judiciary committee begins a busy week of hearings, the senate likewise begins a busy week here on the floor. later this afternoon, the senate will vote to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to the house passed america competes act, the next important step towards enacting major jobs and competitiveness legislation that both republicans and democrats widely support. over the -- past year the house and senate have acted independently to pass their own versions of competitiveness legislation. to reconcile the differences between these bills both chambers must enter a conference before we send a final product to the president's desk. in order to go to conference, the senate needs to amend the house passed competes bill with the senate passed u.s. innovation and competition act and then send it back to the house. that's what we're working towards starting today. now, madam president, it is of the highest our generally si we

move -- our jensy we move forward on competitive legislation. it will lower costs, the words of the day are lowering costs, stop inflation. this bill will do a lot in that regard. the competitive legislation will lower costs by bringing manufacturing jobs back to america, by fixing bottlenecks in our supply chains, and by fueling scientific research. importantly, this bill would also help ensure that the u.s. has a long-term and resilient supply of chips, crucial for our military, our auto industry, our tech industry, and for american families who feel the sting through price hikes and maddening delays in available goods. as the war in europe reminds us, our country is vulnerable when we import too many goods from a single country, particularly semiconductors so needed in so many sectors of the economy. we need to make more of these products here in america instead of overseas to shore up our supply chains, preserve our

national security. for that reason alone let's not tarry any longer. let's not -- let's pass this important bill. no more delay. i want to thank my republican colleagues, especially senators cornyn and young, for continuing to work in good faith in this process. most of us want to see a conference happen soon, and i believe we can reach that goal in the coming weeks. now, as important as judge jackson's hearings are, i urge everyone not to sleep on a handful of other hearings happening this week that are crucial for our country's agenda and frankly our democratic agenda. in the senate help committee, chairman murray will hold a hearing tomorrow on something democrats have pushed for months cutting the cost of child care and preschool for american families. the senate committee on aging meanwhile will hold a hearing this wednesday on increasing home care services to seniors, something i strongly support and i thank chairman casey for organizing this hearing. and finally, the committee on environment and public works

will also meet wednesday for a hearing on clean energy, combating climate change, and increasing america's energy independence in the 21st century. all these issues, fighting climate change, lowering the cost of child care, taking care of our seniors remain at the top of our caucus' priorities. these hearings will inform us immensely as our caucus continues working on legislation that will lower costs and expand opportunity for the american people. and finally, last week on pntr -- last week the house acted in near unanimous fashion to pass legislation revoking permanent normal trade relations with russia. this legislation is very much needed for fighting russia and holding putin accountable for the carnage, the despicable, nasty, devilish carnage he has waged and levied upon the

ukranian people. this bill is one way to make sure he continues to pay a heavy price for starting this bloody and savage war. we need this legislation passed without delay. it got overwhelming support from republicans in the house, including from leader mccarthy. there's no reason to hold it up. let's move it forward. let's move it forward. no nation has so thoroughly soaked the blood of innocent civilians as russia. no nation like that deserves to have any kind of normal trade relations with the united states. and i call on my republican colleagues to work with us to pass this legislation quickly. there is no reason, absolutely no reason to delay its passage. i yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

supreme court nomination hearings, now by cable, served as president and ceo the national collision for black civics participation in this cable, among viewers with the coalition is now in long you've been rented how you responded. >> yes, it's been around since 1976, your civil rights organization focuses on voter empowerment, women's leadership, youth leadership, we focus on social justice issues, the policies, and we are funded by foundations and unions and individuals corporations so we

are very diverse. >> and i know you but if the segment, heading up to the supreme court speaking at a rally taking place today and who is a rally for and what we say the rally. >> welcome apart and noted with other said they will rise at about or with 30 or 40 or the other organizations and really today, historically a self, and if you have the first black woman it in many years was actually going to be not just nominated through the searing process but also continuing to advocate for her to have a fair hearing and as black women and women of color, higher position and have a harder time and not quite treated fairly in the confirmation process. >> and she has been through this process several times before and was converted to the circuit court of the bipartisan it vote i just don't little over nine

months ago it is your expectation at this one it will be any different from that one. >> will based on what happened with president biden and the biden administration announcing that this would be keeping the campaign promise that he would appoint an african-american black woman to lead his nominee was very very negative backlash of him doing that and also starting names that was out in the ecosystem in the in the media, and people being attacked and all kinds of things so that in itself the past weeks have shown that we need to make sure as black women in leadership that we are needing to rally around the nominee for them to have a fear process. on capitol hill last week at the

black and brown table and women of power summit and we were her last week and were back again here this week. >> think your phone calls in question is, 2,027,488,202 - 8001 for the republicans and 8002 for the independence and with us this morning to go ahead and start to call in and the same question that we ask in the last segment, what roll if any, should and will you think judge ketanji brown jackson race and gender play over the next four days here on capitol hill. >> as a woman and also black woman, susan walking the door, that's what she has walking in the door and with the represents this in this nation and inclusion and dirt food and diversity in opportunity and what is happening here his that

we have always had exceptionally qualified women of color. and we've not seen the highest court in the land that represented as of this is where my friends said that opportunity meets experience and so that's when she walks into the door with it and that lived experience of having myself being black in a woman i can relate to that challenging it is for us to have these opportunities and yet in this country have a handful of women to sit on the court and we've only had a few of the supreme court out of 273 years and so because it's diverse and i think that what she will to that is that lived experience of having it also being black and woman i think that is it. >> and what about the express in the background and being a public defender.

