the senator from nevada. a senator: are we in a quorum call? the presiding officer: we are not. a senator: madam president, this week the senate considers to outstanding nominees to the u.s. district court for the district of nevada. ms. cortez masto: they have my full support and the support of senator rosen. i urge the senate to confirm them. nevada's federal bench has had vacancies since 2016 and 2018, so the need is urgent. senator rosen and i have carefully reviewed the records of the president's nominees,

judge kristine that silva and professor anne traum in cooperation with the bipartisan judicial commissions in our state. both of these women have the skill, the dedication, and knowledge of the law to serve nevadans and the nation as district court judges. judge kristine that -- kristine na silva became the first woman and latino to serve as chief of the criminal division and worked on the investigation into the route 91 harvest festival shooting in las vegas. since 2019 she has been a judge on the aight judicial court in las vegas. nevada has benefited immensely from judge silva's public service and i am confident she will continue that service on the federal bench. professor anne traum has served as an attorney for civil courts in the u.s. attorney's office, as an assistant federal public defender, and as a practitioner who has argued more than 30

cases before the ninth circuit court of appeals. she currently teaches at william school of law where she directs the law schools of appellate clinic in working on cases before the ninth circuit and the nevada supreme court. professor traum's record as both a practitioner and as an academic will make her a strong addition to the u.s. district court. these two nominees have received the support of many in nevada's legal community, including former republican governor brian sandoval, a former federal judge himself. they have demonstrated their commitment to justice, the law, and their community. they represent the best of nevada and i will vote for them enthusiastically and i ask and call on my colleagues to do the same. thank you, madam president. i yield the floor. mr. cornyn: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cornyn: madam president, as

anybody who's been watching c-span knows, the confirmation process for judge ketanji brown jackson is well under way. over the last few weeks, members of the senate judiciary committee on which i'm honored to serve have conducted a meticulous review of judge jackson's record and qualifications. during this week's hearing, though, we have an opportunity to dig deeper and to hear directly from the nominee about her ability to serve as a fair and impartial supreme court justice, somebody without an agenda, somebody that doesn't dabble in politics, and somebody that doesn't use this position to enact policies that they prefer. many of our colleagues are familiar with judge jackson's experience because she was recently confirmed to the district of columbia circuit court just nine months ago. she received her undergraduate

degree from harvard, sterling credentials and she worked for justice steve breyer who is the judge that she is succeeding on the court. she's had varied experience which i think is to her credit. she's been a public defender. she later served on the u.s. sentencing commission, and she spent the last nine years as a trial court judge on the federal bench. judge jackson is obviously smart and she's quite accomplished, but we know that a lifetime appointment on the supreme court requires more than just an impressive resume. our democracy requires that judges rule based on the law, to use the words that judge jackson used this morning in the judiciary committee hearing, she said judges need to stay in their lane, which i actually appreciate because under the separation of powers, obviously

a lifetime tenured federal judge who does not stand for election should not be making policy. that should be left to those of us in the electoral process to make those decisions and then, of course, the courts determine the constitutionality and legality of those policy choices, not -- and it's not appropriate for them to impose their own preferences instead. unlike previous nominees who had no experience on the bench, we don't have to make assumptions about judge jackson's decisions. we have the ca -- thability to examine hundreds of prior opinions she's issued and ask for clarity from the nominee herself. in addition to her time on the federal bench, we have a responsibility to dive into judge jackson's record as both a prosecutor and as a member of the u.s. sentencing commission. despite what some of our colleagues have suggested, in unof these lines of -- none of

these lines of questioning are out of bounds. it's really amazing to me that even though the president has a constitutional right to nominate whom so ever he chooses, we have a constitutional duty to provide what is called advice and consent. and so that means asking tough but respectful questions about her record and background. the senate is not here to rubber stamp the white house's nominee. we have a responsibility to scrutinize her record, understand her thinking, her judicial philosophy, and ultimately determine whether she has the right qualities to serve as a member of the court. that's exactly what advice and consent involves. and judge jackson's record including work at every point of her career should be examined and none of it should be out of bounds. beyond a thorough review of judge jackson's record, we also need to gain a clear picture of

how she approaches her job of judging. what some people call judicial philosophy, what i call who decides. there's some questions that are decided by judges that should be decided by judges and not elected representatives, like members of congress. conversely, there are some areas, as i suggested, where we should be making the decisions and be held accountable for those decisions, and the judge ought to be making a more narrow and focused review of those decisions for constitutionality and legality. but that does not give her permission to impose her policy preferences over those of a majority of congress when a bill is passed and signed into law by the president. judge jackson previously suggested that she didn't really have a judicial philosophy, something i find very difficult to believe. today she did not provide a lot of clarity beyond offering vague

statements about the methodology by which she decides cases. i find it very hard to believe a judge with this kind of experience says she doesn't have a judicial philosophy, and i hope we can gain more clarity as the hearings continue. again she did talk about staying in her lane, not making political or policy decisions which is a good start, but there's a lot more we need to hear from and a lot more commitments we need to get from the judge before she's confirmed for the federal bench. judicial philosophy has always been the central points of inquiry by the judiciary committee and it's never more so than at this particular moment is it important. the framers of the constitution, we know, had the wisdom to establish one branch that made policy decisions, and that would be the executive branch and the legislative branch. actually two branches of government.

and another that would operate free of politics and elections and be given lifetime tenure. ultimately all legitimacy of government comes from consent of the governed. so we don't have a group of nine overlords or wise men and women on the potomac who are going to tell us how to live our lives. that is a decision that we the people make through our elected represent tefs and through our constitutional -- representatives and through our constitution and other laws. in federalist 78, alexander hamilton said that the courts would have no influence on either the sword or the purse. in other words, they wouldn't be responsible for national security or public safety or for spending tax dollars. and he went on to say it may truly be said to have neither force nor will but merely judgment. that's another way of saying the judges decide cases and controversies.

they don't make broad policy pronouncements. that's our job here in the congress for which we are held accountable every time we stand for election. we do not need nor do i want a judge who will decide at the front end what the result they want to reach and then cherry-picks the law and the facts in order to justify that decision. so it's important to understand the process by which judge jackson makes her legal decisions, and we got a little bit of a glimpse this morning but over the next couple of days, we'll have further opportunity to ask more questions about that. one of the things i am concerned about is some of the outside groups that are advocating for justice jackson's confirmation. we're seeing activists that demand judges reach a particular result regardless of the facts or what the law prescribes. some of these outside

rabble-rousers believe judges should deliver results that their party can't seem to accomplish through the deliberation, compromise, and rough and tumble of the legislative process. and when the court does not deliver these results, many of these outside groups will attack the integrity and legitimacy of the court as an institution. in recent years these radical views have made it into the mainstream. in the summer of 2019, five of our democratic colleagues, including the current chairman of the judiciary committee, filed a friend of the court brief in the united states supreme court on gun rights. these senators in their brief made a not so subtle threat that unless the court ruled a particular way, the entire institution would be restructured. several months later the leader of the senate, the majority leader, fired his own warning shot. he actually went to the supreme court steps and threatened two

sitting supreme court justices by name if they did not rule in a particular fashion. but the senate isn't the only place we're seeing these sort of irresponsible attacks. liberal dark money groups like demand justice have paid millions of dollars to promote court-packing and sow public distrust in the legitimacy of the court. and even the white house appears to be open to a supreme court overhaul. on the campaign trail, for example, president biden refused to disavow reforming the supreme court. his administration even established a commission to study the issue. the courts were not designed and are not designed to be a roundabout way to deliver certain results are or invent new rights out of whole cloth. that is illegitimate in my view, and i'm not the only one who thinks that. that's why it's imperative that we gain a clear understanding of

judge jackson's approach to judging and what she regards as in her lane and what she understands to be out of her lane in terms of policymaking or political decision making. we need to know that if confirmed, she will rule without fear or favor, that she'll follow the law as written, not as what she wants it to be but what it actually is. and that she'll defend the supreme courts as an institution as justice breyer and justice ginsburg have when asked about court packing. the senate's duty is to provide advice and consent and it is absolutely critical to the integrity of the high court and the health of the our democracy. judges after all don't have term limits. they don't serve for two years and stand for election or six years as we do here in the senate. they're not accountable in elections. they wield tremendous power as defenders of the constitution and the last word in resolving

contested lawsuits in the courts. so we have a responsibility to the american people to get this right, thoroughly evaluate judge jackson's qualifications and do our best to ensure that if confirmed, she will be an impartial and fair judge, not just for the people who nominated her, not just for the outside groups that are cheering on her confirmation, but for all americans. before judge jackson was named to fill this vacancy and before there was even a vacancy to fill, president biden promised to nominate an african american woman to fill this bench. while the historic nature of judge jackson's nomination has been heavily reported, there's been far less attention spent paid to the fact that she is not the first african american who was considered for the supreme court. african american woman. when justice sandra day oh

connor announced her retirement in 2005, one of the top names that floated as a potentialal successor was judge janice brown. democrats filibustered judge brown. and she was ultimately never even given the opportunity to be nominated to serve on the supreme court. that wasn't because of opposition by republicans. it was because our democratic colleagues, led by then-senator joe biden, derailed her nomination. janice rogers brown had the opportunity to make history by being the first african american woman nominated for and confirmed as a member of the supreme court, but it's very clear that then-senator joe biden led the effort to derail that nomination and denied her that historic opportunity. i understand and appreciate the historic nature of judge jackson's nomination, but i hope

our colleagues and members of the media do not lose sight of the mistreatment of many nominees before and should have been nominees who came before judge jackson. what the american people have seen over the last two days is is a far cry from the way we've seen people like justice gorsuch or justice kavanaugh treated by our friends across the aisle. judge jackson has been treated with courtesy, with civility, and dignity and respect. and i expect that trend to continue through the remainder of this process. as republicans have said all along, this process will be thorough and exhaustive, but it will be respectful. we have a busy week ahead of us, and i'm eager to learn more about judge jackson, her judicial philosophy and the qualifications she would bring, if confirmed, to the supreme court. madam president, i yield the floor.

i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. sanders: madam chairwoman? the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. sanders: thank you. madam president, at a time -- the presiding officer: senator, woulder in a quorum call. mr. sanders: i would ask that the quorum be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. sanders: madam president, at a time of massive and growing income and wealth inequality, the american people are outraged at the unprecedented level of corporate greed that is taking place all around them. today while the working class of this country is struggling with higher gas prices, higher food prices, and higher housing prices, the billionaire class and large corporations are doing phenomenally well, and in fact have never, ever had it so good.

the united states today, the average worker is making $4 a week less -- $44 a week less in inflation accounted for dollars than he or she made nearly 50 years ago. corporate profits are at an all-time high, and c.e.o.'s have seen huge increases in their compensation packages. we have never seen in this country the level of corporate greed that we are seeing right now. unprecedented. let me just give you a few examples. while the price of gas has soared -- it is now $4.25 a gallon, on average -- exxonmobil, chevron, b.p., and shell made nearly $30 billion in profit last quarter alone. just last quarter.

