on cloture of that bill this morning. live to the floor of the senate here on c-span2. the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. the chaplain, dr. barry black, will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. hear our prayers, mighty god. be merciful and answer. today, look down from heaven upon us as we pray for the ukrainian people. lord, we are not worthy to stand in your presence,

but you know the heartache we feel for our brothers and sisters in ukraine. when their enemies attack, we remain confident that the battle is still in your hands. lord, continue to use our lawmakers as instruments of your peace. we pray in your sovereign name. amen. the presiding officer: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance to the flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

the presiding officer: the the clerk will read a communication to the senate. the clerk : washington, d.c., march 23, 2022. to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable angus king, a senator from the state of maine, to perform the duties of the chair. signed: patrick j. leahy, president pro tempore. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved. morning business is closed. under the previous order, the senate will resume consideration of the motion to proceed to h.r. 4521, which the clerk will report. the clerk: motion to proceed to 4521,.

>> a little over a year ago pat return intel where he spent three decades earlier in his career. many discussions about what chip manufacturing means to oregon and the entire country. from the time the typical american gets up in the morning when they go to bed at night, and sometimes even while they are sleeping, they interact with thousands of semiconductors.

congress is finally waking up to the fact that computer chips are the beating heart of the 21st tt century economy. pandemic era breakdowns, semiconductor supply chains made it very clear how essential chips are to the health of our economy and our everyday lives here with an understanding there's a big bipartisan interest in supporting a domestic, a vibrant domestic chip manufacturing days in. judge jackson is receiving a calm, respectful process unlike the treatment that senate democrats typically inflict on republican presidents' nominees. but unfortunately thus far many of judge jackson's responses have been evasive and unclear. she's declined to address

critically important questions and ameliorate real concerns. first and foremost is the simple question of court-packing. the far-left fringe groups that promoted judge jackson for this vacancy want democrats to destroy the court's legitimacy through partisan court-packing or unconstitutional term limits. she was literally the court packers pick for the seat and she has repeatedly refused to reject their position. both the liberal legal giants justice ginsburg and justice breyer had no problem, no problem defending the court and denouncing court-packing. both ginsburg and breyer denounced court-packing. as sitting justices they

commented freely on the subject. the justices knew that expressing a clear view and defending their institution was not, i repeat, not judicially inappropriate in any way. but judge jackson has refused to follow in the footsteps of ginsburg and breyer. she refuses to rule out what the radical activists want. she told senator kennedy she does not have an opinion on court-packing, but it's not a strongly held opinion. in any event she wouldn't tell the senator what it was. but the nominee made sure to quietly signal openness, openness to the radicals' position. she told senators she could see both sides of the court-packing debate where justices ginsburg

and breyer slammed the door, judge jackson leaves it open. she even told the committee, quote, i would be thrilled to be one of however many congress thought appropriate to put on the court. thrilled to be one of however many congress thought appropriate to put on the court. however many? i'm not sure judge jackson's secret opinion on court-packing is as secret as she thinks it is. judge jackson also displayed a remarkable lack of candor during basic questions about judicial philosophy. when asked about judicial philosophy, the nominee tried to punt by simply restating the most basic elements of the jobs -- a judge's job description. she said she looks at the facts, treat litigants fairly. that's not explaining a judicial

philosophy. that's just rewording the judicial oath. it's basically a nonanswer. so, mr. president, these are pivotal questions. they require clear responses and previous nominees had much less trouble providing them. a year and a half ago now justice barrett gave the committee an intellectual master case in her original judicial philosophy. she described her interpretive approach in great detail. she help -- helpfully compared and contrasted her philosophy with past and present justices to provide senators with points of comparison. but judge jackson either cannot or will not do any of that. senator sasse said that in his meeting with the nominee more than two weeks ago, he asked the judge to compare and contrast her own thinking with justices breyer, sotomayor, and kagan to

give senators a point of reference. at that time the judge apparently told the senator that she needed to think about it but would get back to him. so he followed up yesterday and judge jackson said actually she'd been too busy to give it any thought. she could not or would not even supply a clear summary of just the philosophy of justice br breyer. justice breyer is judge jackson's former boss for whom she clerked. he's written entire books detailing his judicial approach. but judge jackson either could not or would not describe it. in one jaw-dropping moment, judge jackson tried to dodge questions about constitutional interpretation by claiming that she does not have enough experience. does not have enough experience.

here's what she said. quote, i would say just while i have been on the bench for nine-plus years, the issue of constitutional interpretation in that sense doesn't come up very often. it comes up to the supreme court for sure, but it doesn't come up very often in the lower courts. in other words, at least in that moment, a nominee for the united states supreme court tried to tell the committee that they are professional experience had not prepared her, not prepared her for an indepth discussion of constitutional interpretation. the white house and senate democrats keep saying judge jackson's district court experience is perfect preparation for the supreme court. but it sounds like the nominee herself may actually disagree with that. so let's be very clear. if judge jackson fully, truly

feels she lacks sufficient experience with constitutional interpretation, then the senate certainly should not confirm her. but if she does not actually feel that way, then she owes the senate much more candor about her approach. for decades liberal activists have preferred judges who do not limit themselves to applying the text of our laws and our constitution but rather make new policy from the bench. sure enough, judge jackson spent all day yesterday trying to explain what amounts to a passionate policy disagreement with existing sentencing guidelines for certain horrible crimes. in a number of instances, she's given out sentences far, far below the sentencing guidelines and far below the government prosecutor's request. in cases ranging from child

exploitation to fentanyl trafficking, she's used every possible ounce of discretion to essentially remake sentencing policy from the bench. under questioning from senator cotton, judge jackson said it would be inappropriate for her to comment on the proper durations of criminal sentences as this was a policy matter for legislators and not judges. but at other times she justified her own past leniency by explaining judges have huge amounts of discretion and latitude on sentencing criminals. so either subjective questions about sentencing are fair game for the judicial branch or they're not. certainly the nominee cannot have it both ways. so today judge jackson will have another chance, another chance to defend the institution of the

court like justice ginsburg and justice breyer had no trouble doing. another chance to give shores a clear explanation of her judicial philosophy like justice justices gorsuch and barrett had no trouble doing. another chance to explain whether and how her clear policy views on the merits of sentencing criminals will continue to impact her judicial judgment. the senate and the country will be watching. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. schumer: first i ask unanimous consent that the vote occur immediately after i finish my remarks. the presiding officer: the senate is in a quorum call. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent the quorum be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent the senate vote immediately following my remarks. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: now, mr. president, on pntr, as president biden begins the most important foreign trip of his presidency, the best thing the senate can do this week is pass pntr legislation to land another devastating blow on putin's economy. over the past few weeks, republicans have complained that president biden hasn't acted

quickly enough against putin. yet for the past few days they have stymied swift action on pntr despite the fact that the house approved it 424-8 with leader mccarthy supporting it. in particular, the senior senator from idaho has sought to amend the bill to include an oil ban. we're willing to work with senator crapo to address his concerns, but there are few reasons we should move quickly with pntr. first, president biden has already implemented a ban on russian oil and gas so passing this legislation is not a priority the way pntr is. second, there remains serious questions about whether the proposal from republicans would delay the ban on buying russian oil for a period of time. this is a consequence no one wants. senator manchin brought this up when he saw the language, and it's something that has to be made. we have to make it certain that this proposal isn't weaker than

what the president has put into effect. third, showing unity, particularly at this time when the president is meeting with our european allies, is especially important. and finally, the house is not in session. any changes we make to the pntr legislation delays enactment by at least a week. there is no -- there is absolutely know reason to change what the house has already approved on pntr by a week or more. senators are agreeing to work with senator crapo on this issue. let me say it again. pntr has been approved overwhelmingly by the house and it's the most logical next step in the fight against putin's barbaric war and the senate should thus act. republicans who complain of delay are the ones who are

delaying. the senate is most effective when working quickly and in unison to product allies. passing pntr with overwhelming support is a chance to do that. yesterday, mr. president, i held a handful of conversations with colleagues from both sides of the aisle one of the most confounding problems facing millions of americans, the skyrocketing cost of insulin. making insulin more affordable is a top priority for democrats so right now there are bipartisan talks under way, led by senators shaheen and collins to cap insulin at $35 a month and make changes to drive costs down in a comprehensive way. i intend to put a proposal on the floor as soon as we can after easter. there should be nothing remotely partisan about making sure americans don't go broke managing their diabetes. democrats are eager to work to