>> i think that is unique because you know seen that happen in that space so i think were being able to have that experience in her think about her experiences but what's more importantly she understands the roll of law and the constitution and shall be able to bring that to this when she walks in that door and go through this confirmation process and i'm cautiously optimistic at the furnace the rules today that she will be confirmed and hopefully by the majority of the senate may be a part of this fund zumba sometimes some good things can happen in a bipartisanship and she was in the court of appeals position minus ago on the bipartisan vote 53 - 44 44 judge ketanji brown jackson is 53 and under grad from harvard and worked for just prior first

public defender to serve on the supreme court and elizabeth, calling from maryland, independent and you are up first in the segment and go-ahead. >> just wondering if when you think the republican senators on the judiciary committee are going to serve with you think will have a hard time with the republicans are not, what you think. >> will we are hoping that she won't, but those of us who are applicants will push back what happens will be unfair and that the voters speak up in the public. biden: that they don't use her as a political football, do your job and the consent and with the process is and into fairway, you have a right to ask about her thanks and ask about things that she is done i just don't think

it personal and try to attack her character and that is a bit of a concern. >> what you can to last week about the series of tweets questioning her record on child predator in the form yes because i think that sometimes it's how you make the delivery and what you're referring about her and that is where we run into real problems with folks trying to create theater around her nomination as opposed to doing their jobs and you have a right coming on the committee and ask questions ask hard questions. and that you're not trying to refer something on this woman's character and her experience. >> susan in kingston, illinois, republican, good morning. >> i'm very concerned about abortion.

i believe in it up to 12 weeks or so, what they want to do but not knowing if the child or what the people don't believe it a child but i do but if i were in a situation, under three months, my thing that was long time i did not know about late-term abortion and it didn't know that happens, so that's my main main concern and you know, she's a christian or not just a christian but believing in higher power would be nice. i know him very concerned i just found out what it means, that's very scary, and i realize that some people are you know, bisexual or however therefore

maybe she and her they should be accepted people, will however god made a ventricular the people. >> there's a lot there the beach of an. >> will not quite sure what the question was in that but i would say but i think others in the supreme court, about the things such as that, i think that the key for her writing one is to look at the roll of law because the constitution and the justice and fairly. >> orlando georgia social circle democrats good morning. >> good morning, ada question with 95 percent of the inmates being blackmails, and a black woman judge is only one for my understanding, why wouldn't she be the most bona fide candidate

to morally decide to 95 percent like inmate in the state of what could possibly be with the constitution when he said that you should be judged by your peers. >> will i think that her lived experiences on the bench what is something that as a person who is not prosecutor, but also defended those who were targeted, i think that may be something in the unique is that deliberating is such as the criminal justice issues that may or may not come up something else would be a plus have somebody in that room who can bring that experience to the conversations they had a deliberate the cases moving forward. >> back to the circuit court

confirmation hearing, judge ketanji brown jackson and talk about the roll that the racial bias can play in the criminal justice system in this country and paris experiences in the cases involving those issues and here's about a minute and half of that exchange. >> and you been a judge now for about eight years of i'm not mistaken the experiences as a judge and part of that your experience as a lawyer, when you agree or disagree with someone who said that most racial disparities in criminal convictions, and sentencings result from an unconscious racial bias of the judges juries and other judicial decision-makers, would you agree or disagree with that statement. >> let me just say that as a judge now, it's very important for me not to make a personal commitment about things like the

question that you asked in the my personal views about anything do not impact my ruling, i am aware social science research, there is a professor at harvard who has done expose it bias work and their studies from the commissioner the policy taking roll, that talked about and indicated that all of us human beings can have a bias that we are unconsciously operating on and we have to think about that when we are the key decisions and especially policymakers in the criminal justice system and aware of the study i'm not a social scientist. >> no i understand that, your overall senses judge and certainly not a commitment

towards social science. >> 2000 that exchange from last year. >> the point that i was attempting to make it, that even if she had social pew viewpoints she is looking at the law and the constitution and that is what she is bringing to the supreme court but as a judge you have to set aside these personal views to the law and make sure based on the rule of law. >> greenville north carolina, independent good morning. >> good morning, first of all we can start the supreme court justices going back to clarence thomas, we should never run on the bench in the first place with the republicans pushed him through and not only that, his wife is the trump fanatic is still walking around doing

things and saying things that are indicating that donald trump i'm sorry, i'm so uptight with this. not even investigated properly, peter was kavanaugh, the fbi from investigating him further they cut them off and they had thousands of tips that they were not even respond to because they were told not to buy the justice department and by the president for the fbi to cut down the investigation they pushed it through and - >> do you have a question. >> the question is how come every time the democrats have a were somebody up, we go through this dog and pony show then when the republicans come up, it's a

slide except for these last couple because they've been taken advantage of the situation. >> i think thing is for those who are empowered, the nominees and one thing about this administration from they have put a lot more judges on in this administration and in some cases, - but i agree that a lot of times that you can see some bias where the democratic party, snow judgments just what i see is that sometimes we as democrats go a little overboard in trying to find the balance when you see it out of the aisle and there's a difference and i think it was point where have his men a strong support from the white house and the democrats in the senate who are

ultimately responsible for pushing her candidacy through and so i think this has to be done. >> about two minutes left, good morning, tennessee, republican, good morning and your next. >> good morning is just amazing how people cannot get over the fact of just leave trump out of this and monstrously the facts on hand. do you think you kavanaugh they were given the same - is this person will be given and that's basically the only question that i have because the democrats just released to people to the mud and did they ask if she'd ever had a sexual child encounter, that is disgusting.