meanwhile, big oil c.e.o.'s are on track to spend $88 billion this year, not to produce more oil, not to address the crisis of climate, but to buy back their own stock and hand out dividends to enrich their wealthy stockholders. and here's more corporate greed. in fact, it is never-ending. amazon raised the price of its prime membership by 16.8% while it increased its profits by 75% to a record-breaking $35 billion and, by the way, managed to avoid paying $5.2 billion in taxes. meanwhile, the founder of

amazon, jeff besos, became $81 billion richer during the pandemic and is now worth some $186 billion. that is his worth. more corporate greed. the price of beef is up 32%. the price of chicken is up 20%. and the price of pork is up 13%. meanwhile, tyson foods, a major producer of chicken, beef, and hotdogs, increased its profits by 140% last quarter to $1.1 billion and gave its c.e.o. a 22% pay raise last year to $14 million. meanwhile, the owner of the company, john tyson, nearly

doubled his wealth during the pandemic and is now worth some $3 billion. want more corporate greed? here it is. we are looking at outrageously high prices for prescription drugs and, in fact, we pay, by far, the highest prices in the world. last year pfizer, johnson & johnson and abvi, three giant pharmaceutical companies, increased their profits by over 90%. 90% increase in profits to $54 billion. meanwhile, the c.e.o.'s of just eight prescription drug companies made $350 million in total compensation in 2020. when we talk about corporate greed, we are also talking about

massive levels of income and wealth inequality. in our country today, the two wealthiest people own more wealth than the bottom 42% of our population, and that is more than 130 million people. two people own more wealth than 130 million americans. and the tonight one percent now owns more wealth than the bottom 92%. since the wall street crash of 2008, about 45% of all new income has gone to the top one percent. in other words, over the last many decades, there has been in this country a massive redistribution of wealth.

unfortunately, that redistribution has gone in the wrong direction. it has gone from the middle class and working families to the top one percent. now, i understand that that is not an issue that we talk about much here on the floor of the senate, not an issue we talk about much in the media. but it is an issue that must be talked about and, more importantly, must be dealt with. and listen to this, which i think really says it all -- during this terrible pandemic, when many thousands of essential workers died on the job -- they went to work in order to feed their families, they contracted the virus, and thousands of them died -- during that same period of time, over 700 billionaires in america became nearly $2

trillion richer. working people die on the job because they have to feed their families, and 700 people -- not a whole lot of people -- became $2 trillion richer. so that is where we are today. desperate workers are dying because they're forced to go ■to work to provide for their families while the people on top are doing unbelievably well. today billionaires like elon musk, jeff besos, and richard branson, are zooming off in their spaceships to outerspace. they're buying $500 million super-yachts, and they're buying mansions with 25 bathrooms. while half of our people live

paycheck to paycheck. is that really what america is supposed to be about? we are discussing now in the midst of this horrific war in the ukraine -- there's been a lot of discussion about the russian oligarchy. and that is absolutely appropriate because in russia you have a handful of billionaires attached to putin who own unbelievable wealth. but what do we think we have now in this country? it's an american oligarchy, as the distribution of wealth and income becomes worse and worse every day. madam president, the american people want those of us in congress to take action to

address the unprecedented level of corporate greed and income and wealth inequality that we are seeing right now. they are sick and tired of large corporations making record profits and in a given year paying nothing -- zero -- in federal taxes. they are sick and tired of billionaires paying a lower effective tax rate than a teacher, a nurse, a truck driver, or a firefighter. the american people want congress to address corporate greed and make certain that the wealthiest people and most profitable corporations pay their fair share of taxes. and yet this week, right now, what are we debating here on the

floor of the senate? we are debating legislation to provide some $53 billion -- billion dollars -- in corporate welfare with no strings attached to the highly profitable microchip industry. and, yes, if you can believe it -- and i suspect there are people out there who really don't believe it, but i am telling you the truth -- this legislation also provides a $10 billion bailout to jeff bezos so that his company, blue origin, can launch a rocket ship to the moon. madam president, in terms of the microchip industry, let us be very clear.

we are talking about an industry that has shut down over 780 manufacturing plants in the united states and eliminated 150,000 american jobs over the last 20 years while moving most of its production overseas. in other words, in order to make more profits, these companies shut down plants in the united states and hired cheap labor abroad. and now, believe it or not, these very same companies that sold the american worker out, they're now in line to receive $53 billion in corporate welfare to undo the damage that they themselves caused. do we need to expand the

enormously important microchip industry in this country so that we become less dependent on foreign nations? the answer is yes, absolutely. but we can accomplish that goal without throwing huge sums of money at these companies with zero, no protections for the taxpayers. here it is, take the money. madam president, we are the only major country on earth that does not guarantee health care to all of our people. apparently the american people are not entitled to health care. we have the highest child poverty rate of almost any major country on earth, which has gone up by 41% since january because of the refusal of some to extend the child tax credit.

apparently our working families are not entitled to raise their kids in security and dignity. we have 45 million americans struggling with student debt because of the outrageous cost of higher education. apparently our young people are not entitled to quality education without undergoing financial distress for, in some cases, decades. those people are not entitled. but here we are today on the floor of the senate, because many of my colleagues think that the enormously profitable microchip industry is entitled

to a massive amount of corporate welfare. madam president, my guess is that five major semiconductor companies will likely receive the lion's share of this taxpayer handout. they will likely be intel, texas instruments, micron technology, global foundries and samsung. these five in line for a massive welfare check made over $75 billion in profit last year. made $75 billion in profit, and now they're on line for $53 billion in corporate welfare. my understanding is that the company that will likely benefit the most from this taxpayer

handout is intel. and let us be clear, intel is not a poor company. it is not going broke. it is not in desperate financial condition. quite the contrary. in 2021, intel made nearly $20 billion in profit. we're talking about a company that enough money to spend $14.2 billion during the pandemic, not on research and development, but on buying back its own stock to reward their executives and wealthy shareholders. we're talking about a company on line for a major welfare check that could afford to give its c.e.o., pat gelsinger, $116

million compensation package last year. you've got working class people all over this country working 50 or 60 hours a week, trying to keep their families afloat, paying their fair share of taxes, and providing $53 billion in corporate welfare, a lot of which will go to a company that pays its c.e.o. $116 million in compensation and provided billions in stock paybacks. madam president, we're talking about a company, intel, whose c.e.o. in 2003, andy grove, said that he had, quote, no choice, end quote, but to continue to move jobs overseas as he predicted the united states would lose the bulk of its information technology jobs to china and india, which we

have. do we really think that a highly profitable corporation like intel needs a taxpayer bailout worth many billions of dollars with no strings attached? but it's not just intel. another company that will likely receive taxpayer assistance under this legislation is texas instruments. last year texas instruments made $7.8 billion in profits. in 2020, this company spend $2.5 billion buying back its own stock while it has outsourced thousands of good-paying american jobs to low-wage countries and spent more than $40 million on lobbying over the past two years. but it's not just intel, it's not just texas instruments.

it goes on and on and on. madam president, providing $53 billion in corporate welfare to an industry that has outsourced tens of thousands of jobs to low-wage countries and spent hundreds of billions on stock buybacks with no strings attached may make sense to some people, but it does not make sense to me, nor do i think it makes sense to the american people. now, madam president, i understand that there will be a major effort to pass this bill as quickly as possible in order to move it to a conference committee and send it to the president's desk. so let me be very clear. i will not support any unanimous consent request to speed up the

passage of this bill unless i receive a roll call vote on two extremely important amendments that i have introduced. the first amendment would prevent microchip companies from receiving taxpayer assistance unless they agree to issue warrants or equity stakes to the federal government. if private companies are going to benefit from over $53 billion in corporate welfare, the financial gains made by these companies must be shared with the american people, not just wealthy shareholders. in other words, all this amendment says is that if these companies want taxpayer assistance, not going to socialize all of the risks and

privatize all of the profits. if these investments turn out to be profitable as a direct result of these federal grants, the taxpayers of this country have a right to get a return on that investment. that is not complicated. nor is it a radical idea. these exact conditions were imposed on corporations that received taxpayer assistance in the bipartisan cares act which passed the senate 96-0. in other words, every member of the u.s. senate has already voted for the conditions that are in my amendment. further, the cares act was not the first time that congress passed warrants and equity stakes tied to government assistance. during the 2008 financial crisis, congress required

taking top funds -- congress required all companies taking tarp funds to issue warrants and equity stakes to the federal government. in addition, this amendment would also require these highly profitable companies not to buy back their own stocks, not to outsource american jobs, not to repeal existing collective bargaining agreements, and to remain neutral in any union organizing effort. again, this is not a radical idea. all of these conditions were imposed on companies that received funding from the cares act and passed the senate by a 96-0 vote. a second amendment that i have introduced would simply eliminate the $10 billion bailout for jeff bezos to fly to the moon. if mr. bezos wants to go to the moon, good for him.

he has $186 billion in personal wealth. he became $81 billion richer during the pandemic. he is the second second-wealthiest person in america, and in a given year mr. bezos has paid nothing in federal income taxes. if mr. bezos wants to go to the moon, let him use his own money, not the taxpayers'. madam president, i yield the floor. >> today the senatejudiciary

committee continues in this most historic hearing with the most qualified nominee , the most consequential board in all the land. judge ketanji brown jackson is unlike any other nominee in american history but

yesterday she made clear our approach will be the same as the great jurists who came before her .", to defend the constitution, the grand experiment of democracy that has indoor over these past 246 years . our record shows that she's up to the task. the clerk or three judges including justice breyer, federal judge for nearly 10 years and nominee who commands the endorsement across the political spectrum including both law-enforcement and human rights. two days ago record of nine organizations and eight survivors of sexual assault and domestic violence announced their support of judge jackson citing her mix of comments since while adding that quote, judge jackson's views reflect the judicial consensus. a few weeks ago the international association chief of police celebrated the judge or her dedication to ensuring that our communities are safe and the

interests of justices are served and in early march nearly 60 former doj officials including scores of former us attorneys expressed their confidence that the judges appreciation for how the criminal justice system works would be a critical addition to the court . now when the facts are on your side you attempt to change the subject and that's precisely what some republicans tried to do yesterday. republicans show they don't have a plan for addressing judge jackson on her merits so they expended a lot of ink and paper pushing arguments that range from irrelevant to downright misleading. as the judge's confirmation hearing continues today and constant that americans will see right through these flimsy broadsides and focus on the judges impressive record. so as we enter date 2 of the hearing i think my colleagues on the judiciary who will engage with the judge and i again express my confidence she is on track for final

confirmation before the end of this work period. on competition. competition bill and costs. last night the senate cleared the first procedural hurdle on moving forward with jobs and competitiveness legislation that both parties support. in fact a vote last night was to more than the final passage to month ago on the senate bill . as a reminder, our long-term goal is to get to a conference committee with the house to finalize a bill we can send to the president and to do that we must take the legislation the house scented, amended with the bill the senate passed and return it to the house so they can request conference. that's the elaborate process that the senate requires usto do. this legislation has been dissected and debated for well over a year now . but the need to pass this bill really boils down to two simple words. jobs and costs.