make legislation to cap insulin at $35 and give millions a long overdue break at the pharmacy. it is reported that one in four insulin users have to ration their insulin because they can't afford it. this is a drug with no patent on which millions of americans rely to manage thaish diabetes. -- to manage their diabetes. today a 40-day supply can exceed $60 a month. senators warnock, senator shaheen, senator murray, and senator collins have worked on proposals for bringing down the price of insulin, bringing it back down as part of our larger effort to lower costs for american families. this will combine elements from senator warnock's and other

proposals and it has my enthusiastic backing because lowering the cost of insulin is so important. i commend my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for working on this issue in good faith. bipartisanship has been kindling from a number of recent bills, and incidentally while we're talking about cost cutting, we're having hearings this week on a number of issues relating to high costs. senator casey is leading in the aging committee is leading a hearing on home care and the high cost there today. senator carper is leading a hearing on clean energy and national security and the high cost of energy there and in agriculture, senator stabenow had a hearing yesterday on the cost of rural child care, rural elder care and health care. on the competition bill. today the senate will take another step to advance major

bipartisan legislation to increase american jobs and lower costs for american families. for over a year both parties have worked on competitiveness legislation built around two goals, create more american jobs and lower costs for american families. in the case of senator young and myself, the effort has stretched back many years. the house and senate passed legislation to achieve these goals separately to the -- so the best way now to send a final product to the president's desk is by entering a conference committee with the house and we're now working towards that end and jumping through a number of procedural hoops. -- to get that done. the majority of us want to see this legislation reach the president's desk. we want to see costs go down for families, see more manufacturing jobs here at home, see greater relief for supply chains and we want to revive america's

unparalleled innovation machine that fueled our economy for so many of -- much of the 20th century. the war in ukraine is a perfect test case. some of the most important resources for making chips like neon gas come precisely from ukraine. we need to make more of this these products here in america instead of overseas so we can lower costs, shore up our supply chains. for that reason alone the senate is moving aid head on this important legislation. finally on scotus. judge ketanji brown jackson -- she was simply impressive. it's clear to anyone watching judge jackson's brilliant lee legal mind that it was running in high gear.

she remains measured and poised and thoughtful as she worked through yesterday's grueling series of questions. over the course of the day, judge jackson affirmed that she will approach her role on the supreme court with prudence, a respect for precedent and by serving in the same mainstream fashion as the great justice -- whose seat she would fill. at times the judge also displayed one of her greatest strengths, her grace and poised even when republicans asked questions. republicans tried to land a blow, but judge jackson kept her cool. by the end of the day it was obvious why the judge's nomination has won the support of everyone from law enforcement to conservative judges to scores of peers throughout her career. i expect she will reach final confirmation by the end of this work period.

as she continues, there will be other judges confirmed. last night the senate confirmed its 50th judge under president biden and by the end of tonight we could reach as many as 58 total judges, but doing that will take a lot of focus and patience as we required last week. in order to move through tonight's votes quickly, we should stay in our seats or as close to the senate floor as possible. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the question is on the motion to proceed. yeas and nays have been requested. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote: vote: vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: on the motion to proceed to h.r. 4512, the yeas 6, the nays are 31. the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the bill. the clerk: h.r. 4521, an act to provide for a coordinated federal research initiative and so forth. mr. schumer: madam president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. schumer: i call up amendment 5002. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from new york, mr. schumer, proposes an amendment numbered 5002.

mr. schumer: i ask to dispense with further reading of the amendment. the presiding officer: woks. mr. schumer: i ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. yeas and nays are ordered. mr. schumer: madam president, i have an amendment at the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from new york, mr. schumer, proposes an amendment numbered 5003 to amendment number 5002. mr. schumer: i ask to dispense with further reading of the amendment. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: i ask for the yins. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the yeas and nays are ordered. mr. schumer: i have a second-degree amendment at the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: ever new york proposes an amended number 5004 to amendment number 5003. mr. schumer: i ask to dispense with further reading. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: i have an amendment to the underlying bill

at the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from new york, mr. schumer, proposes an amendment numbered 5005 to the language proposed to be stricken by amendment number 5002. officer h. mr. schumer: i ask to dispense with further reading of the amendmentment. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: i ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: sufficient you have? -- is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the yeas and nays are ordered. mr. schumer: i have a second-degree amendment at the desk. the clerk: mr. schumer proposes an enemy numbered 5006 to amendment number 505. mr. schumer: i ask to dispense with further reading of the amendment. the presiding officer: without objection. schumer i move to commit h.r. 4521 to the commerce committee with instructions to report back forthwith with an amendment. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: mr. schumer moves to commit h.r. 4521 to the committee on commerce, science, and transportation with instructions to report back forthwith with amendment 5007. mr. schumer: i ask to dispense with further reading.

the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: i ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. t-the yeas and nays are ordered. mr. schumer: i have an amendment to the instructions at the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: mr. schumer proposes an amendment numbered 5008 to the instructions. motion to commit. mr. schumer: i ask to dispense with further reading of the amendment. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: i ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the yeas and nays are ordered. mr. schumer: i have a second-degree amendment at the desk 789. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from new york, mr. schumer, proposes an amendment numbered 500 to amendment number 5008. the presiding officer: i ask to dispense with further reading of the amendment. the presiding officer: without objection.

mr. schumer: madam president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. schumer: now, madam president, as president biden begins the most important foreign trip of his presidency, the best thing the senate can do this week is pass permanent normal trade relations legislation so we can land another devastating blow on putin's economy. in a few moments i will ask the senate for consent to do just that. last week the house passed legislation revoking russia's normal trade relations with the u.s. by 424-8. 424-8. the vast majority of house republicans backed it, including leader mccarthy and the republican leadership.

here in the senate, my friend, the senior senator from idaho, sincerely believes that we should amend the bill by including an oil ban. i don't believe we should do that. as i said earlier today, there are four reasons why we should move forward quickly on pntr and then have a separate discussion on the oil ban. first, president biden has already implemented a ban on russian oil and gas, so passing something the president has already done is not even as remotely urgent as passing the pntr first, especially because the president is leaving today and meeting with our european allies. what could be better than a united senate putting further sanctions on russia as the president meets with our european allies, where he's done a very good job of bringing them together? second, there's still some disagreement, including with the administration, about how to best draft an oil ban proposal.

there are some who worry that the proposal that my friend from idaho is pushing would actually delay the ban on russian oil compared to the president's proposal. this is a consequence no one wants. third, it is so important we show unity right now as president biden meets with our european allies. swift senate action combining democrats and republicans with one voice, supporting pntr would do just that. and finally, the house is not in session. any changes we would make to the pntr legislation by amendment delays enactment by at least a week. there is no reason, absolutely no reason, to change the pntr legislation the house has already approved and delay action. now again, i repeat, i am, senator wyden is, and the -- all we senate democrats are willing to work with senator crapo on this issue if he can agree to

let the process move forward. so let me say again, pntr has already been overwhelmingly passed by the house. it is a very important and logical step in the fight against putin's barbaric war. we should move the house bill asap. so, madam president, i ask unanimous consent that at a time to be determined by the majority leader, following consultation with the republican leader, the senate proceed to the consideration of h.r. 7108 which is at the desk, that there be four hours of debate equally divided and that no amendments be in order, that upon the use or yielding back of the time, the bill will be considered read a third time and the senate vote on passage of the bill, and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, without further intervening action or debate.