>> i think that when it comes to well i will say that i think that when it comes to this process, the move quickly because her compared to some of the things that happened with this as an example i think that what happened in the senate is it got too much partisan when it comes to depending on what side of the aisle you are on is very unfortunate that we've not found a way to have that element of balance i personally believe that no party is worse than any other in my view and i think that is how you look at it everybody has a right to an opinion to it and i think this process is moving along fairly well at this point but we will see what happens when the question start and i will and so with the tone of this will be and hopefully it will be one that is fair. >> you've of you and whether

this should be added to the supreme court justice and added andy think that judge ketanji brown jackson should answer a question to the point enter confirmation hearing today or in the next couple of days. >> i know we were having an opinion at this point out an official opinion so i really don't have a comment on that and i don't know that the questions that she doesn't have any control over that so even if she was asked a question, i think that it would be unfair for her to have to make it up something that she would have something that she would have control over how you feel about something that she should answer. >> again, i don't thank you so a decision they would make so rhetorical innocence but i do believe that the idea of problems i will send them out officially on that but it seems

to me that could happen that is the question couldn't even happen and i just do not see it. >> was a more interesting to you. >> because that i think that sometimes a lifetime appointments, that's a long time and with all of the other things that would comes before that court, such long term, these decisions can last for like what seems like a lifetime and the ability to bring the diverse opinions that i see that it would be good for the country. >> a tweet as we been having this conversation, what are your thoughts on it, he would have things that we are living in a post- racial america, watch the supreme court confirmation hearing this morning and this week, will be a real test of fate and i wonder you thought that. >> will start to talk about we

think about the difficulties in the fact, nonfiction, when you look at what she went through decades ago when you look at loretta lynch and what she went through in her confirmation process you even look at this last year, with christian clark who had a harder time than even the response to having president biden harris administration said they were going to dominate african a mark in a moment black woman in response. and importantly, ray still matters and gender matters but i think that will have to continue to push and i know for our organization, what we are about, inclusion and also about having the opportunity for our communities just like everyone else in the numbers speak for themselves, is about 233 years

and you don't have people of diverse background and women in this nation on the highest court in the land in the justice at these folks in there for a lifetime and so we talk about that reality and what it means and it does matter but i can see myself in a judge ketanji brown jackson i love saying that name because the culture and diversity in what i grew up and my knee and you're under nine -year-old niece can look up and say i see myself in judge ketanji brown jackson, that is a plus for the nation and i really hope that people can see it in the united states of america because we are diverse and we come from all kinds of backgrounds and so when you have a space like that is in pretty much a margin is of the majority

white men covenant is not good for the nation and so i'm hopeful that we can focus on math consider the negative connotations we been dealing with his issues of race and we just finished a study that we do every year, and in essence, is in high issue do you ask black woman whether you are concerned about his eyes economic issues, and the next issue is still racism in this country because it is not been fully dealt with. >> great and reagan texas make a quick. >> yes, we come down to the constitution, the constitution and what to say to think the radio stations that helped out the speakers of what is going on the society to get out and vote printed the way they treated president obama and his wife and

calling her names, i just look o include everybody into our work and telling us that had nothing to do with us we need to go do our own thing feeding into this country. [inaudible]. >> the final manager to. >> i pay my taxes just like everybody else and i will make sure that wherever my tech scholar hundred dollars go i have a voice in his and the reality is history so we can't rewrite it that we can push with the kind of change that we want to see in this nation and its our nation we help to build it so i want to keep fighting and pushing for us to have all have opportunities and equity in this country not just for myself before generations coming behind us. >> have the first daily confirmation hearings for judge

ketanji brown jackson, today at 11:00 a.m. eastern and you can watch here in cspan cspan.org cspan video have, and with the national coalition on black civics for black women's and at the round table you check this out, i think you so much for your time this morning we appreciated. >> thank you. >> we now return to the topic of russians invasion in ukraine, guest from the strategic and international studies also a professor of strategic studies the marine corps university school of advanced were fighting and good morning to you. >> it good morning and thank you for having me on the public service that cspan provides. >> let have you know what i do to start because we are now a little into four weeks this invasion wonder if he was start by outlining your view what you think that russia's objectives were the beginning of this invasion, four weeks ago and how or if that has changed over the

past four weeks. >> sure, that is great question if you look back at the campaign, lisa brandy indication as much of this would be extremely short campaign come they seem to think it that they rolled across the border, that it would be such a shocking ukraine, the armed forces would not put up a stiff resistance and they could quickly within less than 70 days, actually be in the capitol tonight and effectively cause the administration to convince you i did putting some type of caretaker frankly puppet government in a very 19th century man who aspires to be a new person in the 21st century and what we see is it quickly ground to a halt in fact it talt military observers because they assume the russian was very power that actually they would quickly run any resistance and frankly it started really with a series of stiff resistance in airports around kyiv the ukrainians held off the massive