it will create more jobs by bringing manufacturing back to america for overseas.to lower costs by taking aimat supply chains , address the chip shortage andincreased innovation . equally important, this legislation will revive the grand tradition of american innovation that is has fueled us and helps our economy grow four months in the 20th century. our colleagues are universities and are startups are some of our country's most prolific job creators and that they need to pass this bill to strengthen each of them. through this bill we will also address the chipshortage and especially severe storage on american families . there's nothing abstracted about the shortageof chips . it impacts americans abilities to buy cars, refrigerators , phones and other household items. americans face long delays in finding these goods andwhen

they're available and out and up costing lots more than they did before . bypassing bipartisan legislation that invest in domestic production you can help alleviate this chips crisis. americans used to lead the world inchip production. we produced a third of the world's supply. for the sake of american workers, americans consumers and our national security we must leave the world again . passing this bill is critical for achieving that goal. and our efforts in the democratic senate are by lowering costs extend to other areas as well. today the commerce committee will hold a market on bipartisan legislation by senators lola char and two to reform unfair shipping practices that are clogging up ports diminishing american exports and openly hurting consumers this bipartisan shipping bill is exactly the sort of thing the senate should focus on because when there's a large logjam at the port of los angeles, the tremors are felt by farmers

in minnesota and north dakota and ultimatelyamerican consumers to tab . chairman murray will also hold a hearing today on the health committee on another very important issue. lowering the cost of childcare and free school. today families pay something more than $10,000per child . on childcare. more than some might pay for their annual deposit on their cost for a mortgage. $10,000 a year is simply out of reach for many families. not only to our kids suffer when they don't have somewhere safe to stay, families opera when parents can enter the workforce and our countrysuffers as our economy's productivity is diminished an example of other countries that have better childcare . it is shown in the greater participationin the workforce particularly by women so i think chairman murray and members of the health committee for focusing on this issue . today's hearing will surely inform the work of senate

democrats as we work on legislation wecan consider which will lower cost for the american people . finally mister president on the npr. this week, members from both parties must work together to take the next steps to holding putin accountable bypassing pnpr legislation approved by the house of representatives.i believe it passed something like 2024 to 8. speaker pelosi and mccarthy are in support of the legislation. the clearest message we can send vladimir putin as we are united in passing pnpr that will land a heavy blow against putin's economy. the pnpr revocation approved by thehouse supported by the president and would help make food intake a heavy price . time is of the essence to pass pnpr because putin's savagery grows day by day and because the president is meeting with the g7 ministers

in europe. on monday morning, who tends savagery showed itself once again. missiles are obliterated a shopping mall, leaving an untold number of people dead in one of the largest attacks on the city today. in the south, residents of a once thriving port city of mariupol fight on in what has become the most intense urban warfare europe has seen since world war ii and the most brutal putin's hands. and though words of one mariupol residents, the entrances on the balcony and you're not scared one bit because the biggest fear is not showing. you know what nutshell and looks like? it's death. that's a person who lives in mariupol and these words should ring in all our years. it must be unacceptable for

any nation though willing to slaughter civilians as russia to have normal trade relations with the united states and the rest of the world so the senate must ask quickly to pass pnpr. every drop of ukrainian blood demand response and the us as anobligation to stand behind this young democracy . putin's regime is wicked and the best message we can send it to pass pnpr legislation with overwhelming bipartisan support . i yield the floor. >> last week united states congress lost a one-of-a-kind colleague in the state of alaska lost an unbelievably devotedchampion . congressman don young was the longest-serving republican in the history of that chamber. he arrived in 1973 and his fellow alaskans rehired him to represent them every two years since.

over the decades congressman young's leadership and advocacy aliterally transformative effect on his home state . he secured resources for alaska's infrastructure and its people . i understand his office contains photographs of don with no fewer than 10 different presidents, each of whom hadsigned into law a bill that he had written . don young first moved to alaska back in 1959, the same year it became our 49 eight. he wants to explain his rationale like this. i can't stand heat and i was working on a ranch and i used the dream of someplace cold and no snakes and no poison oak. well, alaska sure delivered for god and starting with an aol election in 1964 he spent practically his entire adult life delivering for alaska in return.

our late colleague across the rotunda wasn't just a legendary legislator and committee chairman, he was also a wily, unique character . even after decades of public service he remained every bit the former fisher, trapper andconstruction worker , goldmine or and both captain. the senate sends our prayers to don's family, his staff and his colleagues who miss him already. now, on a completely different matter in 2021 the biden administration border crisis set a record. we saw the most arrests at constance and border protection ever reported in a single year on the southern border . as the washington post put it at the time, illegal border crossings quote, skyrocketed in the months after president biden took office . well, the humanitarian and security crisis is only

gotten worse. last month was the busiest february for cvd, migrants encounters in over two decades. exceeding february 2021 by 64 percent and intelligence officials are reportedly bracing for aneven steeper surge . the less spent years calling on washington democrats to abolish ice on the campaign trail president biden signaled support for subsidizing care for illegal immigrants and once in office the administration spent months seemingly more interested in policing government terminology and policing ouractual border . the vice president has since been tasked with leading the white house border security efforts has been keen to travel anywhere but the border. when democrats approached left for facilities overwhelmed, the

administration diapered billions of dollars away from pandemic response funds that cover their crisis. to prevent their border crisis from getting even worse demonstration has leaned heavily on an emergency authority originally invoked by the previous administration due to covid. cvd has used title 42 permission more than 1 million times to avoid releasing migrants into the interior of the united states . you might think the biden administration would have used the time afforded by the stopgap to hash out a strategy to secure the border. but they have not. no solutions are in sight. but now unbelievably the administration accordingly is on the cost of caving to woke pressure and lifting the title 42 authorities on the all together. this move would take our order from its current state of chaos into a full new level of utter meltdown.

democrats say they're concerned about new variants and they want more funding as they want to declare the pandemic over and finished our southern border. but more broadly how one of the democrats are accepting the far left premise should only enforce immigration laws a once in acentury pandemic . well, in the near term, it would be wildly reckless for democrats to stand down and let the floodgates open. such a policy would be terrific news for human traffickers and drug cartels that would be terrible news for the american people. now, one final matter. america's working families continue to face strong headwinds as they try to make ends meet. the historic inflation kicked off by runaway liberal spending last year is still taking its toll on one paycheck at a time. for many americans being out

once in a while was already a treat. now, restaurant menu prices are capping off the biggest 12 month price surge in more than four years just as lunch counters are beginning to see more traffic from workers. returning to the office. meanwhile just putting food on the table at home has become a hardship. for one mother in florida a trip to the grocery store that used to cost her 150 bucks now costs 250 bucks for exactly the same amount of food. she's reportedly cutting back on fresh produce and meat in exchange for less nutritious cheaper items. and it's harder to stretch her household income to ensure her family has enough to eat. of course, the price hikes consumers are seeing at the grocery store are due in part

to the soaring cost of fuel . regular gas, working families use to fill up their cars is already nearly 2 dollars a gallonsince president biden took office . the diesel used in semi trucks and many commercial vehicles cost a dollar more than it did just last month. one month ago. according to one recent survey more than half of all business owners say that the rising cost of fuel is impacting their operations. it's keeping me awake reported they had a small transportation police who serves people with disabilities in pennsylvania. the manager of a lumber shipping in nevada with free delivery his business took pride in my have to be put literally on hold. unfortunately washington democrats response to these hardships has been as misguided as the war on american energy and runaway spending to help create them. several weeks ago the biden administration entertained

the idea of suspending the gas tax . only long enough to give democrats cover holes this coming november. this week we learned a white house considered sending out gas cards through the irs. even as they keep up their work on domestic energy production . the biden administration seems to be willing to try anything but walking back their own disastrous economic policies.for the sake of working families, i hope they snap out of it sometime soon. >>

>> as anybody who's been watching c-span knows the confirmation process for judge ketanji brown jacksonis well underway . over the last few weeks, members of the senate judiciary committee on which i'm honored to serve conducted a meticulous review of judge jackson's record and qualifications. during this week's hearing though we had an opportunity to deeper and to hear directly from the nominee about her ability to serve as a fair and impartial supreme court justice. somebody without an agenda, somebody that doesn't dabble in politics. somebody that doesn't use this position to enact policies that they prefer. many of our colleagues are familiar with judge jackson's experience because she was recently confirmed to the district of columbia court nine months ago. she received her undergraduate degree, law

degree from harvard, certainly sterling credentials and she worked for justice steve breyer who is the judge that she is proceeding on the court. she's had very experience which i think is to her credit. she's been a public defender. she's served on the us sentencingcommission and she spent the last nine years as a trial court judge on the federal bench . judge jackson is obviously smart and she's quite accomplished, but we know a lifetime appointment on the supreme court requires more than dust and impressive resume. our democracy requires that judges rule based on thelaw , to use the words that judge jackson used this morning in the judiciary committee hearing she said his need to stay in their lane which i actually appreciate because under the separationof powers , obviously a lifetime tenured federal judge who does not stand for election

should not be making policy. that should be left to those of us in the electoral process to make those decisions and then of course the court determine the constitutionality and legality of those policy choices, not, it's not appropriate for them to impose their ownpreferences instead . unlike previous nominees she had no experience on the bench. we don't have to make assumptions about judge jackson decisions. we have the ability to examine hundreds of prior opinions that she's issued and to ask for clarity from the nominee herself. in addition to her time on the federal bench we have a responsibility to dive into judge jackson's record as both a prosecutor and as a member of the us sentencing commission. despite what some of our colleagues have suggested none of these lines of questioning are out of bounds . it's really amazing to me

that even though the president has the constitutional right to nominate whomsoever he chooses, we have a constitutional duty to provide what is called advise and consent. so that means asking tough but respectful questions about her record and background. the senate is not here to rubberstamp the white house's nominee. we have a responsibility to scrutinize her record, understand her thinking, her judicial philosophy and ultimately determine whether she has the right qualities to serve as a member of the court. that's exactly what advise and consent involves. and judge jackson's record including her work at every point of her career should be examined and none of it should be out of bounds . beyond a thorough review of judge jackson's record we need to gain a clear picture of how she approaches her job of judging.

what some people call judicial philosophy, what i call who decides. there's some questions that are decided by judges that should be decided by judges and not elected representatives like members of congress. conversely there's some areas as i suggested where we should be making the decisions and be held accountable for those decisions and the judge ought to be making a more narrow and focused review of those decisions for constitutionality and legality. but that does not give her permission to impose her policy preferences over those of a majority of congress when a bill is passed and signed into law by the president . judge jackson previously suggested she didn't really have a judicialphilosophy . something i find difficult to believe. today she did not provide a lot of clarity beyond offering vague statements about the methodology by

which she decides cases. i find it very hard to believe that a judge with this kind of experience says she doesn't have a judicial philosophy and i hope we can gain more clarity as the hearings continue. again, she did talk about staying in her lane, not making political or policy decisions which is agood start but there's a lot more we need to hear from and a lot more commitments we need to get from the judge before she is confirmed for the federal bench . judicial philosophy is always been a central point of inquiry by the judiciary committee and it's never more so than at this particular moment. the framers of the constitution we know had the wisdom to establish one branch that made a policy decision and that would be the executive branch and the legislative branch. actually, two branches of government and another would operate free of politics and

elections and be given lifetime tenure . ultimately all legitimacy of government comes from consent of the governed and so we don't have a group of nine overlords or wise men and women on the potomac are going to tell us how to live our lives. that is a decision we the people make through our elected representatives and through our constitutionand other laws . in federalist 78 alexander hamilton said the courts would have no influence on either the sword or the purse . in other words, they wouldn't be responsible for national security or public safety or spending tax dollars. they went on to say it may truly be said to have neither force or will but merely judgment. it's another way of saying that judges decide cases and controversies. they don't make broad policy announcements.