the presiding officer: is there an objection? mr. crapo: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from idaho. mr. crapo: reserving the right to object, i rise to address ukraine's perilous situation. there is broad agreement in this chamber and in the house of representatives that america's response in all areas to russia and belarus' aggression against ukraine must be comprehensive and strong. leveraging the benefits of the u.s. trade relationship with russia is just such a response that will add to the pressures on putin to rethink his actions in ukraine and punish him for what he's already done. on march 8, democrat and republican leadership in the senate finance committee, in it the mouse committee on ways and means reached an agreement on precisely that type of response. the bicameral, bipartisan agreement is called the suspending normal trade relations with russia and belarus act, and its provisions

include banning russian energy imports including various forms of petroleum, natural gas, and coal, moving russia and belarus to the same pariah trade status as north korea and cuba, providing the president additional authority to raise tariffs on russia and belarus even further, calling on w.t. o'members to take similar actions to deprive trade benefits and sending a crystal-clear message to russia's dictator, vladimir putin, that he will never see these trade benefits restored until he reverses his aggression, stops threatening our neigh a lice, and recognizes the right of the ukraine people to live freely. none of this is controversial, and all of it is necessary. yet only a day after the deal was made and with neither warning nor explanation, the house split the energy ban from the trade status provision and bifurcated the two measures further by the imposing separate

standards before any president can think to remove these trade benefits, to restore these trade benefits to russia without congressional approval. each bill passed by over 400 votes, but the house decided to only transmit the bill on russia's trade status. the permanent normal trade relations, even though it had passed more than a week after the energy ban. the important point is that our house colleagues on both sides of the aisle agree both restrictions need to happen. some may wonder why the urgent need for congressional energy on the import ban after president biden provided one in his executive order. speaker pelosi was asked just that question when she put the new house version up on the import -- on the import ban up for a vote. and she stated, correctly, to her house colleagues -- you're here to legislate.

absolutely. that's why we are here. and our legislative response, more especially its certification requirements, must deliver an unmistakable message to putin. no relief until you stop your aggression and recognize ukraine's inalienable right to live free and choose its leaders. the energy ban and its trade status revocation are complementary and they must work together. while president biden's executive order to ban russian oil was a positive step, the senate and house need to impose tough conditions on putin's treatment of ukraine to be met before any president seeks an end to the energy import ban. these conditions are like those congress had done in the bipartisan caatsa legislation which we negotiated when i was the banking committee chairman during the trump administration. enacting a russian oil ban will demonstrate to the ukrainian

people and our nato allies that congress is committed to cutting off russia's funding for its war effort. many of our allies, including in europe, are debating whether to adopt an energy ban against russia. by the united states congress acting definitively and with certainty through our congressional action, our allies will all be more encouraged to take similar stands against russian energy exports, which account for over a third of russia's budget. i seek to continue our bipartisan tradition by introducing text that is as close to the original deal as possible, except in two respects that respond to the points made by our majority leader. both made to facilitate our colleagues on the other side of the aisle. first, i am making a single technical correction made at the request of senators manchin and murkowski to comport with the time timeline of the president's

executive order concerning the ban so no delay will exist. this edit is necessary to avoid that delay and it solves that problem. second, i have revised the certification cry dear tear i can't -- criteria that would allow the restoration of trade benefits to match exactly what the house passed. the original deal provided that benefits could not be restored until russia withdrew its forces and stopped posing an immediate threat to nato allies and partners. to secure a bipartisan support, i yielded to what the house passed that russia need only reach an agreement with the president to withdraw its forces rather than have definitively withdrawn them and that russia not pose a threat to nato members as opposed to nato members and their partners. again, this is to match what the house has requested. mind you, i have many colleagues on my side who would like to do many more things, and i agree with their requests.

but on the trade front, i'm willing to make these concessions to get this done. my view is that we should act quickly. i agree with the majority leader on this. we must do it together, and we must do it today. there is no reason to wait for another revenue bill to come from the house before we act. so let us mark the bravery of the ukrainian people by passing the strongest legislation we can today in the trade space. accordingly i'm scgget senator to modify his request, to take the firm comprehensive action against vladimir putin that circumstances require. i would like to ask if the senator would modify his request to make it in order for the crapo substitute amendment which is at the desk to be considered and agreed to and that the senate vote on the passage of the bill as amended. a senator: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from maryland.

mr. cardin: reserving the right to object to the request from the senator from idaho. it's my understanding that the senator's modification would not include the provisions that were included in the house-passed legislation that modifies the global magnitsky sanction regime. and i just would like to speak for a moment, if i might. there's no question we stand with the people of ukraine against the unprovoked attack by mr. putin. we are inspired every day by the courage of the ukrainian people and by their inspirational leader, president zelenskyy. the u.s. has shown leadership, and i congratulate the biden administration. we have led the free world in providing defensive lethal weapons to ukraine to defend itself. we have provided humanitarian assistance, joining the global community, including dealing with three million ukrainians that are now refugees in other countries and ten million that

have been displaced as a result of mr. putin's unprovoked attack. and we have led on sanctions. we have led in getting the global unity to impose sanctions against not just the russian sectors, but also against individuals. and when mr. zelenskyy spoke before the members of congress, he specifically mentioned the importance of these sanctions, and he asked us to expand those covered by the sanctions to include the enablers, those that are enabling mr. putin, the oligarchs to be able to fund his aggression against ukraine. what did the house send over to us? in their bill they sent a global magnitsky modification, identical to legislation filed by senator portman and myself that included the revocation of

pntr for russia along with the global magnitsky. first and foremost, it removes the sunset that's in the legislation that would sunset this year. mr. zelenskyy asked us for, for us to be resolved in being willing to stand up to mr. putin, that it would take some time. a clear message is that we remove the sunset on the global magnitsky statute. and we know how difficult it is to get legislation passed in this body. it also expands the global magnitsky to include the enablers, exactly what mr. zelenskyy asked us to do. those that enable, the oligarchs, that allow him to be able to finance this. the language that's included in here is very similar to the language that was included in president trump's executive order. this is critical legislation. now let me just tell you how

appropriate it is that it's included in a pntr bill. the first magnitsky sanction bill, and senator wyden was very important in getting this done, was included in the original pntr bill for russia. and we were able to get it done at that time. we then made it a global magnitsky, and my partner on that was the late senator mccain. it's always been bipartisan. my partner now is senator wicker. the two of us have joined forces to make sure we get it done now. it's critically important in order to impose banking restrictions on those that are targeted under global magnitsky as well as visa restrictions on being able to travel. how important it is? ask mr. usmanoff, one of the principal oligarchs to

mr. putin, who solves mr. putin's business problems. guess how he solves those problems? his yacht has now been confiscated in germany. that's how important these sanctions are and how we have to move them forward. so if i understand my colleague's request, it would deny the opportunity for us to act on the global magnitsky which mr. zelenskyy has specifically asked us to do. we would lose that opportunity. we would be sending this bill back to the house that's not in session, which means there will be a further delay in repealing pntr for russia, which is something we need to do now, today. we can get it to the president for signature today under the majority leader's request. and as the majority leader has indicated, i support the energy ban. i support the russian energy ban. president biden has already taken steps to do that, and i

agree with my colleague from idaho. i would like to incorporate that in statute, but there's no urgency to do that as there is on repealing pntr and global magnitsky. that's the urgency. that's what we need to get done today. that's what we can get to the president this afternoon under the majority leader's request. and that will be denied if my friend from idaho's request were granted. so for all those reasons, i object. the presiding officer: objection is heard to the modification. is there an objection to the original request? mr. crapo: madam president, reserving the right to object and just briefly. the presiding officer: the senator from idaho. mr. crapo: i'd like to say to my colleague senator cardin, i believe we can easily work the global magnitsky legislation into whatever we do today. i don't believe there will be objections to including that. it's not included in what i

submitted because that was not a part of the original four corners agreement which i am proposing. i think that could be added. i also have colleagues on my side of the aisle who have other items they would like to see discussed because the idea we're talking about here is to move ahead with no amendments on legislation that is major. and i'm willing to discuss that as well. but i believe we need time to work this out. we can get this done today. and even though the house is not in session today, our passage of global legislation on this entire issue would send a powerful message that the house could affirm when it does come back into session next week. and so i will still need to object. but i'll commit to my colleagues on the other side that i will work with you today to try to iron out these differences. i need to have assurances that these other pieces, that for some unexplained reason the house has not been willing to put into this package, can be put into a package that will