attempts to do an armed seizure of an airbase in a very difficult military operation seem to be at least as i was watching was closely one of the major turning point, 72 hours of the conflict pretty and then when she saw was stiff the stopping the russians are rolling through the second largest city of kharkiv also effectively sing the russian it just to get problems benefits and not just ukrainians causing the this and it also showed was extreme lack of planning on the russian side for anything longer than two weeks essentially in warfare especially ground warfare, usually after 48 hours, these issues begin to come to the forefront manifest so as you saw is that the russians meeting stiff resistance ukrainians fighting heroic leak, the first 48 hours, that also they

couldn't repair their own vehicles and it turned out there were a lot of vehicles had leaky seals and bad tires and in warfare is how well you can maintain the women the russians clearly despite having cleaned a contract and a professional force cannot maintain their equipment so the really marked massive setback after the first 48 hours and really to be universally when you get to see russian struggling to make meaningful progress even more broken out of the south, the subject to larger ukrainian counterattacks and supported to know because most people see the look of this conflict is also some kind of insurgency. but the ukrainians are large-scale covert operations and this is not just an insurgency ambushing russians vehicles, this is ground warfare

provided the type of partisan warfare is really because the russians have to printed and think more about seizure warfare the essential use terror and punishment civilians deliberately which is a war crime and force a regime to actually declare a summer say to some type of negotiating settlement so that i think that's where we are outcome of the verse week think you like themselves in moscow only because they could get this over quick despite the initial resistance think that the lies proving increasingly difficult to sustain given the attritional nature of the conflict in the breakdown around supply lines and all of the hard left with is the ability to launch missiles at the ukrainian cities which is prickly horrifying. >> the world too familiar with these battle maps are aggressive russian advances as a wanted washington post in general what we are looking at here out of in

the south, the eastern front around it the separatist control areas and then the advanced on kyiv and the objections of those three fronts the end goal as it were, and in which fronts is that russia had the most success in the least. >> so we will go from north to south, from the capitol to the east into the south and i will add for you a fourth one and a possibility of a larger scale combat coming to western ukraine within the next gone up

to $7,000 a container. agricultural products are left on the docks because the containers are left empty and not taking our products with them. we will address that in the senate commerce committee tomorrow. the administration announced an innovative plan to make sure there is stock space at dock ports to be sure that agricultural shippers can be ready and waiting on the docks and get out the door. this is so important because there were industry officials from the dairy association and the lentil association who lost

money because they were not able to get their products to market. there were 24% fewer containers that left full last year and some say that number has risen to 30% this year. instead of being filled with our u.s. exports to asia, these containers are being left empty and hurrying back to be filled up with more imports and then running back here to the united states. so we can't allow this cost to impact our growers. not only does it impact them in not getting the product to market, but what happens is they actually lose shelf space. no one is going to wait forever for the u.s. product to come. they'll just go to another country and give them the shelf space. so the biden administration is taking quick action to create this space at our ports to make sure that u.s. products are well positioned to get back to these markets as quick as possible. congestion has been part of the problem. we've seen a huge increase in

imports coming into the united states. that's caused uncertainty and congestion at these ports and we need to do -- that's why many of us supported the infrastructure bill to also build more capacity at our ports and we know that we're going to continue to do everything we can in this area of shipping reform to make sure that u.s. farm agriculture products gets to their destination in a timely fashion. i will have more to say about that tomorrow after we get legislation through our committee. but today, madam president, i really wanted to speak to our colleagues asking them to support moving forward on going to conference on the united states innovation and competition act. it has been 286 days since the united states senate passed this legislation. and we have an opportunity to help establish on a continued basis american leadership in technology, to employ more people and to help our country

compete in the economy of the future. but we can't do that if we don't get legislation passed and we can't continue to wait for people who don't want to go to conference. our colleagues on the other side of the aisle have to help us get to conference. this is so important, madam president, because by 2030, there could be more than 10 million new jobs in clean energy, advanced manufacturing, communication, and in computing. all of those, guess what, depend on us making sure that we do the right amount of r&d and make sure that we help in bringing u.s. manufacturing back to the united states. this is so critical as americans are feeling the pinch from products that they can't get. we all know that we have to help small manufacturers who struggle with the supply chain themselves. that is why this bill invests in the national institute for technology to help us -- help companies strengthen their

supply chain and fend off the threats of cybersecurity attacks. we also know that there's money in here to help educate a stem workforce so that we can train and skill the number of people in stem jobs that we need. but let's talk specifically about one supply chain crisis that is kimmeling -- crippling america's economy because we don't have semiconductors. it is a critical part of transportation. there are zero semiconductors in the united states. the united states must keep its leadership in this area of advanced technology. over 90% of these chips are manufactured in the pacific in taiwan.

the rest are made in south korea. so this is an economic and national security issue. chip shortages drive up costs and they also make us less safe. we know, thanks to a report from the senate armed service committee ten years ago that more than one million counterfeit components have been made and made their way into our national security system. so we've been fighting hard to fix that problem. just this money europol reports that counterfeiters are trying to introduce fake chips into the market. raising the chances that critical infrastructure like our defense system or other kind of communication systems could be compromised. so we've also been working hard to rip and replace a term that's been used to try to get foreign telecommunication electronics that could be compromised and

used as a backdoor to try and make sure that we lower this threat. according to the telecommunication industry, this is compromised by what? our chip shortage, which now we know that waiting times for some network equipment is now at 50 weeks. 50 weeks for something that's so important to our national security. the cost of some net working equipment has risen by as much as 12%, madam president. you hear about the cost of everything. you certainly hear about the cost of cars. so 12% and people are selling chips for 100 times their regular price. that is no way to build out secure broadband access. when it comes to clean energy, which requires chips, the prices of solar panels are up 18% because of the chip shortage and the cost of a used car has gone up 41% -- has gone up 41% and