that's our job in thecongress for which we are held accountable every time we stand for elections . we do not need nor do i want a judge who would describe the front and the result they want to reach and then cherry pick the law and facts in order to justify this decision. it's important to understand the process by which judge jackson makes her legal decisions and we got a little bit of a glimpse this morning but over the next few days we will have further opportunity to askmore questions about that . one of the things i am concerned about is some of the outside groups that are advocating for justice jackson's confirmation. we're seeing activiststhat demand judges reach a particular result regardless of the facts on what the law prescribes . some of these outside rabble-rousers believe judges

should deliver results their party can't seem to accomplish through the deliberation, compromise and rough-and-tumble of the legislative process . and when the court does not deliver these results, many of these outside groups will attack the integrity and legitimacy of the court as an institution. in recent years these radical views have made it into the mainstream. and in the summer of 2019 five hour democratic colleagues including the current chairman of the judiciary committee filed a friend of the court brief. these senators in their brief made a not-so-subtle threat and unless the court ruled a particular way they entire institution would be restructured. several months later the leader of the senate, majority leader fire his own warning shot. he actually went to the supreme court and threatened to sitting supreme court justices by name because they

did not rule ina particular fashion . but the senate isn't the only place we're seeing these sort of irresponsible attacks liberal money groups like demand justice have paid millions of dollars to promote court packing and so public distrust and legitimacy of the court. and even the white house appears to be open to supreme court overhaul. on the campaign trail for example, president biden refused to disavow reforming the supreme court. his administration even established a commission to study the issue . the courts were not designed and were not designed to be a roundabout way to deliver certain results or invent new rights out of whole cloth. that is illegitimate in my view. and i'm not the only one who thinks that. that's why it's imperative we gain a clear understanding of

judge jackson's approach to judging and what she regards as in her lane and what she understands to be out of her lane in terms of policymaking or political decision-making. we need to know that if confirmed she will rule without fear or favor. that she will follow thelaw as written . not as what she wanted to be but what it actually is. and that she will defend the supreme court as an institution as justice breyer and justice ginsburg have when asked about courtpacking . since duty is to provide advice and consent and it is absolutely critical to the integrity of the high court in the health of our democracy. judges after all don't have term limits. they don't serve for two years and stand for election or six years as we do in the senate. they're not accountable and elections. they wield tremendous power as defenders of the constitution and the last word in resolving contested

lawsuits in the courts. but we have a responsibility to the american people to get this right. to thoroughly evaluate judge jackson's qualifications and do our best to ensure that if confirmed she will be an impartial and fair judge. not just for the people who nominated her, not to the outside groups that are cheering on her confirmation but for all americans. before judge jackson was named to fill this vacancy and before there was even a vacancy to fill president biden promised to nominate an african-american woman to fill this bench . while the historic nature of judge jackson's nomination has been heavily reported it's been far less attention spent to the paid to the fact that she is not the first african-american who was considered for the supreme court.

african-american woman. justice sandra day o'connor announced her retirement in 2005 one of the top names floated as a potential successor was judge janice rogers brown . and as we now know democrats filibustered judge brown and she was ultimately never even given the opportunity to be nominated to serve on the supreme court. that wasn't because of opposition, it was because of our democratic colleagues led bysenator joe biden derailed her nomination . janice rogers brown had the opportunity to make history by being the first african-american woman nominated for and confirmed as a member of the supreme court but it's very clear that then senator joe biden led the effort to derail that nomination and denied her that historic opportunity. i understand and appreciate

the historic nature of judge jackson's nomination but i offer hope our colleagues and members of the media do not lose sight of the mistreatment many nominees before and should have been nominees that came before judge jackson. what the american people have seen over the last two days is a far cry from the way we've seen people like justice or such or justice cavanagh treated by our friends across the aisle. judge jackson has beentreated with courtesy , with civility and dignity and respect and i expect that trend to continue for the remainder of this process. as republicans have said all along this process will be thorough and exhaustivebut it will be respectful . we have a busy week ahead of us and i'm here to learn more about judge jackson, her judicial philosophy and qualifications she wouldbring if confirmed to the supreme court . madam president, i yield the floor. >> madam president at the time of massive and growing

income and wealth inequality, the american people are outraged at the unprecedented level of corporate greed that is taking place all around us . today while the working class of this country is struggling with higher gas prices , higher food prices and higher housing prices, the billionaire class of large corporations are doing phenomenally well and in fact have never ever had it so good. the united states today, the average worker is making $44 a week less in inflation accounted for dollars and he or she made nearly 50 years ago. corporate profits are at an all-time high and ceos have seen huge increases in their

compensationpackages . we have never seen in this country the level of corporate greed that we are seeing right now. unprecedented. now let me give you a few examples. while the price of gas has soared is now $4.25 a gallon on average. exxon mobil, chevron, bp and shell made nearly $30 million in profits last quarter alone . just last quarter. meanwhile, peak oil ceos are on track to spend $88 billion this year not to produce more oil, not to address the crisis of climate but to buy back their own stock and handout dividends to enrich

their wealthy stockholders. but here's more corporate greed. in fact, it is never ending. amazon raise the price of its prime membership by 15.8 percent while it increased its profits by 75 percent to a record-breaking $35 billion and by the way, managed to avoid paying 5.2 billion in taxes. meanwhile, the founder of amazon, just bezos became $81 billion richer. >>

westinghouse, tappan stove, ohio brass, general motors closed down one after another after another. go to any town in ohio.

people can name a similar list. they'll measure oftentimes their local history in lost plants and lost jobs. all over america, companies were moving production elsewhere in the name of efficiency. efficiency was business-speak for lower wages. corporate america always wanted cheaper labor wherever they could find it. first they went to anti-union, anti-worker low-wage states often in the south. then when those wages weren't low enough, they moved overseas. first to mexico, then to china. when those companies moved out, they weren't replaced by new investment. the market fundamentalists would talk about creative destruction, but it wasn't followed by any construction, creative or otherwise. that corporate greed was aided by decades of underinvestment, by bad trade policies which these corporations lobbied this body, successfully

unfortunately for, nafta, pntr with china, the central american free trade greavment. it -- agreement. it was followed by even worse tax policy which these special interests also lobbied this institution for. it all drove production overseas. it left us relying on other countries, too often our economic competitors. it exposed us to supply shocks. it ultimately gutted the middle class in mansfield, ohio, and communities all over this country. ohioans and workers in historic industrial towns felt it first. now the whole country feels it in the form of higher prices and empty shelves and month-long waits fogger products people need. we need to make more things in america. it's not going to happen on its own, not when the economy in the last four decades was built on corporations hopping the globe in search of workers to exploit. not when workers like china prop

up state-owned enterprises and steal our ideas and monetize them and use them to compete and often cheat against american businesses and american workers. we need a concerted, coordinated effort to invest in our greatest assets -- american workers, american innovation. that's what we do with this competition and jobs bill. we need to negotiate a final bill and pass this now. ohioans needed this a year ago, a decade ago, a generation ago. look at what's happening even today in bucyrus, ohio. there are few innovations more quintessentially american than the light bulb. every student learns thomas edison invented the light bulb in menlo park, new jersey. we've seen plants close across ohio and are warren. we're told these plants are old and dated. they made the old-fashioned

incandescent bubs. we were told they would make new l.e.d. bulbs. not exactly what happened. we learned some of the chain are closing their operations. get this -- they proceed to the measure l.e.d. bulbs would be made in the -- they promised l.e.d. bulbs would be made in the united states. 99 point something percent of l.e.d. production is in china. think about that. 99% of this quintessential american invention is made in china. whep you move -- when you move the entire production overseas you move the shock floor innovation along with it. think about that. much of our innovation comes because workers on the shop floor think about as they're

doing their work, they think about better ways to produce this and they think about making a better product. but corporate america, of course, corporate america underestimated the ingenuity of american workers or they just didn't care. so when plants move overseas, the innovation, the shop floor innovation in america simply stopped. look at the silicon semiconductor shortage. american companies did most of the manufacturing. yet over time production often fueled by incentive from foreign companies and sellouts moved those jobs overseas. during the pandemic, companies across ohio and the rest of the country shut down production lines and laid off workers because they couldn't get enough semiconductors. whether you're ford motor company in lima, ohio, whirlpool in clyde ohio,

navistar in springfield, ohio, you needed those chips. in the semiconductor industry we see the problem and see the solution. in january senator portman and i flew to columbus to join intel to announce the largest ever company in semiconductor manufacturing. it's possible because we're on the verge of passing an historic investment in american innovation and manufacturing. the senate called it the innovation and competition act. the house calls it the competes act. call it for what it is. it's the make it in america act. the bill includes the chips act, to make investments like intel in ohio possible and to position us to lead the world again in this industry. it expands, expands be manufacturing hubs, will create more of these hubs around the country and it is a coordinated strategy to invest in r&d.

competitors like china spend billions propping up state-owned enterprises in research and development. china has gotten pretty good at taking our ideas, monetizing them, using them to compete against american businesses while paying their workers less and giving them fewer worker protection rights. that's why in the banking and housing committee, we work to make sure the bill includes powerful new sanctions on chinese actors who steal trade secrets. it's why senator portman and i are working to include our level the playing field act 2.0 to give american businesses updated, effective tools to fight back. we know when we have a level playing field, we know when we harness the ingenuity of american workers, we can outcompete anyone. it's time to make things in america again. madam president, ohio has buried the term rustbelt. it's time for our whole country to bury the term rustbelt. it's long past time to pass a final make it in america bill and send it to the president's

desk. mr. durbin: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: i ask that the senate proceed to executive session and vote on the confirmation of executive calendar 682, the nomination of ruth bermudez montenegro under the previous order.

the presiding officer: the senate will proceed to executive session for the executive calendar which the clerk will report. the clerk: ruth bermudez montenegro for the district of california. mr. durbin: i ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: on independent vote, the yeas are 55, the nays are 14. the snogs confirmed. -- the nomination is scoffed. under the previous order, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, and the president will be immediately notified of the senate's actions.