pass. and if we can get to that point, we can move today. and so i commit that i will work with you. but at this point i must object. mr. schumer: madam president. the presiding officer: objection is heard. the majority leader. mr. schumer: madam president, first, i thank my colleagues from -- my colleague from idaho. i know he sincerely wants to move forward. the best way to send a message is pass the house bill, get it to the president and have him sign it while the european allies and we are meeting. but i'm disappointed, though, that we were unable to take quick action now, but i very much appreciate what senator crapo has said now. and senator crapo and i had a good discussion this morning. we agree, we want to get to a bipartisan resolution to this legislation. so, senators wyden, crapo, and my staff are going to work throughout the day on language related to the oil ban and the other issues that senator crapo talked about that we could consider separately. we would then move to pass pntr

separately, which we hope we can pass today or certainly tomorrow. so i'm getting -- i'm committed to getting this issue resolved and very much appreciate my friend, the senator from idaho's willingness to discuss it so we can work out something that both sides can accept. thank you. i yield the floor. mr. wyden: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. wyden: let me pick up on what both of my colleagues have just said. senator schumer and senator crapo have both said how committed we are to getting this work out today. and as senator schumer said, under his leadership, the finance committee, the chair and the ranking minority members what we're going to be working on so that this actually happens. i want to make sure that everybody understands what that means. it means that while the president is in these crucial discussions right now in europe europe, and the senate in the

most expedited way, which is to pass the house legislation today, would revoke permanent normal trade relations with russia. and here's why that's so important. vladimir putin's inhumane conduct means that russia has forfeited the right to the benefits of the international trade order that was established after world war ii. and what the senate can do by passing the house bill today would amount to the harshest economic consequences in a generation. and let me be specific about that. when we pass that legislation that came over from the house, here in the senate, it would immediately trigger a significant increase in tariffs

on russian-made products. adding to that the proposal includes authority for the president to raise tariffs even higher in the future. these tariffs would directly, directly level a significant, significant set of restrictions on putin's circle of oligarchs who export everything from chemicals to plywood. this is an absolutely essential step in ensuring that russia is a pariah state. , so wrap up apropos of the comments from the distinguished senate majority leader and our ranking minority member -- and the president of the senate has worked with him as well -- we had a good discussion over the last half an hour that's going to focus on getting passage of the house bill done today. and as senator schumer, senator

crapo, and i have all noted, those discussions have been ongoing, but we're going to step it up so we can get this done today and send the house bill to the president, to the president's desk by close of business today. with that, madam president, i yield the floor. a senator: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from new jersey. mr. menendez: madam president, i wanted to join in the comments made from the distinguished chairman of the finance committee, which i have the privilege to sit on, and my distinguished colleague on the senate foreign relations committee who is the author of the magnitsky act. i just hope -- i came loaded forebear to the floor because i thought we were going to have a different result, but i'm optimistically going to expect that we're going to to have a resolution, because, look, there are burned bodies in the

streets of ukraine. there are mass graves to bury the dead. there are ukrainians who are melting snow in order to drink water to survive. so it's truly mind-boggling that we cannot get this legislation passed that eliminates russia's preferred trade status and reauthorizes the magnitsky act. so we see that putin's actions are not only creating a horrific set of circumstances in ukraine, they're creating a huge shortage of wheat across the middle east and north africa, bombing maternity hospitals, and theaters housing children, causing the worst refugee crisis in europe in decades. we've long called out putin's

thuggishness, his unprovoked is and devastate something attack on ukraine, that has united the world to resolve levy reper cussions. i think we should do the same for belarus, which continues to provide a launching pad for putin's war. but certainly not including magnitsky makes no sense. now, it makes no sense when last week i came to the floor and asked for unanimous confirmation of a key number of nominees at the state department and usaid that at the heart of helping the united states help ukraine, on coordinating sanctions, on our usaid director for that part of the world, our assistant director for refugees, millions of ukrainian refugees. we should have these people in place to do the job. but we has have to do a law that

is going to expire in place that putin hates. he hates it. it's named after someone he was trying to eliminate. we have to continue to expand our options for keeping the pressure on putin's regime and those who enable him. and reauthorizing magnitsky is a critical part of doing just that. with magnitsky sanctions, we can hold human rights abusers to account, we can call out their unacceptable and appalling acts, and we can hand the president a powerful tool to sanction those who profit off the russian people and exploit state assets. but if we don't act, magnitsky provisions will sunset later this week h. year. putin shouldn't be able to think i can wait it out. he should know that the law is going to continue, and the sanctions that have been levied under magnitsky will continue to be levied and enhanced.

he wants to see this law go away w his oligarchs and top officials would breathe a sigh of relief. allowing magnitsky sanctions to expire would send exactly the wrong message at the most critical time. and this bill not only extenders these tools, it sharpens them. this reauthorization would expand sanctions to cover other serious human rights abuses, giving the president the power to sanction a broader array of conduct. so we have to get this done today. we have to revoke normal trade relations with russia. we have to send an unequivocal message that putin's cronies cannot and will not act with impunity, that they'll pay a price, and we must show the world that whether human rights abusers are in moscow or minsk, we stand up for our principles and put this emto action wherever they are attacked. that's what this is all about.

i do hope that before this day is out, we will see this passed on the senate floor. there is no excuse not to get it done. with that, i yield the floor. mr. cardin: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. mr. cardin: first let me thank the chairman of the senate foreign relations committee for his incredible leadership on this issue and so many others. i want to point out that our committee has already approved this language. this has already been approved. this is not something that is new to this body. we've been debating this for some time. it's been the united states, it's been the united states senate that's taken the leadership to provide tools to go after human rights abusers. and we were the first act -- to act. but as a result of our action, europe has now acted, the u.k. has acted, canada has acted. so we have provided global leadership, and it is one of the

strongest tools we have against human rights violators and our number-one target today is mr. putin. -- and what he has done. so we have a chance to really show our leadership -- continued leadership in this hear. so i am also encouraged by senator crapo's assurances that we're going to try to get this done today. we want to get this bill to the president. we want to have it clear that we've reauthorized it in a way that it will be effective moving forward. one last point, if i might -- no one knows exactly what happened in the first summit meeting between president putin and president trump. but the report was that one of the very first issues that was raised by mr. putin was global magnitsky sanctions. how it is so sensitive to him. a clear message against mr. putin is to the passage --

is the passage of the reauthorization, and the chairman said, fine-tuning of the global magnitsky statute. i hope we can get that done today. and i thank my colleagues for their comments. with that, i would yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. thune: madam president? the presiding officer: the republican whip. mr. thune: thank you. are we in a quorum call? the presiding officer:er in a quorum call. mr. thune: i would ask unanimous consent that the quorum calling lifted. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. thune: tax day 2022 is fast approaching and americans are prepping their tax returns. i don't think you'll find that the i.r.s. is americans' favorite government agency. with good reason. the agency that is gained a reputation for poor service. last tax filing season was particularly miserable. if you call the i.r.s., there's only a one in 50 chance that you'll reach a human being, note add headline in "the washington post" last april. the national taxpayer advocate noted in her 2021 report to congress that, quote, calendar

another 2021 was surely the most challenging year taxpayers and tax professionals have ever experienced. long processing and refund delays, difficulty reaching the i.r.s. by phone, correspondent sponders that went un-- correspondence that went unprocessed, limited or no information on the where's my refund tool for delayed returns, end quote. bad customer service isn't the only thing tarnishing the i.r.s.'s reputation. the i.r.s. has also gained a reputation for mishandling the confidential information it has access to. the i.r.s. was recently subject to a massive leak or lack of private taxpayer information -- or hack, i should say, of private taxpayer information, information that somehow ended up in the hands of advocates at

propublica, an outfit that promotes progressive causes, and went on to publish taxpayers' private information last june. months later, neither the treasury department nor the i.r.s. has provided meaningful follow-up about the data breach much less any accountability. and who could forget the i.r.s. scandal during the obama administration when the i.r.s. targeted a number of organizations based on their political beliefs. nor did the i.r.s. inspire confidence when it announced it would start requiring taxpayers to submit biometric data in order to access certain i.r.s. services. well, fortunately, after republicans and others weighed in, the i.r.s. abandoned its entrance allow the harvesting of taxpayers' biometric data. but it was a concerning interest of government overreach. madam president, the i.r.s. was a frequent subject of discussion