12% for new cars. so a lot is due to the semiconductor shortage, yet our colleagues after 286 days, don't know if they want to go to conference. i'm asking my colleagues to vote and go to conference of let's not take another four and a half weeks, if you don't like the house bill, i know a lot of my colleagues don't, let's get a bill and go to conference to get it done. we're depending on one country for chip manufacturing is not the best idea particularly when there are numerous issues. it's just been over 18 months since security researchers found a hacking campaign that compromised seven taiwan manufacturers to steal chip designs. do we want to continue to rely

on these other countries or do we want to manufacture here in the united states of america something so critical to what is critical to the industries of the future and help us by making sure that we have a plan never have these kind of price spikes impact us because of shortages. i ask my colleagues, these r&d bills are going to help us with u.s. manufacturing. they are so important. in addition to the semiconductor manufacturing incentives in these bills, it specifically has resources for the department of defense to security microelectronic supply chains and help our national security mission. that's what's at stake here. why are we delaying? you don't like it these ideas, at least let's get on the bill and offer some ideas in conference that you would like to see. we're more than happy to have that discussion. but industry is taking action to try to resolve the shortages but investing in semiconductor

manufacturing technology will actually help us increase the productivity that is so essential and needed for our foundries. our current shortages, some people who might think, well, in a few years we'll catch up and it will be a thing of the past. i will tell you, if we don't act, more shortages are to follow. the world needed one trillion ships by 2018, in 2021, it was nearly 1.2 trillion chips per year. that is how our economying changed and -- economy changed and everyone relies on the semiconductors. in 2021, we will need two million chips per year. so that is why we need to act quickly on something that is impacting practically every day parts of our lives. current protection show that demand for chips will grow in

all sectors, especially the automotive sector where semiconductors in the content in vehicles double. now, madam president, i don't know, i hear a lot of talk as i went home to hear about these issues. but some people are saying that maybe some people are taking semiconductors out of the current design of auto mobiles so they can get the product ready to ship. why do we want that? we don't want that. we want america to have a full supply of semiconductors, produce the best product the market wants and compete internationally. but to do that we have to get this bill moving and we have to get support. madam president, that is why tomorrow we're having members of the semiconductor industry testify before the senate commerce committee so we can hear how the united states can have next-generation technology and lead in this critical area.

we do not want to rely on someone else to make is sure that we have a secure nation, secure communication and the next generation that is going to move our industry, particularly manufacturers, to be competitive in a global economy. so the choice in front of us is whether we want the united states to have a leading role in chip fabrication and in r&d and whether we're going to meet that demand. if you're ready to take that, please help us get to conference. it can take three to five years from when a foundry is built to when production begins. and every day we don't move to pass usica, it's another day that u.s. manufacturers are waiting. this bill means investment in our future, it means investment in securing our supply chain and investments preventing spike hikes in the future. it is well worth it if our

colleagues act and i encourage them to do so. i yield the floor. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. without objection. the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture. the clerk: cloture motion, we, the undersigned senators in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to proceed to calendar number 282, h.r. 4521, an act to provide for a coordinated federal research initiative and so forth signed by 17 senators. the presiding officer: by unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum call has been waived. the question is, is it the sense of the senate that debate on the

motion to proceed to h.r. 4521, an act to provide for a coordinated federal research initiative to ensure continued innocence leadership in engineering, biology shall be brought to a close. the yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

vote:

vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: on this vote, the yeas are 66, the nays

are 29. three-fifths of the senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted in the affirmative -- upon recalculation, three-fifths of the senators duly chosen and sworn having voting in -- voted in the affirmative, the motion is agreed to. the ?oart from illinois -- the senator from illinois. ms. duckworth: i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to executive session to consider the following nomination, nani a. coloretti to be deputy director of the office of management and budget, that the senate vote on the nomination without intervening action or debate, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate that any

statements related to the nomination be printed in the record, and the president will be immediately notified on the senate's actions. the presiding officer: is there any objection? mr. lankford: : mr. president,. the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. lankford: reserving the right to objects. mr. president, i do object to this nomination moving at this point to be able to do a unanimous consent on this. the reason is that o.m.b., we have consistently gone back to them and asked for just basic information and o.m.b. continues to be the spot where things are held up, and they're not turning information over to us. we've been exceptionally patient with o.m.b. a couple examples of this. we worked with d.h.s. to get additional information on some of the detention beds and to be able to ask about this. we did specific questions for the record to d.h.s. in july of last year, then again in november of last year.