mr. barrasso: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from wyoming. mr. barrasso: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i come to the floor today to talk about the need for more american energy. when joe biden was running for president, he made a lot of

promises. they seemed to be all to the liberal left. now, to the hardworking people of my home state of wyoming, these promises sounded more like direct threats to their lives and their livelihood. joe biden promised that if elected, he would -- quote -- there would be, quote, no more drilling on federal lands, no more drilling, he said, including offshore. he said no ability for the oil industry to continue to drill, period. well, joe biden is known for his multiple gaffs, but this wasn't a gaff. this was intentional. he said it again and again and gn on the campaign trail. here's another one. he said, quote, i guarantee you we're going to end fossil fuels, end quote. joe biden on the campaign trail

guaranteeing that they're going to end fossil fuel. during one democratic debate joe biden was asked if he would sacrifice, quote, hundreds of thousands of blue-collared jobs right here in america toe get rid of energy -- to get rid of energy. joe biden said, yes, happy to sacrafice hundreds of thousands of good blue-colored jobs. today the american people are living with the consequences of joe biden's decisions. joe biden is already the most anti-american energy president in american history. his policies against american energy have resulted in much higher prices for american families. one in five american families this past year have had to cut their spending to pay their energy bills. they've had to change the way they drive, the way they eat, the way they shop. they have changed and in many

ways had to change their dreams and their aspirations as their anxieties continued to increase as priceses increased but wages didn't -- prices increased but wages didn't keep up. prices have gone up 12 of the 19 months joe biden has taken office. this month we have seen the highest gas prices ever. the energy prices is -- crises is nearly the worst in half a century. so far joe biden hasn't proposed a single solution. too busy blaming everyone other than himself. well, the joe biden blame game isn't working with the american people. the american people remember joe biden's campaign promises and we have seen him wage war on american energy for 14 consecutive months. when joe biden took office, the price of gas, $2.38 a gallon.

by the time vladimir putin invaded ukraine, prices are already gone up to $3.53 a gallon. today the average price across the country is $4.24. the increase before putin's invasion was a lot larger than the increase after putin's invasion. month after month after month prices have gone up and at the same time joe biden has doubled down. first he shut down the keystone xl pipeline. he shut down oil and gas leases on federal lands and he shut down exploration for energy in alaska. now his political appointees in government are making it impossible to build gas pipelines. as a result, we're producing 1.3 million fewer barrels a day in america of oil than we were just before the pandemic.

lower supply, higher prices, that's the law of supply and demand. so why is supply down? well, the biden administration hasn't held a single auction for oil and gas leases since joe biden's taken office. at this point in the obama administration there had been more than 30 of those auctions. after 14 months in office, there should have been more than 50. in joe biden's term, zero. now, courts have said that the president's executive offices -- of executive orders on federal lands, they said, is illegal. those are the federal courts. the president stubbornly refused to open up our federal lands, ignoring the courts, failed to open up the lands to american energy production. in western states like my home state of wyoming, this is devastating. half of wyoming is federal land and wyoming is sitting on a

treasure-trove of american energy. we have it all. oil, gas, coal, uranium for nuclear power, we have wind, sunny areas as well. we have it all. we need it all. joe biden wants us to keep wyoming energy in the ground. the white house claims we don't need to drill more or explore more for energy because there are some leases that have not yet been used. so why aren't they used? i mean that's a legitimate question to ask. well, half of them are waiting for joe biden's permission to drill. just because you pay for a lease doesn't mean you have permission yet to explor forking -- explore for energy on that area, you have to ask for permission before you pay the federal government for the lease. it's like renting an apartment

and they say they're not going to give you the key yet of. the biden administration has it to know that, but they mislead the american people to say they are not being used. many of the leases that are not used are tied up in court by environmental activists and they can't explore for energy using those areas until court cases are resolved and that's a normal ploy of the extremist groups that are lined up with the biden administration to keep american workers off the job. so it seems that the percentage of leases being used, that they can use is where you would want it to be, but there are more that need to be used but biden is tying them up. now, american energy workers are doing their part. it's time for democrats in washington to start doing theirs. instead, democrats seem to be

taking actions that are going to make this biden energy crisis and high-energy prices even worse. so last year joe biden proposed more than a dozen tax increases on american energy. a bipartisan majority in this body in the united states senate blocked the tax increases from ever becoming law. now democrats are trying to raise taxes on american energy again -- again. there's a bill in this senate right now to raise taxes on american energy and then send out government checks. that's a bill that's going to make inflation worse. by the way, inflation is already at a 40-year high. people are suffering under the inflation like they haven't in a long, long time. paychecks are not keeping up. people are feeling the pain.

i heard it at the grocery store in casper, wyoming on sunday, heard it at the airport in casper, wyoming on monday. the democrat bill will do nothing to increase the supply of energy. in fact, higher taxes would only decrease the supply. government checks would increase energy demand and if you put the two together, it's an inflation nightmare. now, other democrats have proposed a pause on the gas tax saying that might actually lower the price a little bit. not much, a little bit. oh, the ones that cosponsored this, they are all running for election this year and the plan, of course, is to put the gas tax back in place right after the election. well, the gas tax is what is used to pay federal work on federal roads and highways. it's called the highway trust fund. it's how we fund -- i chair the

environment and public works committee, bipartisan work with senator carper, we know how the fungoes to build the highways, roads and infrastructure of this nation. that's part of it. it's -- it's a gimmick. even democratic economist larry summers called the idea -- i called it a gimmick, he called it goofy and gimmicky. this is larry summers. other democrats in the house are asking joe biden to declare a climate emergency. they want him to tighten his chokehold on american energy production. it will drive supply down, prices up, but not one of the ideas that the democrats are proposing will actually bring down the cost of energy for american families who are struggling today under the inflation of joe biden and the democrat policies. not one of their ideas would increase the supply of american energy. so the contrast could not be

clearer. the debate in this country today is a debate between the biden blame game and american energy production. it's a debate between climate elitists and working families. it's a debate between democratic gimmicks and republican solutions. the only solution, the real solution to the high energy prices is more supply and the solution is more american energy. it's not going to iran, it's not going to venezuela, it's american energy supply. we have the resources, we have the expertise, we have the workers, we have the energy in the ground. the biden administration and the democrats will not let us get it out of the ground. the solution is for joe biden and the democrats to get out of the way so we can get american energy out of the ground and it can be used here at home in

america. earlier this month i sent a letter to the president, the morning after the state of the union address. i sent it along with every member of the energy committee. we sent president biden a to-do list that he could take today to restore america's energy dominant. we were energy dominant when he came into office and now we're energy dependent. that's how you get higher prices at the gas pump. step one is to open up land for energy production. the president should do it right away. he should improve the 4,600 drilling permits that are today stuck in limbo. and, mr. president, stop putting barriers to pipelines and infrastructure that are used to

move oil and gas to market. our nation is an energy superpower. it is time we began to act like that again. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. president. i want to take a few moments to respond to some of the comments by my colleague from wyoming. i think we all saw a big jump in gas prices when putin invaded ukraine and then this body called upon the president in a bipartisan manner to say that we don't want to import any russian oil in the united states because we don't want our dollars going

to putin to help fund his war. that was the right thing to do. that also increases gas prices. we also know that there are thousands of leases on public lands that are not being used today and drilled by oil companies who have those leases. in fact, the senator from massachusetts, the presiding officer, has said we should have a law saying use it or lose it, and i support that position because instead of using it, you see, oil companies exploiting the current situation to have windfall profits and use those profits not to reinvest in more production but to engage in stock buybacks to help their c.e.o.'s while they keep the prices high. mr. president, i'm here today on the floor as we mark day 27 of vladimir putin's unprovoked war

against ukraine. each day that the war grinds on, putin's brutality exceeds the last. as his advance against major cities like kiev have slowed, his barbaric war crimes have mounted. americans have seen the harrowing images of russian strikes hitting schools, hospitals, maternity wards and designated humanitarian corridors, indiscriminately killing women, children, and men. the horror of each day is amplified by the fact that this is not a war of necessity. this is a war of choice, a war chosen by vladimir putin, and that choice grew out of putin's fear of democracy, his fear of freedom of expression. just today putin's crony court

sentenced russian democracy activist alexei navalny to nine years in a maximum security prison. first they tried to poison navalny, now they want to silence him with nine more years in jail. so you see the lengths to which putin is willing to go to silence one man. you can imagine how you fears a democracy of 44 million ukranians on his border. he's scared of the example it sets to the russians that he keeps under his authoritarian thumb. he wants to extinguish, snuff out the flame of liberty in ukraine before it catches fire in russia. so he started a war, a brutal war. now vladimir putin has shown the world who he really is, a scared tyrant who thinks he can snuff out democracy and freedom by

brute force. but he's wrong. he can kill a lot of people and he is, but whether it's a matter of weeks or many months, putin will not be able to kill the aspirations of the people of ukraine. we see proof of that fact every day in the defiant words and heroic actions of ukranians everywhere. amidst the horror, the blood and the misery we have seen amazing strength. the people of ukraine are fighting for their homeland, for their freedom, and for the power to control their own destiny. ukranian men and women of all backgrounds and ages have joined in this cause blocking the path of russian tanks with their bodies, making molotov cock cocktails, tending to the wounded, and taking up arms. mr. president, their courage

speaks to the very best of the human spirit. like most americans, i'm deeply inspired by their resolve and their fortitude. and the whole world should learn from their determination because the stakes in this war go far beyond the borders of ukraine. this is a fight for the future of democracy itself. as president zelenskyy said in his address to congress last week, and i quote, russia has attacked not just us, not just our land, not just our cities. it went on a brutal offensive against our values, against our freedom, against our right to live freely in our own country, choosing our own future, against our desire for happiness, against our national dreams. just like the same dreams you

have, you americans. that was president zelenskyy last week before congress. he spoke of self-determination. he spoke of individual liberty and freedom. those are values enshrined in america's own founding documents. so putin is not just trying to take over ukraine. he is, as president zelenskyy said, trying to destroy the notions of democracy and freedom that we hold dear. putin wants to see freedom fade and democracy fail, and he's not alone in that effort. just before the winter olympics in beijing, putin traveled to china and met with another autocratic leader, president xi jinping. putin and xi signed an agreement stating that relations between russia and china had, and i quote, no limits, no limits.

on that day they formed a pact of autocracy and today china's state-runnymede ya parrots putin's lies as russian tanks encircle ukranian towns. president xi is watching closely if putin's model of autocracy by consequence might work in other places, might work in asia. china has already violated its international obligations by stomping out freedoms in hong kong. now the chinese communist party is eyeing their own democratic neighbor, taiwan. as beijing weighs the risks of trying to forcefully unite taiwan with mainland china, its leaders are monitoring russian's invasion of ukraine and they're watching closely how we and the world respond. mr. president, the good news is the united states has rallied our nato allies and partners in

europe. even partners beyond the west have responded with unity and resolve, including japan, south korea, australia, new zealand, taiwan, and singapore. 141 countries voted at the united nations to condemn putin's war. support has come not only in words and votes but also in deeds and help. last week president biden signed the $14 billion emergency ukraine legislation passed by the senate and the house. the united states, our nato partners, and others are supplying ukranians with the weapons they need to fight putin's army. we are providing millions of ukranian refugees in poland, romania, and other neighboring countries with human qan assistance. -- humanitarian assistance. and we're delivering aid to millions more displaced within ukraine itself.