regarding democrats' so-called build back better plan. it would be been nice if this was because democrats had proposed a real plan to improve taxpayer services and increase agency accountability. but, no, what they propose in their build back better plan was a massive increase in funding for the i.r.s. $80 billion. essentially doubling the size of the agency without any plan for ensuring improvements to basic taxpayer services. madam president, i'm hard-pressed to imagine why anyone would contemplate handing a massive budget increase to the i.r.s. without simultaneously prioritizing a plan to substantially increase accountability and improve taxpayer services. but of course democrats weren't interested in improving taxpayer services. their main interest in handing the i.r.s. a supersized budget increase was to increase tax

collections to raise revenue to help pay for their partisan tax-and-spending spree. it's the same reason why they included a provision until wide-spread public opposition forced this emto remove it that would have allowed the i.r.s. to examine the details of americans' bank accounts. under one version of this provision, the i.r.s. would have been able to sift through the bank records of any american with just $600 in annual transactions. $600. in other words, the i.r.s. would have been able to look through the bank records of just about every american and find out just how much you spent on starbucks or your last doctor's bill or that new pair of running shoes. madam president, republicans are not opposed to enhancing resources for the i.r.s., if needed to improve taxpayer services. but any enhanced resourcesource- resources for the i.r.s. mugs be paired with serious reform,

including measures to improve customer service, ensuring resources are being used optimally and promote smarter, more effective audits. i am a cosponsor of senator crapo's tax gap reform and i.r.s. enforcement act which would codify additional protections against overreach. among other things, the legislation would ensure the i.r.s. is not able to tax people for political and ideological beliefs and prohibit the kind of bank reporting requirements that democrats sought to impose in their build back better spending spree. it also takes steps to increase i.r.s. expertise and improve the audit process. and it would improve the information that we have on the tax gap, which is the difference between taxes owed and taxes paid. reducing the size of the tax gap and improving enforcement of our tax laws is something we should look at, but any effort has to be balanced with taxpayer

responsibilities and taxpayer rights. vastly increasing the size of the i.r.s. without any new accountability or agency oversight, as democrats wanted to do with their build back better spending spree would be more likely to result in increased harassment of law-abiding taxpayers than in a meaningful reduction in the tax gap. just in case anyone thinks i'm exaggerating about harassment, i'd like to note a provision in the house version of the democrats reckless tax-and-spending spree would repeal requiring written approval of a supervisor before an i.r.s. agent can assess any penalties. the provision was intended to prevent overreaching i.r.s. agents from threatening americans with unjustified penalties. and it's hard to imagine why democrats would try to repeal this measure if they were not trying to pave the way for much more aggressive i.r.s. pressure

on american taxpayers. madam president, in her 2021 report to congress, the national taxpayer advocate noted , and i quote, there is no way to sugar coat the year 2021 in tax administration. from the perspective of tens of millions of taxpayers, it was horrendous, end quote. the taxpayers deserve better. they deserve an efficient and accountable i.r.s. and timely and effective customer service, and congress should focus on giving it to them. i hope we'll be able to move away from democrats' intrusive and reckless build back better i.r.s. proposals and toward bipartisan efforts to reform the i.r.s. and ensure that taxpayers can reliably depend on the agency. madam president, i yield the floor, and i suggest the

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

your efforts cross past latimer putin. some of the meeting to long-term strategic communications initiatives and it coincided with putin's invasion of crimea, later donetsk as we've all come to know those names in eastern ukraine. and what accompanied it at the time was a massive information invasion both of ukraine but also our global debate and we started an effort to push back against some of that disinformation. this was early days before we really became familiar with terms like bots and trolls, the power of propaganda. and so we stood up a task force ultimately were somewhat successful in pushing i ukraine

through to the elections that led to the advent of a democratic era there and pushing russia back. unfortunately, they didn't stay away for long and obviously here in our country we have come to know all too well the power of disinformation. >> what are your thoughts on the information and disinformation campaign amid the russian invasion of ukraine. anything that has surprised you? >> i have to say president zelensky has offered a case study in how you can effectively counter russian disinformation. for so long i think we stayed on the terrain of trying to disprove every lie and what zelensky has done so well is to set his own narrative, to define this conflict and what he and his people are fighting for in such powerful terms it really has diluted and diminished the

effectiveness of russia's propaganda efforts. >> host: on information for those of us watching this work plan on twitter why does it seem easier to find out more mr. brown: thank you, thank you, mr. president. since russia's brutal invasion of ukraine, putin has been shocked by two things. the skill and army of the ukrainian people. he's also been shocked by the way president biden unified the world and put together this broad effective coalition. think about this, countries like germany, sweden and finland, even switzerland, never been involved in these kinds of international operations, they're all on board, all working with us on weapons and on humanitarian assistance and on sanctions. the president's team has done an extraordinary job of mustering the strength of this allied coalition to impose a broad

range of powerful sanctions. we've cut off huge portions of their banking, finance, and business sectors from the western financial world. we've shut down access to their monetary reserves. what putin has considered his war chest. we've -- we've cut off their ability to finance their debt. we block key sanction banks from the swift financial messaging system. we're shutting down their borrowing privileges, such as with the world bank and international international monetary fund. we have gone after putin and his ollie oligarchs, we -- and his oligarchs. we have sanctioned disinformation agents, freezing their assets, cutting off their ability to propagandize his

lies. we've gone after their lucrative energy sector, we shut down nord stream 2, we imposed a broadband on russian oil and gas coming to the united states, we cut off all new american investments in the oil and gas sector. and our big oil and gas firms have withdrawn in droves. we cut off the sophisticated technology russia's refining industry needs and other technologies that empowered their industrial efforts. in all of this, we made clear, that russia cannot expect to benefit from being part of the international economic order. and, again, mr. president, this has been the leadership of president biden and the state department and the defense department and the commerce department and others than strong leadership that's pulled everybody together. the fact that we have put together this coalition so quickly, again, with countries that really haven't since

world war ii participated in anything like this. again, sweden and finland, germany for the first time, switzerland which has been -- has been, mr. president, a neutral country even before you were born, mr. president. so this has been a long time that these countries that were neutral are coming to the fore and making a difference for us. putin's mistake will set back a generation or more. it will sever its main economic political and diplomatic ties with the west with countries around the world who want to have nothing to do with putin and his regime. in brussels there is expected to be a number of new sanctions with elites who have enthusiastically supported this war. he will impose further sanctions on any defense or intelligence or other russian firms who have

in any way supported this invasion either directly or indirectly. our goal is to reach everybody who has been part of putin's machine, of putin's war crimes. every day large teams at treasury and the department of justice work with our allies to find, freeze, and seize assets of the oligarchs and other russians who supports putin's war machine. there will be no place to hide. we can always do more. russia should not have free and unlimited access to america's economy or the global economy. the president has committed already, one of the reasons we're here today, to end permanent normal trade relations with china so that they aren't permanent. we need to do our part to give the president the immediate legal authority to work with our allies on this to shut off access to favorable tariff

treatment for russia's goods around the world. the bill passed the house with a nearly unanimous bipartisan vote. we need to finalize this in the senate so we can ratchet up the pressure further and cut off russia's table the to finance any of its -- its unprovoked invasion of another member country, the world trade organization. even before this war, we know that china -- we know that russia, along with china, create on -- cheat on the rules of trade, they pollute the market to gain an unfair advantage in the global market. my state of ohio knows all too well about being forced to compete with countries that cheat. if we don't remove this now, russia will continue to use its status to position their industries in the global market hurting american companies in the process. it's not a partisan issue. i introduced a bicameral, bipartisan bill with senator cassidy of louisiana to remove russia's permanent normal trade

relations status. there is bipartisan support to do this quickly. i worked with senator crapo on many russia sanctions over the years. i know we share the same goals. i'm hopeful there is a path forward today. he's argued an oil ban should be included in this even though the president issued an executive order in this that's already in effect. i hope we can send a strong, clear unified message to russia and the worlds, countries that invade another sovereign nation will not and never have free and unrestricted access to our economy. they'll not be able to finance that invasion by continuing to cheat the rules on trade. it's time to come together to end permanent normal trade relations with russia. i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