we still do not have the answers to those. it is our understanding d.h.s. has turned those over to o.m.b. to be able to evaluate. o.m.b. still is not turning those over to anyone else. so they're locked up into the system. i've had numerous conversations with o.m.b. and with the white house on trying to get the information on how they're handling religious exemptions and religious accommodations for the vaccine mandates. this is an entirely new process they've created for all of the agencies, and entirely different process running through the united states military right now. there are around 23,000 people that have made a request in the military for religious accommodation. about 23 of them have been given an answer. most are getting no answer. across the federal agency and all the federal families they're asking the questions about what do we do on a religious accommodation. they're not getting an answer at all or getting answers that are differently. we've asked o.m.b. who you are

you handling it? how are decisions made? what's the timing on it? we're not getting answers on that. we've gone to the task force, we've gone to the o.m.b., to the white house, to agencies, they all point back to o.m.b. saying they he are going to release that. we're not getting it. basic clarity of information. i can go on and on. i've got pages of questions we put in that we're either not getting an answer or they'll release something publicly available, but not the information. we're not asking for unreasonable things. we're just asking for an answer. so yes, i do object, but i'd really like to get this information from o.m.b. if this was a nominee on the other side, democrats would certainty be asking for information, saying why did you make requests in july, it's now march and we can't get an answer, because o.m.b. won't release the answer submitted by the agency. so i do object. ms. duckworth: mr. president. it makes no sense to say that

we're not getting answers so we're not going to confirm anybody to this position of deputy director of o.m.b. we only just confirmed the director last week. it's like saying i'm going to the emergency room because i have an emergency, and there are no doctors working there to solve my problem, so we're not going to let any more doctors in to work there. it makes no sense. i'm deeply disappointed the republicans are objecting to the swift confirmation of the honorablenani a. coloretti to be the deputy director. she came through committee, was reported out of committee. any questions should have been asked in committee. we're holding up the nomination of someone to lead the agency where you say they're not answers your questions, but there's no leadership there to get those questions answered. in is -- this is a circular logic. ms. coloretti is eminently qualified to hold this position.

like many members of our nation's diverse native american, asian hawaiian and pacific islander community, she lived the dream of immigrants who came to the nation in search of a better life. her late parents instilled in her the value of education and hard work and fostered a sense of empathy and curiosity to lead ms. coloretti to the life of public service. she is a true public servant, devoted to serving her country. her nomination should not be controversial. a bipartisan super majority coalition of senators confirmed her to serve as deputy secretary of housing and urban development. of course, this overwhelming support was not surprising, given ms. coloretti's service in the public and private director. during her time in public service, ms. coal rhetti dedicated herself to making

government better for the people it serves. at the department of treasury she pushed to enhance decision-making processes through better use of data and evidence. at the u.s. department of housing and urban development, where she served as chief operating officer of a department with a $45 pl budget -- $45 billion budget, ms. coloretti strengthened programs to ultimately achieve better results. look, there's no question that nani a. coloretti is eminently qualified to be deputy director of the o.m.b. nor is there any question that the president deserves to have his full leadership slate in place to formulate and finalize his fiscal year 2023 budget proposal. as the president often notes, a bum et truly -- a budget truly reveals what one values. that's why it is so important the senate confirmed the honorable shalanda young to be o.m.b. director last week. if you want to fix the problem,

get answers, let's get someone like nani a. coloretti in there who has a background and track record of getting agencies working correctly, working again, efficiently for the american people. that is why it is critical we move swiftly to confirm narn nba now. i -- confirm nani a. coloretti now. i yield back.

ms. duckworth: mr. president,. the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. ms. duckworth: i have one request for a committee to meet today. it has the approval of the majority and minority leaders. the presiding officer: duly noted. ask. ms. duckworth: note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: united.

quorum call:

mr. portman: parliamentary inquiry come to the floor today to stand in solidarity with the people of ukraine as they suffer through the brutal and cowardly russian assault. i have spoken on the floor each of the last six weeks about the horrific events we have all watched unfold and what role the united states should play. simply put, we need to do more. and we need to do it more quickly. as do our allies. as we talk this evening, the shelling and killing of innocent civilians continues in the dark of night in places like kiev and kharkiv and mariopul.

putin seems intent on destroying what he can't have because of the brave outgoing ukrainians who refuse to surrender and refuse to live under his despotic rule much those horrific ukrainian defenders of their homeland deserve our support. even if they didn't, this blood did i war launched by an authoritarian regime matters to world freedom, to our own national security. it must not stand or else all of us in freedom-loving countries are at risk. as we talk this evening, the ruthless bombing continues. something happens is happening. president biden is getting ready to cross the atlantic to meet with our nato partners to talk about next steps. although nothing has done more to solidify the west than the ruthless russian attacks, i commend president biden for the important role he has played in helping keep the alliance together. now i call on him to lead that

alliance, to redouble their efforts, to stop the madness, to ensure that russia is not rewarded for its war crimes. it is one thing keep the alliance together. it is another thing to lead the alliance out of its comfort zone to a stance to actually win this war. i believe moving leaders to do more is possible because of all the deadly russian escalation that we've seen but also because free citizens all around the world are shocked by the death and destruction that he they see -- that they see online be, on tv. and they're speaking up. i see this at home in ohio. i think leaders can be persuaded to do more. over the past month, the administration has changed its mind and ratcheted up some sanctions and military assistance we have advocated from both sides of the aisle from this senate floor. to their credit, the administration reversed themselves and agreed to

implement the nord stream 2 sanctions, to allow u.s. stinger missiles to go to ukraine directly from us, to impose the swift banking sanctions, to ban oil from russia, and to take away russia's most favored nation trading status with us. now with russia ramping up, america and the free world must do more as they bomb maternity hospitals. bomb shelters filled with children. last week i led a bipartisan group of senators to poland and to the ukrainian border where we witnessed firsthand the pain that russia is inflicted on innocent civilians. we talked to dozens of refugees, almost always ukrainian women and children, sometimes grandmothers and grandchildren. they came to poland with only a backpack and a suitcase, leaving everything else behind. in tears, they begged us to