the united states has also worked in concert with our allies to unleash sweeping punishing sanctions at a speed the world has never seen. and these sanctions are aimed right at the heart of russia's economy, at vladimir putin, and at his cronies. we've cut off russia's financial system from the world. the ruble is in shambles. the ill-gotten gains of the oligarchs are being seized at this very moment. mr. president, the unity we see today among democracies in the face of putin's aggression marks a double triumph. not only does it allow us to form a united front against putin, it also undermines his strategy of weakening democracies. he has long conspired to erode support for nato from within its member countries. he believes freedom means unending chaos and he wants to

see us bicker ourselves into oblivion. when nato and our key democratic allies are divided, putin and authoritarians can win. when we're united, we win. when it comes to putin and russia, members of congress on both sides of the aisle have known this for years. even when the former president attacked nato and belittled our democratic partnerships, lawmakers on both sides of the aisle united to reaffirm our support for the alliance. in 2018 a bipartisan group of senators reestablished the nato observer group to keep an open line of communication with our nato partners. i'm proud to be a member of that group. in 2019 the senate passed a resolution reaffirming our support for nato in the face of the former president's attacks.

that same year speaker pelosi invited nato general secretary stoltenberg to address a joint meeting of congress. she did that on behalf of a bipartisan group. that was the first ever such address by a nato secretary general. president biden pledged that he would strengthen that tradition of unity, rebuild u.s. relations with our allies, and stand up for democracy. and that is what he has done. on day one he got to work repairing our tattered alliances after the beating they took during the last administration. he organized the first of two summits for democracy last december to rally global partners. and the biden state department organized dozens of diplomatic missions to countries around the world to foster democracy. so let's be clear.

this speedy, severe and sink niced response from -- synchronized response from the united states and our partners did not come about by chance. it wasn't random. our unity came from the deliberate strategy of this president and his administration. president biden understands that there is a global contest between autocrats like putin and xi who want democracy to die and those like zelenskyy who want it to flourish. and he has shown that democratic unity is the strongest instrument we have against the forces of autocracy. mr. president, that unity was on full display in february when i traveled to the munich security conference with a bipartisan group of lawmakers from both the house and the senate. we met in munich on the eve of putin's invasion. and because president biden had

the foresight to share our intelligence about putin's intentions with the world, nato, the european community, and members of the g-7 had time to prepare and coordinate our response. it allowed us to plan the rapid delivery of weapons and the imposition of unified crushing sanctions. unity in action. mr. president, i hope we can maintain that unity of purpose here at home. there was, as the presiding officer knows, a time in american life when politics stopped at the water's edge. i realize that era is for the most part over. but i hope, i hope this country is strong enough and wise enough to put aside our politics, at least for the purpose of making common cause to support democracy and stand up against putin, as long as it takes.

that unity will be tested. i already see divisions in congress over the administration's response to this invasion. sometimes members of the senate or the house will have an idea to help ukraine or an idea to punish putin that they want implemented immediately. i often have the same impulse. but let's be clear. the success of the president's strategy has been the rapid coordination of our steps with our allies whenever possible. that is how we pack the biggest punch. there are also some measures where the president has asked for immediate action and congress has delayed. five days ago the house of representatives passed the bill to strip russia of its most favored nation trading status. it passed 424-8. when is the last time we saw a vote like that in the house of

representatives? that bill is sitting right here in the senate right now. we should and could pass it today. we should certainly pass it before president biden leaves wednesday, tomorrow, to meet with nato allies and leaders from the european union and g-7. sometimes around here the president announces a sanctions measure a day after somebody else thinks about it. he gets criticized for it being too late. but here the senate has been sitting for days on the house bill, and every day that goes by is another day that russian producers and exporters make more money, make more dollars. every day that goes by provides some relief to putin's cronies and the russian economy. so let's stand together in this senate and act on that legislation now. i also appeal to my colleagues,

especially on the republican side, to speak out against those here at home who are spreading putin's propaganda. a case in point has been the fast spreading lie that the united states and ukraine have biolabs in ukraine to help develop bioweapons. that's just flat out false. but that lie has been fueled in part by some in the right-wing media. on march 3 the kremlin circulated a memo to russian media saying it's, quote, essential to feature tucker carlson who has been spreading this kind of misinformation about putin's war on his show. the lie about the so-called american and ukranian bioweapons lab was also picked up and peddled by china's state media. so, mr. president, all of us should stand up and speak out against this misinformation. american media figures can say

what they want. that's their right. but so can we as members of congress. and i would argue we have a duty to make our voices heard and join in the chorus of those calling out russian lies across the globe. every day we see thousands of russians flood the streets from st. petersburg to siberia to protest putin's war. the world witnessed russian journalists marina osonacova speak out on live tv with a sign calling out putin's lies. these heroes are carrying on knowing full well the risk that they put themselves in, the risk that they will be thrown in jail or worse. the least we can do in congress is to stand up to lies here at home that aid and abet putin's

propaganda machine. make no mistake, even in unity there will be spirited debate, spirited debate here. we will have disagreements about how to best respond to putin's aggression, but we should never ever disagree with who the true enemy is. vladimir putin is to blame for this attack on democracy. vladimir putin is to blame for death and destruction in ukraine. vladimir putin is the enemy, not one another. not the other party, not the president. there are plenty of things for us to fight about, but in the current battle for democracy and freedom in ukraine and the larger fight for democracy and freedom around the world, the stakes are simply too high for us to fall back on partisan games. let's come together. let's stay together. and if we do, i'm confident that democracy and justice will

prevail. and, mr. president, to those countries and leaders around the world who stand on the sidelines, i say that neutrality in the face of evil is complicity. in the end, freedom and the dignity of the human spirit will prevail over subjugation and oppression every single time. they need to get on the right side of history. mr. president, i yield the floor. mr. cardin: mr. president? the. the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. mr. cardin: mr. president, before i start my remarks in regards to the cares act, i want

to compliment my colleague from maryland in regards to his statement about the president in ukraine. i concur in everything he said. the unity that president biden has been able to instill, not only among our traditional allies but the global community, the strength of our help to the ukrainian people, the help that we've given in regards to the humanitarian relief, the sanctions that were led by the united states but we now have slowly support for many of these sanctions is making a difference. this is clearly a battle between good and evil, and i just really wanted to compliment my colleague from maryland on his statement, one in which i hope all of us agree and that we can move forward very quickly on the legislation you refer to that passed the house of representatives that would make it clear that we will not do business with russia as normal, that we will revoke the most favored nation status, normal

trade relations, and we will do what mr. zelenskyy has asked us to do, and that is to make it clear that the magnitsky sanctions, which are individual sanctions imposed against the perpetrators, mr. putin and his enablers in russia, will be maintained with the reauthorization of the global magnitsky statute. i hope we'll get to the that as early as this week because i agree with my colleague, every day that we delay, in fact, it is helping mr. putin. we need to make it clear and enact that statute, one in which, by the way you the biden administration strongly encourages us to do. mr. president, i would ask that my comments now appear differently in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cardin: mr. president, two years ago the united states federal government declared covid-19 a national emergency. by then it was clear that we were experiencing a once-in-a-century pandemic and that preventing the spread of this dangerous virus would require our nation's greatest

collective effort since world war ii. and here in the united states congress we knew that this era-defining challenge would require unprecedented action from the federal government to confront the economic and public health crisis created by covid-19. the pandemic has waxed and waned in the two years since then, so opportunities for american families and small business owners to return to their normal lives have come in fits and starts. but one lesson that has remained true through these ups and downs and has been confirmed by multiple occasions through the pandemic is that the united states federal government can, it must play a role in solving our nation's long-standing difficult, and intractable problems. let us remember those first few weeks of the pandemic. the vast majority of the americans did not know what to make of the center for disease

control's january report of a novel virus, the coronavirus, identified abroad. by mid-february, small business owners were already feeling the effects of reduced revenues, and by the end of february, the u.s. economy was rapidly diving into a recession. there were severe disruptions in domestic and global supply chains, leading to shortages in food and critical personal and protective equipment and the unemployment rate was increasing rapidly. congress had to act and act fast. so that's exactly what we did. we passed the cares act, a bold, unprecedented, and comprehensive $2.2 trillion covid relief package that met the scale of the crisis we faced. and we did it without partisan rancor or political infighting. the bill passed the senate 96st -- 97-0.

one of the great acts of bipartisan i've witnessed in my career of politics. it provided testing, tracing and vaccine development t directed funds to state and local governments strange under the pandemic. it also authorized the treasury department to get stimulus payments to american families and increased unemployment payments because we knew that millions of americans would be unable to work as we came together to slow the spread of the virus. the bill also provided hundreds of billions of dollars to support our nation's small businesses. i was proud to lead a bipartisan negotiation on the small business provisions of this bill on the small business task force, which included myself, senator jeanne shaheen, marco rubio and susan collins. as we negotiated these provisioned, we had several key facts in mind. first, small businesses have low profit margins and carry little in cash reserves, so it could

only survive a few weeks of a closure without some form of support. secondly, eventually americans unable to work would return to work, and it's much easier and quicker for small businesses to reopen with its existing staff instead of hiring new staff. and, third, keep small businesses in operations would make our eventual recovery come about more quickly and much more robust. so we wanted to keep small businesses afloat. we wanted to keep their employees employed. we wanted to keep our economy moving forward. the economic injury disaster loan program which predates the pandemic had already been approved to provide loans to small businesses harmed by covid-19, so we knew that small businesses would have access to the long-term capital they needed to adapt their businesses and make other investments. eidl can meet small businesses'

long-term capital needs but we knew we had to act quickly to meet the immediate needs of these businesses so we created the eidl advanced grant program to send $10,000 grants to small businesses that applied for eidl. we knew how important it was to a recovery to keep employees on payroll so we created the paycheck protection program to provide small businesses with loans worth up to $10 million to cover the costs of up to eight weeks of payroll, and we made a promise to borrowers to forgive the loans as long as they used the funds for payroll or other allowable expenses expenses is. we created a debt relief program to cover all costsate associated with new or existing s.b.a. loans for six months and we unvested -- we invested in a program to help small businesses navigate the ups and downs of a pandemic. in total, the cares act included

more than $375 billion in aid to small businesses. the aid could not have come soon enough. the initial $349 billion in p.p.p. funds were exhausted in less than two weeks. s.b.a. approved more than 1.6 million loans in that time. s.b.a.'s laudable efforts to deliver relief to small businesses also came with disappointments and missed opportunitied. is a senator shaheen and i fought to include a provision that required the batt to issue guidance to the banks participating in p.p.p. to prioritize loan applications for small businesses in underserved communities. we knew that those small businesses that had priority relations with banks would be first in line, but we wanted the s.b.a. to make sure that those that did not have those privileges would also be able to benefit by the p.p.p. program. we insisted on the inclusion of this provision because we knew that a program like p.p.p.,

which relied on financial institutions to make loans, run the risk of worsening the existing inequities in our private capital market. we simply could not allow small businesses in our most vulnerable communities to fall further behind. s.b.a. failed to issue the guidance, so it was no surprise when organizations representing underserved small businesses sounded the alarm that women, minorities, small businesses in rural communities, and other underbanked borrowers were at risk of being frozen out of the program. the s.b.a.'s inspector general would eventually report that the agency's implementation of p.p.p. did not fully align with the intent of congress. with funds exhausted afterward less than two weeks, the prior administration requested additional funds for p.p.p. and only p.p.p., which would have neglected the equally important eidl program, which had also exhausted its funds by then.