ms. stabenow: mr. president. are we under a suspension? quorum call. the presiding officer: quorum call. ms. stabenow: yes, i would ask suspension of the quorum call, please. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. stabenow: thank you very much, mr. president. mr. president, if you know anything about michigan, we love our cars. we put the world on wheels and we've been keeping michigan moving ever sibs since. -- ever since. but recently this love affair has hit a dry patch. nearly everyone in michigan drives to work, to school and to the lake on the weekends and it's getting warmer and warmer to be able to do that. and high gas prices have made this michigan way of life a lot more expensive. i'm thinking of the driver who

uses his own car to deliver meals and other essentials to families in detroit. gas prices have gone up so much he's barely breaking even. i'm thinking of the student who drives 40 minutes every day who attends classes at michigan tech. she -- she needs money for her tuition and rent. i'm thinking of our farmers, fuels absolutely essential to power our tractors and produce fertilizer and keep the world fed. but income is tight be even in the good times and in the tight times the folks who grow our food can struggle to fill their own refrigerators. high fuel prices hurt michigan families, our businesses and our economy and that's why it's so frustrating when oil and gas

companies make choices that keep prices high to boost their own bottom lines. it's true that part of the reason gas prices are so high is because demand is so high. thanks to president biden and democrats in congress, our economy came roaring back from covid-19. now with all of the challenges of the supply chains and the cost issues, we are dealing with, but the foundation of our economy is strong and that's a good thing. but a roaring economy requires energy and production isn't keeping pace. it's not that we don't have enough oil. in fact, the united states is the world's largest oil-producing country. and we could be producing more. there are currently 9,000 approved oil leases that the oil companies aren't even using, yet, the oil companies have made

a conscientious decision to hold back producing and pad the pockets of their shareholders. one c.e.o. even admitted as much last month when he said his company is capturing value from higher prices for gas. let me translate that. capturing value from high prices for gas really means taking money out of your pocket and my pocket and putting into the pockets of their shareholders. it's working for them. his company's revenue nearly tripled during the fourth-quarter, and they're not alone. in fact, the 25 largest oil and gas companies raked in $205 billion in profits last year, $205 billion in profits last year while price gouging now at the pump.

and they used that money to buy back $40 billion of their own stock and pay their shareholders and top executives $50 billion in dividends. and they're not particularly eager to pass on any savings to anybody else, unfortunately. it's interesting, the last time a barrel of oil was $96, gas was $3.62 a gallon. last week, a barrel of oil was, again, $96, but this time gas was $4.31 a gallon. what's the difference? well, the truth is they set the price based on what they can get away with, arguing a global economy and supply and so on, a supply of which they determine

and they set the price with what they think they can get and that's called price gouging right now, taking advantage of situations around the world, our willingness to sacrifice to be a part of supporting ukrainians and what's happening. and instead of doing their part to maybe say, okay, $205 billion in profits last year, pretty good. okay, maybe we can like do our part here, instead the prices at the pump go up and up and up, and it's got to stop. a single mom of three in michigan is standing at a gas pump right now with a knot in her stomach watching her bill go up and up and her monthly budget

go down. so that's the problem. what is the solution? first of all, the senate commerce committee is calling for the c.e.o.'s of the major oil companies to testify before the committee, and i'm really looking forward to that hearing and what they have to say for themselves. i want to thank the chairwoman, chairwoman cantwell and the committee for their leadership. secondly, i introduced the gas prices relief act with a number of my democratic colleagues. this gas tax holiday is immediate relieve, yes, short term, but it would save michigan drivers nearly $650 million at the pump this year. i also think it's about time we stop subsidizing these oil companies who are doing just fine on their own. they don't need our tax dollars to subsidize them anymore. for more than 100 years, congress has given major permanent tax benefits to the

fossil fuel industry. this decade they have received $35 billion in fossil fuel related tax breaks. do the american people really need to keep subsidizing an industry whose pollution is responsible for creating the global climate crisis, all the while enjoying record profits and picking people's pockets? the answer's no. and yet, our republican colleagues stand with the oil companies over and over again. i just came from an environmental and public works committee meeting on this very topic and heard over and over again the rational for letting the oil and gas companies keep doing what they're already doing, with no accountability and no real effort for us to move in the direction of clean energy, where we need to move.

and most importantly it's time to shift to new, clean sources of energy. for more than a hundred years, scientists have known that burning fossil fuels creates carbon pollution that build up in our atmosphere and that traps heat. it just stays there. and for more than a hundred years we've just kept on burning fossil fuels anyway, and the industry has spent billions trying to convince us it's not really happening, we really aren't seeing the climate change no, this isn't happening. don't look up. well, it's time for a change. we can start by using more home-grown and cleaner-burning biofuels to save consumers money. it's time to allow the year-round sale of e-15, a change i've encouraged the administration to make. according to the renewable fuels association, e-15 is 10 cents to

15 cents per gallon less than standard gasoline, and cleaner. and there's no time like the present to accelerate our shift to clean energy production, which i know, mr. president, you care deeply about, have been a leader in. and the use of electric vehicles. we know that part of that is moving to clean energy electricity power, as well as electric transportation. both are very, very important. buying an amazing michigan-made e.v. means you can drive right on by the gas station. don't even have to stop. that's what i'm looking forward to, mr. president. don't even have to pay attention to what's on the sign. won't matter. and the exciting thing is we can take action to help make this happen more quickly by ensuring that electric vehicles are affordable for more families, and critically that they are built right here in america.

not in china, not somewhere else around the world -- in america. and i'm laser focused on making that happen. and the good news is we'll tackle the climate crisis at the same time, because the transportation sector is the single largest source of carbon pollution. shockingly, a few weeks ago, a fossil fuel executive said this about his industry, quote, you've made a promise to be more disciplined about getting gash back to -- cash back to shareholders with these dividends. the question is, are you going to keep your promise or are you going to be patriotic? hmm. it's pretty clear whose side the oil companies are on, and it isn't the side of the american people. it's time for them to stop price gouging and try a little

patriotism. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: tomorrow will be one month since putin started his war in ukraine. every day we get a chance to see that war being fought on our tv. so, i want to tell you what i have seen in one month of viewing the war in ukraine or what i've heard from people who

report on that war in ukraine. putin is a child killer. putin kills hospital patients. putin is a bully. putin kills elderly people. putin kills pregnant mothers and their babies. putin has uprooted at least ten million people. putin deliberately shells residential areas. putin shells shopping centers. putin shells apartment buildings. putin destroys historic buildings. putin bombs theaters. putin bombs hospitals. putin destroys cultural heritage. putin threatens world peace.

putin silences dissent. putin threatens nuclear war. putin starts war to boost his popularity. putin jails his political opponents. putin jails citizens speaking against the war. putin twists history. putin is consumed with power. putin feeds off corruption. putin is acting like a true nazi putin kills to feed his ego. putin lies to his own people and the world. putin admires stalin. putin acts like stalin. putin forcefully deports civilians, like stalin.

putin is intentionally starving ukrainian civilians, like stalin. putin is destroying families. putin reintroduced mass graves to europe. no different than the executions of 20,000 polish generals and soldiers at cayton force 1940. putin lies to mothers of russian soldiers. putin poisons with impunity, particularly people that he considers traitors. putin came to power by bombing russian apartments.