close the skies. they told of apartments or homes being destroyed, of the heartbreak of leaving their husbands or sons or fathers behind. -- to fight the invaders. so what more can we and our allies do to help ukraine win this war? note i say win this war. if we act swiftly, i think we can still defeat the russians and keep ukraine as a viable democracy. if we do too little, thousands will die, as will the dream of ukrainian democracy. the forces of evil will win and all of us will pay a price. let me talk about five areas where i think we could do more to assist ukraine. first, on the military side, we must redouble our efforts with urgency to provide ukraine with the equipment ammunitions and where necessary the immediate training to improve their air defenses and give them better offensive air capabilities. the decision whether to

facilitate providing more mig-29's from poland and other allies who have these soviet-era airplanes have been hotly debated. in my view, we should have done it long time ago when we got the initial green light from the administration a few weeks ago. the ukrainians have asked for them and i do not believe they are anymore escalatory than certainly the escalation that russians are engaged in vitter lit every day. we now have reports of clusterbombs being used. we have reports of vacuum bombs being used against civilians. it's also no different than what we have done and continue to do with other weapon transfers, whether stingers, javelins or others. remember, the ukrainians are on defense here. they're just trying to protect their country. give them what they say they need to defend themselves. i would hope that at least we could immediately facilitate spare parts and other assistance to keep the current ukrainian planes flying. the ukrainians have made it desperately clear that they need

more air defense. we just learned today from public sources that the united states is providing sa-8's and old soviet-era defense system to ukraine. apparently this is equipment that we got years ago because it was the soviet system to be able to study it. we have that system and today -- as of today we decided to send it to ukraine. however, the same reporting also said that the more capable s-300 soviet-era systems that we have are not being sent. look, i'm very glad these systems are going to protect innocent civilians. but, to me, this shows the lack of urgency that i was talking about earlier. here we are on day 25 of this all-out war, people dying every single day, and finally we've looked into the closet and we have inventoried these incredibly important air systems and we're providing them? where were they on day five or day 10 or day 15 or even day 20

with people dying, every one of those 25 days. and why are we not sending the a-300's? i don't know the answer to that. there may be an answer. there may be a reason i can't know what that answer is. to me, this is an example of us having to have the urgency to respond and doing more and doing it more quickly. the u.s. can and should facilitate the transfer of former warsaw block antiaircraft systems that ukrainians know how to operate, like the s-300, like the sa-8's, sa-10's and others. there are regional partners in the area that have these systems -- without going into detail -- we should also provide extra munitions to replenish existing antiair batteries. our partners in the region say they are willing. let's facilitate it. let's make it happen. let's get the nato countries to

can help to help more. over the weekends there are reports that slovakia and turkey were willing to take such action. of course, we must also keep sending stinger missiles which are effective in shooting down russian helicopters and the lower-flying jets. we must find ways to provide ukraine were more armed drones such as the turkish tb-2, which has been very effective apparently and even one-use loitering munitions. last week it was announced that the united states was sending 100 of these loitering munitions, one-use munitions called the switchblade. 100 will go very quickly. we should increase that number. let's get the 100 there first and let's increase that number to give the ukrainians more to

be able to defend themselves. to our israeli friends, i know this is controversial, but i would ask them to consider selling us or other countries, and we should agree to buy their drones which ukraine could use right now. the bottom line is we need to flood the zone when it comes to providing ukraine with military assistance. we are not being asked to fight this fight for them. they just want the tools to be able to defend themselves. and have a chance, a fighting chance, to be able to win. there should be no gaps in our weapons transfers and we need to lead our nato allies and others when it comes to providing and coordinating support. second, we need more sanctions. we need to implement them faster. the sanctions have to bite -- now, not two weeks from now or two months from now. we need to remove all russian banks' access to the global

financial system. if we were to have the effect we need to to have, russia must be cut off from the world. we've already seen some of of the pain that we can inflict. wherever there are loopholes, it is not enough to go after individual banks such as the v.t.b. and sever bank. we are told that the kremlin has transitioned banks from these banks. we need blocking sanctions on all of russia's finance and defense industry as long as russian forces are in ukraine. we need to exert maximum pressure to be sure no money can be sent to russia to fund war efforts. we must ensure that energy transactions are not exempt from these sanctions. russia should not be allowed to use its oil and gas profits to kill innocent ukrainians. we can also target the way russia including individuals close to president putin evade sanctions.

when i was chair of the public committee on investigations we published a bipartisan report showing how sanctioned russian ol' -- -- oligarchs continued to have access to the u.s. financial system. you've heard sanctions weren't particularly effective. this is one reason. they laundered their money through art. they continued to purchase millions in art through auction houses and dealers in new york after they were sanctioned. in that report we recommended congress should amend the bank secrecy act so art dealers would ensure they are not using art purchases to launder money or evade sanctions. these are the same requirements we place on financial institutions. those changes are now the more urgently needed than ever. the european union and united king closed this loophole by requiring businesses handling art transactions valued at