it's important to keep in mind that since these programs prosecute designed to work together, funding one without the other would not meet the needs of many small businesses. once again, members of this chamber worked with our colleagues across the capitol to create a comprehensive covid-19 relief package that could -- we all could agree on, which passed the senate again unanimously. the bill provided an additional $370 billion of funds to the batt covid-19 relief efforts with $310 billion for p.p.p., $10 billion for the eidl advanced grant program. the bill also provided $50 billion for the eidl program, which allowed the agency to make more than $350 billion in loans. and similar to the ways in which the cares act implemented lessons learned during prior economic downturn, the second package implemented lessons

learned during the first round of p.p.p. since the s.b.a. did not issue the guidance as required by the cares act, senate democrats championed more partnershippive policies to make the p.p.p. fairer and more equitable. i remain prouded that we were able to set aside $60 billion of p.p.p. funds to be distributed by credit unions, community development financial institutions, minority depository institutions, community banks, and other small lenders that are better able to get funds to underserved and underbanked communities. we wanted to make sure that those who needed it could get it t i'm proud that we were able to include that in that legislation. thanks to the set-aside, approximately 600 mostly new nonbank lenders that did not participate in phase one participated in phase 2. p.p.p. program. we should take great pride in knowing that the set-aside worked.

do, to the government accounting office report issued in september of last year, banks made the vast majority of p.p.p. loans during phase one of the program. as a result, the program favored large area small businesses. during phase two, however, the agency found that the share of loans to underserved businesses and communities was proportionate to their representation in the overall small business community. we succeeded in the second round. for example, 42% of the loans approved during phase one of p.p.p. went to businesses with between 10 and 449 employees. those businesses only accounted forbe 4% of all the businesses in the -- for 4% of all the businesses in the united states. we know that women-owned and minority-owned business are less likely to have -- the share of loans to larger of these businesses with ten or more employees dropped to 17%.

we achieved our active. while only 9% went to businesses located in counties where women-owned businesses accounted for a large share of all businesses, the number doubled, 18%, during phase two, which is if line with the share of small businesses nationwide owned by women. similarly, 36% of phase one loans went to small businesses in high-minority counties and that increased to 50% in phase two. in every example, in underserved communities, minority-owned businesses, women-owned businesses, because we were able to get the entrepreneurial services to small businesses that needed the help. we reached the underserved community. i would like to take a moment to highlight the significance of this. the fact that women and minorities faced barriers to entrepreneurship is not new. the primary barrier is their inability to access capital.

the g.a.o.'s report confirms through the policies that the amount access gap is bridgeable. we can bridge this gaap if we pass the right policies. after the end of phase two of p.p.p. on august 8, congress negotiated the next round of covid-19 relief which was not finalized until december 22. negotiations may have taken much longer than any of us would have liked but we found common ground to pass the aid act providing money in covid relief including money for small businesses. in this bill my democratic colleagues and i secured an additional $30 billion set aside for smaller lenders in addition to expanding eligibility to be additional industries and nonprofits. the economic aid act also provided eligible small businesses with an additional second draw p.p.p. loan worth up to $2 million. the bill created new programs as

well. the shuttered venue operators grant program was created to provide grants up to $10 million to live venues, independent movie theaters and other culture it institutions that were shuttered as a result of covid-19 and a new $20 billion target eidl advance program was created to provide for our nation's most vulnerable small businesses who couldn't afford to take out a loan. they needed grants. i'd like to speak on why the targeted eidl advance program was necessary. the administration's implementation of the eidl advance program made it less useful to small businesses. the cares angt -- act h directed s.b.a. to provide $10,000 to eidl applicants but the trump administration provided $1,000 per employee up to ten employees. the program addressed the prom

directly by targeting the program to the most vulnerable communities and providing small businesses in those communities with the remainder of the $10,000 congress intended them to receive. we corrected the mistake initially made. it remains frustrating to know that our federal response to the pandemic could have helped even more small businesses. so it was welcome relief when president biden was inaugurated because i knew that americans underserved small businesses would have a champion in phase three of 37 and we would have have -- phase 3 of p.p.p. the administration hit the ground running. in february 2021, president biden instituted a 14-day priority period for p.p.p. during which the s.b.a. only processed applications for small businesses with fewer than 20 employees. the administration changed the loan calculation formula for small providers and eliminated a

restriction that preventerred small preventerred -- prevented small businesses with a prior conviction from obtaining a p.p.p. loan. congress enacted the american rescue plan. the relief package created the restaurant revitalization fund to provide grants to restaurants and bars that lost revenues due to covid-19 added additional funds to the shuttered venue operator fund program and funds to the eidl advance program and provided $350 billion to states and localities which helped spur new state programs and replenish existing ones like the relief act and the maryland strong economic initiative in my state and created a new program to get the s.b.a. development resources in the communities that would benefit from them the most. we had the federal programs. we have navigators to help small businesses get funds.

we provided local funds to state and local governments so they could help small businesses. we really went to do everything we could to help those that needed the help the most. the significance of these actions, is passage of the bipartisan aid act in december, the biden administration's administrative steps and the american rescue plan cannot be overstated. they helped set our nation on course for the most robust economic recovery in american history. phase 3 of p.p.p., january to may 31, 2021, had the most equitable loan approval shares according to a report released in january of this year by economist robert fairy and frank fausen. the fairly and fausen have been following p.p.p. and the pandemic's impact closely for the past two years cited the scroard increase in loan volume -- the extraordinary increase in loan volume, that

targets hispanic-owned small businesses is an example of the success of the p.p.p. under the biden administration. these numbers are impressive. during phase 1 of p.p.p., it ranked 4,274 of p.p.p. lenders by volume. that was phase 1, where you really had to have an existing relationship if you were going to be able to get a p.p.p. loan. in phase 2, where we did a better job in targeting, they ranked 325th. in phase 3, they were among the top ranked p.p.p. lenders by volume. they wrote that the 14-day priority period in particular helped to bring the p.p.p. loans to disadvantaged small businesses. thank you to the biden administration and democrats in congress. the program hasn't always been good for small businesses. it has also supported small community banks. the federal reserve bank of st. louis wrote that small business

lending was a key business line for small community banks during the operation of the program and the program will help smaller banks regain some of the ground it they have lost to larger competitors in the small business loan market. the biden administration's implementation of the shuttered venue operator grants program has been a resounding success. after awarding more than 12,800 initial grants worth more than $11 million at an average of $1 million per institution, the administration issued grants worth over $3 billion. i mention that because we know our shuttered venues would be out of business if it wasn't for the shuttered loan program that's kept them in business. the administration successly provided more than 100,000 restaurants with the restaurant revitalization fund worth more than $28 billion in grants. i've seen firsthand the benefit of these grants as i've traveled to maryland. on small business friday last year, i did a walking tour down

main street in annapolis. every single restaurant owner i visited shared that they may not have survived without the restaurant revitalization fund grant. all these restaurants are more than just a place to grab a bite to eat. these are decade-old institutions owned by small business operators and their closure would have deeply felt by the community. in the coming weeks congress must finish the job by replenishing the restaurant revitalization fund. there are hundreds of thousands of applicants waiting on funds. we have to finish the job for our restaurants because if there are any lessons learned from the past two years is that when congress comes together to produce thoughtful policies that address the system issues in our economy, it yields results. after enduring the deepest economic contraction since 1947, the american economy grew at the fastest rate since 1984 with the first year of the joe

biden administration. we're back, but we still have pockets that need help. in an ironic twist of history the lessons we have learned and experience and capacity we built up within the s.b.a. prepared us for what can only be described as an entrepreneurial renaissance underway in our communities. according to the census bureau, american registered 4.4 million new businesses in 2020. 4.4 million new businesses, the highest total on record, and a 24% increase over the prior year. remarkably, the surge is being driven by entrepreneurs in some of the most underserved communities, and our policies helped make that a reality. for example, data shows between february 2020 and august 2021, the number of black business owners increased by 38%. congress needs to take advantage of the entrepreneurial spirit that is surging throughout our communities by continuing to invest in our entrepreneurs,

especially those in underserved communities. we have demonstrated that the historic structural barriers that have inhibited the growth of small businesses in underserved communities are far from insurmountable. now is not the time to retreat. it is time for us to double down. implementing lessons learned during the implementation of p.p.p., we should create new direct loan program within s.b.a. and further empower small businesses. build on the inroads the s.b.a. made with underserved communities during the pandemic to get entrepreneurial development, business mentorship and technical training into communities that would benefit from it the most. and we should continue to work in a bipartisan way to ensure that american small businesses have the tools they need to emerge from the covid-19 stronger than ever. the bottom line is our policies made a difference. we saved america's small businesses. we need to continue to work in the future to make sure the climate for small businesses is healthy so that our economy can

continue to grow. we know that small businesses are the growth engine of job growth in america. they are aware that most innovation takes place in our economy. our policies during this pandemic helped save small businesses and now expand the opportunity for small businesses. but we need to continue to pay attention to these issues. i hope we can do this in a bipartisan way. we need to replenish the funds for those that have not been able to get it under the restaurant revitalization fund, and we need to pay attention to small businesses in this country. with that, mr. president, i yield the floor.