-- bombing russian apartments and blaming chechens. putin is still k.g.b. putin lied before invading crimea's peninsula. putin lied about russian troops in the donbas. putin lied that he would not invade the rest of ukraine. putin lies that nato had anything to do with his decision to invade. putin thinks ukraine isn't a real country. putin thinks other eastern european countries belong to russia. putin thinks ukrainians are lesser people than russians. putin is afraid of his own people. putin imprisons political opponents.

putin is afraid of ukrainian democracy. putin got rich by steeling from -- by stealing from russians. putin is destroying his own country. putin has damaged the global economy. putin uses banned weapons against civilians. putin kidnapped -- kidnaps ukrainian mayors. putin tries toassassinate ukrainian president zelenskyy. ?iewpt has -- putin has toronto fire on -- putin has troops fire on humanitarian corridors. putin is in bed with organized crime. putin supports america's enemies putin has made the russian orthodox church a tool of state power.

putin oppresses religious minorities. putin has forced labor camps for prisoners. putin has people who support him or are just following orders or who are afraid to speak up, just like hitler did. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call: make to the pnp are

legislation delays and

accidents by at least a week. there is no reason, no reason to change the pnpr legislation the house has approved and delay action. again, i repeat. i am, senator wyden is and all democrats are willing to work with senator crepo on this issueif you can agree to let the process move forward so let me say again, pnpr has overwhelmingly passed by the house . it is an important and logical step in the fight against putin's barbaric war. we should move the house bill asap . so madame. madam president. i ask unanimous consent that at a time to be determined by the majority leader following consultation, the senate proceed for consideration of

hr 7108 which is at the desk. that 34 hours of debate equally divided and no amendments be in order and often unyielding back of the time the bill will be read a third time and vote on passage of the bill and at the motion to reconsider be considered late upon thetable without further intervening action or debate . >>

overdue representation to the bench. after serving as an assistant federal public defender in washington, d.c., judge jackson will also be the first former federal public defender to serve on our nation's highest court. it matters that someone nominated to sit on our nation's highest court has represented people other than corporate clients. it matters that someone

nominated has had real experience with people who can't afford lawyers. it matters that someone nominated has had real experience fighting in the public interest. the sixth amendment of our constitution grants criminal defendants the right to have the assistance of counsel in their defense. but it wasn't until 1963 in katie v. wainwright that the supreme court unanimously ruled that the constitution required state courts to appoint lawyers for defendants who could not otherwise afford one. now, some republicans have complained about the very idea of having a public defender on the supreme court. but their objections run squarely afoul of the meaning of the constitution. this fundamental constitutional right to counsel is safeguarded by the work public defenders do every single day. public defenders are literally

on the front lines helping america live up to our constitutional ideals. every american who supports and defends the constitution should welcome a supreme court justice who has worked so hard to turn our constitutional ideals into reality. asked about her work as a public defender, judge jackson has said, quote, every person who is accused of criminal conduct by the government regardless of wealth and despite the nature of the accusations is entitled to the assistance of counsel. judge jackson restates a foundational constitutional point, one she has lived up close and personal. public defenders understand better than anyone that none of us should be defined by the worse thing we have ever done. everyone, regardless of who they

are or what they've been accused of deserves a lawyer. our legal system as imperfect as it may be strives to deliver equal justice under law. it is only because of the commitment of public defenders, civil rights attorneys, and legal aid lawyers that we can aspire to achieve that ideal. and that is why we need judge jackson's expertise on the supreme court. and that is why i have called for a long time now for prioritizing professional diversity on our federal bench. for far too long our federal judiciary has been dominated by those who only have experience representing the wealthy and the well connected, but what about those who don't have money or influence. we need more judges with experience representing the voiceless and the disadvantaged. the makeup of our federal and state courts has never fully reflected the american people.

over time this lack of representation has formed cracks in the foundation of our legal system, cracks that weaken public trust and threaten the legitimacy of our institutions. a diverse judiciary matters. judges, all judges draw on their past personal and professional experience when analyzing the law and reviewing the facts of individual cases. judges who have experience as public defenders, civil rights attorneys, and legal aid lawyers are quell equipped to understand the circumstances that bring everyday americans into court rooms. it is that background that strengthens public trust and that reinforces the legitimacy of our judicial system. supreme court justice elena kagan said it best. she said, if the court doesn't

have legitimacy with the american public, it can't do all that much. all kinds of different people should be able to look at the court and say i see somebody there who looks like me, who thinks the way i do, who has the experiences of the kind that i have had, and that's the kind of thing that gives the court public legitimacy. justice kagan is right. our judiciary will undoubtedly be made stronger because of judge jackson's confirmation to the supreme court. and it's not only her work as a public defender that informs judge jackson's experience. prior to joining the bench, judge jackson served first as an assistant special counsel and later as the vice chair of the u.s. sentencing commission. these exerciseses give her deep -- experiences give her deep insight into the sentencing guidelines and enhance her ability to think critically

about our system's impact on ordinary people. judge jackson's first stint on the commission inspired her to become an assistant public defender in order to gain practical firsthand insight into our criminal legal system. her work in the trenches representing those without means or power provided judge jackson with an invaluable perspective into our system of justice and it gave her the opportunity to effect yate the fundamental right to counsel outlined in our constitution. i look forward to supporting her confirmation and i urge all of my colleagues to do the same. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor and i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call: >> army major general joins

us now, currently serves as a senior fellow atthe american enterprise institute focusing on the defense department budget, defense reform . it was an op-ed for aei " recently that title ukrainian invasion shows why america needs to get its defense budget in order. >> thank you for having me in the studio. right now what we have is a mismatch between the reality of what exists in the world, a strategy of our defense department and resources provided . right now the strategy is under resourced as it exists today but also the strategy calls for only having one more at a time and we see china and russia getting together to split our efforts . it calls for emphasizing procurement in the future in the 2030s over buying weapons systems and bonds, javelins. it also calls for stationing us forces more at home and abroad and we see that when an emergency happens we have

to push people off to the far-flung frontiers of nato and east asia so we need to adjust the resources to complete thestrategy that we actually need . >> so this invasion of ukraine congress passes a fiscal 2022 defense budget a bit late but the total of $785 billion in total appropriations, 119 billion redirected to research and development and testing and evaluation funding. 145 million for procurement. what don't you like about that budget? >> the presidents budget that was sent to congress, congress had to add a fair amount of money. it had $12 billion for procurement so the administration is sent over a budget that didn't buy enough bombs and weapons so the fact that congressadded that money to it is good . so we lost by some estimates $3 billion a month is wasted when you have a six month

continuing resolution so anywhere from $15-$20 million of that was gone. so now that we have, what we like about that isbipartisan . we now have a template that if the administration ask and has not spent its 23 budget over to congress yet. it will do so next week but if it does that perhaps we can get a budget on time to signal to our adversaries that we can fund our pentagon . to signal to the american people that the government can function properly we are now under high inflation. the department needs the money on time. >> let me come back to procurement. you talk about the javelin and weapons systems, are we talking more after 22's, are we talking the combat ships that have gotten so much attention in procurement when we look at the pentagon's budget?

>> i think procurement there are a couple of things.you saw yesterday our procurement factories are running at low rates of production so they need to be expanded. for things like bonds, javelins, all sorts of missiles to do two wars at once . where sizing our stockpile defense industrial base to do either russia or china but not both and we see them now getting together and they can exploit that weakness. we need to be buying munitions, buying munitions at a wartime right now in order to book the stockpile. but we also need more tax. the army is right, we need to reposition two more brigades attacks. you see the army struggling to deploy text formations and keep that rotation going but we also need probably to fully resource the navy shipbuildingmodernization plan and shipyard . we talked a lot about building more ships but we can't do it right now because the shipyards are aged and

they need about $20-$25 billion of construction. that needs to be funded right away over the next 20 years as a signal to china that we will put our navy back together here and you can have a combat capability. >> general ferrari is in charge of crafting the budget and passing the budget. what is the top line number of the 2023 budgetlook like ? >> somewhere in the neighborhood of $815 billion is what it takes to get the defense strategy moving in the right direction . >> 30 million more than what was passed. >> and on top of that we probably need to do an emergency supplemental. we did one for ukraine, $14 billion that was good to bridge the gap between now and when the budget comes out , to get the wartime production levels of and text, everybody's focused on what to do with ukrainetoday and everybody says yes, we

can buy more of that stuff but it will be ready for six months or a year . the world's going to still be a dangerous place two years from now and the best time to start production it wasn't five years ago is today. so we need probably about $45 billion in emergency supplemental . we get the navy back on its feet with its shipbuilding plan and start the production line of tax to get more bottles for the airport so that it canstockpile in both europe and the pacific . >> army general major general john ferrari with us for just about the next 15 or 20 minutes. call in, if you have your questions as usual democrats 202-748-8000, republicans 202 8001, and a special line for current and former members of the military as we often do in these segments, 202 748 8003. we are going to be going to the senate judiciary committee hearing room a little before 9 am eastern to

let you see some of the sights and sounds right before judge jackson is expected to arrive around 9am . at that point it looks like reporters and members of staff party to arrive there but until then your phone calls. sergio is up first out of pompano beach florida, an independent . >> how are you your own with general bari. >> how are you sir? what is the potential budget for the air force or marines to cover in basic production of weapons and so forth? and how can we make it accurate? >> the marine corps's are interesting, their suffering what we call economics terms strength inflation. you're getting much less marines.

they got text, they divested planes, they're focusing solely on their china mission so there less capable for, they're going to need additional funds and additional resources and additional manpower to bring a lot of the artillery needed to do tours at once. the air force is suffering from the fact that they have a lack of pilots. their short thousand pilots so what we need to do is increase the size of the air force quickly , their capacity so if we lose pilots in a war we've got to be able to replace them and we're short already. the second thing air force needs is to stockpile munitions. we saw in the syria operation several years ago the air force ran out of its global supply so those are the type of munitions we need to minimize civilian casualties. that was fighting the syrians and they were running around in isis in trucks so we need to really ramp up the production of munitions of the united states air force.