10,000 pounds or more to comply with antimoney laundering laws, so the purchase isn't being you'd to evade -- used to evade sanctions. the united states, which has the largest art market in the world, becomes now the main target for sanctions russia to continue to evade sanctions and launder money through high value art purchases. if the administration doesn't move we are drafting legislation to close this loophole in the united states senate. third, on tax treatment, we should suspend our tax treaty with moscow and explore options to remove other tax benefits from russian businesses. the united states has income tax treaties with a number of foreign companies to facilitate investment and prevent double taxation for businesses that operate in both countries. in these tax treaties, residents are generally taxed at a reduced rate or exempt on

certain items of income. these treaties reduce taxes of russians but generally don't reduce taxes for u.s. treaty residents. they would reduce taxes for u.s. citizens. president biden has the constitutional authority to suspend our tax treaty between the united states and russian federation. we need to pursue options to isolate russia and make it clear that there are consequences for these actions, the tax treaty is one more way to do that. we should follow the u.k. and suspend exchange of information. we should no longer incentivize u.s. investment in russia or provide preferential tax treatment for russian investment in the united states. fourth, on trade, there are two additional things we can do to bring pressure on president t putin and his allies. access to our market is a privilege, not a right.

and we should not give russians the normal access. the house passed a law to suspend what's called most favored nation or pntr for russia last week which some in the senate oppose because it doesn't contain a statutory ban on russian energy imports. currently the energy import ban can be undone at the whim of a president rather than the legislative criteria about the restoration of ukrainian sovereignty and the cessation of hostilities. i agree we're putting it in statute. i think that would be a good idea. but i believe the urgency of the moment means we have to find a way to stop preferred access to our market. let's do it this week. the international trade commission should also bring the full might of u.s. trade remedy law to bear on russian companies which trade unfairly similar to how we treat chinese companies. last week i sent a bipartisan letter to the i.t.c. on this topic. the commission is required by law to consider relevant economic factors which have a bearing on state industry in the

united states. given russia's behavior, including manipulation of trade flows in pursuit of maligned strategic objectives and exceptional involvement of the state in the domestic economy, we asked the commission to take these into account in cases involving russia when they violate our trade laws. the commerce department should reclassify russia as a nonmarket economy, making it easier to bring unfair trade cases against them. it is appropriate to reclassify them because up to 70% of their economy is now run by the government. commerce was asked to reclassify in the fall but retained russia as a market economy allegedly after a russian delegation pressured the biden administration. in light of the invasion, commerce should reconsider that decision. and ensure that russia is reclassified as a nonmarket economy. now a handful of countries like china and belarus are in that category. this means these countries don't have a free market. instead they have policies that

restrict of flow of capital, involve government in the running of the economy and don't allow wages to be set in bargaining. when a country is a nonmarket economy our trading forces have an easier time being tough on those countries when they sell products here that are unfairly priced. fifth and maybe most important and most difficult, we need to lead our european allies on fully sanctioning russia's energy sector. russia's war machine is funded primarily through energy sales, including natural gas and oil to europe. probably the best way to persuade those persuadable in russia is to cut off those resources, as we are doing here in the united states. it's going to be a lot more difficult for our allies in europe to do that because many are dependent on russian energy. but there are many steps the united states and other allies like qatar can take to expand energy production here at home and help our allies abroad.

l.n.g. comport contracts need to be -- export contracts need to be finalized now. further, the treasury department's announcement that sanctions against russia's biggest banks do not apply to energy transactions until june 24. june 24 may be too late. that's unacceptable. we need to change that treasury department approach to sanctions against those biggest banks and ensure we are applying them to energy transactions as soon as possible. i would advocate to a similar approach in how we designated iranian entities when we left jcpoa. we did not issue sanctions waivers to european countries that continued to do business with iran's economy and that forced those companies to leave iran's market even though european governments weren't particularly supportive of that.

some companies in europe haven't done enough in light of this invasion. it can't be business as usual. we need to figure out a way to stop that revenue. by the way, there is a connection between the iran deal and ukraine. under the new iran deal secondary sanctions will be lifted on the second back of iran, enabling transactions between russia and iran to include the central bank of russia, sever bank, and others. in other words, the iran nuclear deal guarantees russia can use a sanctions-free iran as a sanctions invasion, sanctions evasion oasis. the administration needs to reverse course here, sanctioning russia because of the war in ukraine and giving them a pass when it comes to the iran nuclear deal is contradictory to foreign policy interests. this proposed treaty needs to be submitted to congress as is required by law so that we can analyze that issue and make a decision. so we need to do more, and we

need to do it quickly. i've outlined some of the actions we can take, and we should act fast to let the people of ukraine know that we stand with them. the popular ukrainian rallying cry when translated into english is glory to ukraine. glory to the response is glory e heroes. [speaking a non-english language] there are many heroes to glorify in ukraine, soldiers, professionals, civilians, doctors, nurses, firefighters, who are providing food and water and blankets. we pray for them all and we pray for their families. godspeed to the people of ukraine and their simple and profound quest, a battle for a free and independent ukraine.

we must show the world that america supports that simple quest, that we stand with ukraine. thank you, and i yield the floor.

mr. schumer: mr. president. the presiding officer: the

majority leader. mr. schumer: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today it adjourn until 10:00 a.m. on tuesday, march 22, and that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour deemed expired, the journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day and morning business be closed, that upon the conclusion of morning business, the senate resume consideration of the motion to proceed to calendar 282 h.r. 4521, the america competes act postcloture. further, that all time during adjournment, recess leader remarks and morning business count postcloture, that the senate recess from 12:30 to 2:15. finally if any nominations are confirmed during tuesday's session of the senate the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table and the president be immediately notified of the senate's action. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: if there is no further business to come before the senate i ask that it stand adjourned under the previous order.

the presiding officer: the senate will stand adjourned until 10:00 a.m. tomorrow.