a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from nebraska. mrs. fischer: thank you, mr. president. earlier this month the commanders of the united states strategic command and the united states space command, admiral charles richard and general james dickinson testified before the armed services committee for their annual posture hearing. the backdrop for their testimony was two twin challenges facing the united states and our allies. putin's desire to re-create the russian empire demonstrated most recently in his unprovoked and unjustified invasion of ukraine. and china's plan to massively expand their power, rolling back united states influence in the process. both of these american adversaries are expanding their nuclear arsenals to back up

their ambitions. as the ranking member of the subcommittee on strategic forces and with stratcom's headquarters in my state of nebraska, i appreciated this chance to engage with admiral richard on such an important issue. as the commander of stratcom, admiral richard has one of the highest pressure jobs in the world, overseeing america's nuclear forces. he knows better than anyone how important our nuclear deterrent is to preventing war around the world, and he understands the threat posed by our adversaries' growing arsenals. admiral richard told the armed services committee that putin's war in ukraine is giving us, quote, a very vivid real-world example of the importance of extended deterrence, end quote. what he meant by that is that even though putin has brought a major war back to europe for the

first time since the end of world war ii, and heartbreaking destruction to the people of ukraine, nuclear deterrence, including the extended deterrence commitments that we provide our allies, has shielded nato countries and discouraged the conflict spread. more specifically, without our nuclear deterrent, our plan to protect american citizens and our allies would fall apart. take it straight from admiral richard. he said, quote, every operational plan in the department of defense and every other capability we have rests on an assumption that strategic deterrence is holding, and in particular, that nuclear deterrence is holding. if strategic or nuclear

deterrence fails, no other plan and no other capability in the department of defense is going to work as designed. end of quote. when people who care about a safe and secure america say that strategic deterrence, especially nuclear deterrence, is the bedrock of our national security, that is exactly what we mean. because at the end of the day, american strength is the only thing that tyrants like putin actually respect. just as we need to reassess our approach to putin in light of his invasion of ukraine, we also need to rethink our approach to our nuclear deterrent. barely two months ago on januarf the u.n. security council released a joint declaration on preventing nuclear war and avoiding arms races. russia, of course, is one of

those five members. people who want our deterrent to continue aging while russia and china modernize their own forces, including many members of the media, rushed to hail the joint statement as a long awaited and revolutionary breakthrough. they seemed certain that we had turned a corner and that by signing this statement, we were ushering in a new and enduring era of world peace. i was skeptical. i wrote an op-ed in "national review" online that responded to what i call the delusional parts of that statement and the wishful thinking that led the united states to sign our name next to those of russia and china. more than a month before putin launched his invasion of ukraine, i wrote, quote, this

would be an historic moment for international unit, or rather, it would be if it were true. china and russia may have signed this document but they do not intend to honor it. end quote. they clearly did not. since then, russia has put their deterrent on high alert, essentially threatening to use their nukes against the other countries who signed that statement. i believe it was clear to anyone who had been paying attention that signing our names to a feel-good piece of paper wasn't actually going to change anything about putin's behavior or the behavior of china. mr. president, while our deterrent remains effective, we are asking it to protect against a growing range of threats.

russia is continuing the deadliest war in europe in nearly a century and the chinese communist party, well, they're hard at work expanding their own nuclear arsenal and they're doing it at a pace we have never seen in world history. i ask admiral -- asked admiral richard about the united states intelligence community estimate that china plans to potentially quadruple their nuclear arsenal by the year 2030, and he told the committee, quote, last fall i formally reported to the secretary of defense the p.r.c. strategic breakout. their expansion modernization in 2021 alone is breathtaking and the concern i expressed in my testimony last april has now become a reality. end quote. china is attempting a rapid

buildup of unprecedented scope and scale and we have no reason to think they will stop once they reach the pentagon's estimate. we have even less reason to think it will take china eight more years to grow their stockpile to 1,000 deliverable warheads. admiral richard agreed. in response to my questioning, he said, quote, whatever the time estimate that the intelligence community gives you on anything by china, divide it by two and maybe by four and you will get closer to the right answer. so, no, i don't know that we have any idea of china's end point and or speed, end quote. and as admiral richard pointed out at another point in the hearing, many observers have gotten too caught up on the

1,000 by 2030 figure. since the pentagon released their report in november of last year, an unspoken assumption has developed that china will simply stop building nukes once they reach that point. whether that's in 2025 or 2030, but let me point out the chinese communist party has given us no reason to think that that might be the case. in fact, given their ambitions to take taiwan and develop a chinese sphere of influence beyond asia, i think it is very likely they will continue building far beyond that number. even as china works to expand its nuclear arsenal, ours is rapidly aging. the united states has not designed or built a new nuclear warhead since the end of the

cold war. we don't even have the ability to produce a new warhead right now and we are the only nuclear power unable to do so. china and russia can, the united kingdom can, france can, and india and pakistan can, even north korea can. but here in the united states we cannot. instead, we have focused on extending the life of our current systems. this has pushed our deterrent far beyond its designed lifetime and made the need for modernization even more acute. admiral richard went out of his way to stress this point during his testimony. he told the senate armed services committee, quote, right now i am executing my strategic

deterrence mission under historic stress, crisis levels of deterrence, crisis deterrence dynamics that we've only seen a couple of times in our nation's history, and i'm doing it with submarines built in the 1980's and 1990's and an launch missile built in the 1980's, a missile built in the 1970's, a bomber built in the 1960's, part of our nuclear command and control that predates the internet and a nuclear weapon complex that dates back to the manhattan era. end quote. we have ignored the need to modernize -- modernize our deterrent for far too long. it's admiral richard said at another point during his

testimony, the nuclear force we have today is the absolute minimum we need to guarantee our security. the world has only gotten more dangerous over the past decade and the last few weeks in ukraine are the latest evidence of that, but washington -- well, washington has spent that time procrastinating. our failure to make tough decisions has left admiral richard with a deterrent that simply hasn't kept up with those of our adversaries. the final piece of admiral richard's testimony i will read is this, quote, we have reached the point where we can no longer deter with the leftovers of the cold war. we have life extended them to

the maximum extent possible. we must now start to recapitalize, remanufacture those that require a very robust infrastructure. we're ten years behind the point where we needed to start recapitalizing the infrastructure and the consequences we simply won't have the capabilities that we are going to have to have to deter the threat environment we're in. end quote. we cannot keep kicking the can down the road. we are not in the 1990's or the 2000's anymore. the threat environment is changing and we have no choice but to keep up, but our nuclear deterrent is sized based on the 2010 new start treaty written in

a very different world. before putin decided to behave like a war criminal and before china's unprecedented nuclear breakout. to wrap-up, i would like to draw my colleagues' attention to an exchange from the foreign relations committee's hearings during the ratification process for the new start treaty. responding to a question about whether the posture set by the treaty left the united states with nuclear forces beyond what we needed, the stratcom commander at the time, general kevin chilton, completely rejected that idea. he said, instead, quote, i think the arsenal that we have is exactly what is needed today to provide the deterrent, end quote. we need to think long and hard about if a deterrent designed

around the threats of 2010 is still what is needed for the very different and much more dangerous world we live in now. i hope the administration will address that question in its upcoming nuclear posture review. in fact, the upcoming fiscal year budget and various strategy documents we expect to be released soon, including the n.p.r., are a chance for the administration to show that they do understand the challenges that we face. most fundamentally, that is the erosion of global stability and the increasingly challenging threat environment facing our country. these documents are an opportunity for president biden to propose a realistic plan to

meet these threats. i hope that he will. mr. president, the hard truth is that every day that we refuse to commit to modernization schedule today's world needs is a day that russia and china become greater threats, they get further ahead. if we wait too long, we're going to wake up five, ten, 20 years from now with no way to deter adversaries who did commit to modernization, and that's not a position anyone wants to wind up in. we need to act like adults and make difficult choices to prioritize our nuclear deterrent, the most fundamental part of our defense strategy,

and we have to keep modernization on schedule in the fy-2023 ndaa. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from wisconsin. ms. baldwin: i ask that the senate vote on executive calendar nomination 678,. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the senate will proceed to executive session to resume consideration of the calvert nomination, which the clerk will report. the clerk: , nomination, the judiciary, victoria marie calvert, of georgia, to be united states district judge for the northern district of georgia. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. ms. baldwin: i ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second?

there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote: vote:

vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: the yeas are 50, the nays are 46, and the nomination is confirmed. under the previous order, the motion to reconsider is considered made and laid upon the table, and the president will be immediately notified of the senate's actions.

a senator: mr. president.

the presiding officer: the senator from new hampshire. susan ?ran i ask unanimous consent that --. ms. hassan: i ask unanimous consent that the senate be in a period of morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. hassan: i ask unanimous consent that the help committee be discharged from further consideration and the senate now proceed to senate resolution 550. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: s. res. 550, recognizing the value of the older americans act, nutrition program and addressing hunger, malnutrition, food insecurity, and social or geographic isolation and improving the health and quality of life for millions of older individuals in the united states each year. the presiding officer: without objection, the committee is discharged, and will proceed. ms. hassan: i ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: without objection.

ms. hassan: i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the consideration of senate resolution 555, submitted earlier today. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: s. res. 555, recognizing the heritage, culture, and contributions of american indian, alaska native, and native hawaiian women in the united states. the presiding officer: without objection, the senate will proceed. ms. hassan: i ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. hassan: mr. president, i have eight requests for committees to meet during today's session of the senate. they have the the approval the majority and minority leaders. the presiding officer: duly noted. ms. hassan: i ask unanimous consent that the appointment at the desk appear separately in the record as if made by the chair. the presiding officer: without

objection. ms. hassan: finally, i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today it adjourn until 10:00 a.m. on wednesday, march 23, 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 number 282, h.r. 4521, america competes act, postcloture. further, that the vote on the motion to proceed occur at 10:30 a.m. finally, if any nominations are confirmed during wednesday's session of the senate, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, and the president be immediately notified of the senate's actions. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. hassan: for the information of senators, there will be a roll call vote at 10:30 a.m. on the motion to proceed to the america competes act. 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 stands adjourned until senate stands adjourned until watch live coverage here on "c-span2" c-span is unfiltered coverage of the u.s. response to russians invasion of ukraine reading you the latest on the presidents and other white house officials, the pentagon and apartment as well as congress,

also have international perspectives from the united nations and statements from foreign leaders, all on the c-span numbers, the c-span noun pre- mobile app and cspan.org/ukraine income our web resource made we can watch the latest videos on amanda, and follow the tweets from the journalists on the ground i go to cspan.org,/ukraine. >> cspan now, is a free mobile app feature your unfiltered view of what is happening in washington come alive and undemanding about chemo the days because the ms. bride sweep the floor proceedings of the hearing from u.s. congress, the white house events, campaigns and more criminals politics all at your fingertips and also stay current with the latest episodes of washington journal and scheduling information for cspan's networks and cspan radio plus a variety of compelling

podcast available under an available and download it for free today cspan l, your front row seat to washington anytime, anywhere. >> as these presidents recorded conversations while in office, here many of those conversations on c-span's new podcast, residential recordings, focusing on the presidency of lyndon johnson camille hiller by the 1964, civil rights act and the 96 well, presidential campaign in the incident in the march on selma, the war in vietnam a covenant everyone knew they were being recorded, certainly johnson's secretaries new, because they were tasked with transcribing many of those conversations and they were the one image of the conversation were taped as johnson would signal to them through an open door between his office and there. >> also here blunted talk.

>> hundred for the number of people assigned to kennedy that when he the day he died the riverside and right click and i can ever to the bathroom of my own building a, i promise you won't go go anywhere from all just a right behind these gates. reporter: presidential recordings printed on the c-span now mobile app or wherever you get your podcast. c-span is your unfiltered view of government, funded by these television companies are more, including cox. >> boxes has committed to providing eligible families access to affordable internet through the connection it program in the digital vitae, one connection and engagement at a time, cox, bringing us closer. >> clock support cspan as a public service along with these

other television providers and we giving you a front row seat to democracy. >> as we mentioned the u.s. senate today considering the american companies act which deals with competitiveness with china and computer chip and next bernie sanders shares his opposition to the measure this is about 20 minutes. >> the presidents of the time of massive and growing income and equality. the market people are outraged the unprecedented level of corporate greed that is taking place all around them. today while the working class the country is struggling with gas prices and higher food prices, and higher housing prices the