>> bradley, northport michigan, good morning. >> general, i agree we need a strong defense but i'm 71 years old and there'snever been enough money for people like you . we continue waging war and were supporting the soviets or russians, whoevernow supplies the other side with arms . we've killed so many people it's like trench warfare. it's just ridiculous and i don't know if elderly, like once we die out is going to be a differentlook . it's disgusting and there's so many ways to spend money. not that way. >> agree, war is horrific. what we want to do is spend enough money to deter war so we don't have to fight it. absent deterrence it's very very expensive to fight a war and to win the war. but it's even more expensive to have more weight upon you

and lose that war. we look at the four people in ukraine. they failed to deter the war with russia. russia invaded them. and now they're paying an enormous price, 44 million people beingwith 10 million displaced , what we're saying is we need to deter the aggressive dictators of the world like vladimir putin and others in china and in syria. you do that through a friend. >> is there a better way to spend the money? is there waste in the pentagon budget? are there places you would advocate hearing back. >> wayne mccusker has pointed out even if you look at the critical defense appropriation their $7 billion for non-defense-related items such as medical research . certainly you could take that out of there. lots of people have tried to pair back efficiencies and one of the reasons the

general campus office has stated our navy is undermanned, undertrained and cruise on the ships, there aren't enough people that people try to take efficiencies. the house is on fire and if we can sit around and try to find more efficiencies what we need to do is put the money into the systems so if were war comes to nato or the pacific we're ready us if we're not ready and we don't have the pension that bill is going to be much higher. >> ohio, larry, republican. >> caller: i want to talk to the general here about the budget and why we had waited so long to when we knew that russia was building up military along the border. and i also think that the military needs more spending and less work in the programs

we already have and most of that has gone to waste as far as i'm concerned. and that's my biggest comment. i'm 87 years old. i've been through quite a few presidents in my time and so far i'm not very pleased with what's going on in our country right now . >> over the past 20 years we've made a number of strategic miscalculations. back in time when we said we took most of the united states army and both of our forces out of their. recently we said we're going to get out of the central command area of operation in the middle east and focus on china, china, china. you hear that across several different administrations now and clearly our adversaries listen to us so they listened to us and heard the united

states can only do one more. we're going to focus on preparing for war in the 2030s and take risks in the 2020s so we can take advantage of that so russia and china have gotten together. they're probably going to get together and create problems in the middle east so we need a much more aggressive defense strategy and with that comes the resources needed in order to carry that out. >> should we have left afghanistan? >> that's the decision the president made. you can make good argument both ways whether we should have stayed or left . how we left was the problem and was the signal to the russians and perhaps signaled to them that the united states was continuing with its isolation policy. it's hard to know what's inside the russian and chinese leaders heads of what signals they take or don't take. but what we do know is that we are not, we can leave the middle east but the middle east will call us back in and we need the resources in

order to deal with defending the frontier of nato, the defending in east asia against russian expansionism and our energy supplies and the global energy supplies coming out of the middle east . if we think we're going to cut off russian oil and the russians are going to try to mess with oil coming out of the middle east we're going to have another strategic surprise so we need the most viable fighting force on 2 and a half fronts. >> the line for former members of military, this is texas, good morning. >> caller: good morning. i'd like to ask about the appropriations for star,, the space force and if they have increased in order to fund those, that entity and also regarding the budget to ukraine. the idea that zelensky is a leading democratic government seems contrary to the actions

he's taking in shutting down election competition in his own country and suppressing media coverage. also, there's a question about how we going to replace those trains military personnel that the covid-19 noncompliance vaccine orders have dismissed from service? >> thank you for the question. on space force appropriations and funding is increasing but what you're seeing play out in this war is a tipping point in the revolution in low earth orbit satellite commercial imagery.it's amazing what the average person has at their fingertips on the internet for imagery. what was once available only to the most exquisite intelligence agencies in the world.

and that low earth orbit tipping point shows the commercialization of space, low earth orbit is where the space force will have a very large impact. synchronizing, hardening and coordinating that so it may be the fact that space force doesn't have to put alot of satellite into orbit .what it needs to do iscoordinate all the commercial efforts to our and . >> bob, wakefield rhode island, independent. >> how are you? i listen every morning. i've been listening and as many have said this is one of the most informative programs on television and i don't like to call it like a story because this is the world and this is whatwe're going through . the reason i called is the initial commentary by the general and i highly respect

the people in the military and what they do. but my call was this continual dialogue about war and what we need to do and the idea of the spending on bullets and rockets and drones and you can go on and on on these destructive items that i feel eisenhower had it and we didn't listen and i don't think we've learned from history at all unfortunately. we like to talk about history but we don't seem to learn because the fact of the matter is body bags are coming back from maybe not the us now thank god that they're coming back to russia and coming back to the ukrainian people and if they

can't find the time for body bags there using thetrenches and burying people .here's my point. it's so difficult. there's so much going on now not only domestically but in the world, the entire world. so many problems that we have and we're not addressing them very well. but yet we can talk about war and producing and producing more and more weapons. >> i think we've got your point. let me get general ferrari again. >> nobody abhors war more than soldiers and write out nobody abhors war more than the people in ukraine who are being slaughtered by the russians. so in the 3200 years of recorded history of mankind strong nations have attacked weak nations so i think what we're seeing is that we can't be narcissistic about enough to think if we disarm and we

project weakness war will be over across the world. that won't happen. what we see happening in ukraine is perhaps what will happen . so it is much less expensive to prepare for war that others are afraid to fight you and then we can project our values as americans of human dignity and respect for others and prosperity across the globe. you need that global security to do that. so i agree that war is abhorrent. war is terrible, we shouldn't have to prepare for it but it's much better to prepare for war and not fight it then have war brought to your territory. >> one last call in before we had to the senate judiciary for judge jackson's confirmation hearing. richard inmassachusetts, a republican, can you make it quick ?

>> caller: we're preparing for war but the war has already started. we entered the electronic war space and this is going on as we speak. it's unfortunate that the general, good to talk to you. i was in the third infantry division. i did two back-to-back tours, war is not nice. the american people are calling for war but when it happens they're not ready for it. we're already in a war and it started electronic andit's going to happen fast and hard . i don't really think america is ready for it. if you look what's going on the past five years, does it look like we're unified as americans? absolutely not. it's disgraceful and that's whythe world is the way it is right now because how america is portraying itself across the world . >> i'll give you the final minute. >> you're correct in that we are not ready for other existential threats so i've recently put the paper out

that looks at the new defense triad, we have our nuclear triad and what the paper suggests is at least that 1950s defense strategy. what we need is a new strategy to focus on cyber and information warfare because to look at the colonial pipeline, biologics and chemicals andlook at the threat of chemical weapons . look at what covid has done an advanced weaponry. that's another strategic discussion we need to have to prepare for what this color talks about. >> john for ari is a senior fellow at the american enterprise institute . check out his work at aei.org. i appreciate your time. we return now to therussian invasion of ukraine .>>

more lethal aid delivered now.id our bipartisan delegation departed with the conviction that the united states, ukraine, and the free world have the will and the means to

stop vladimir putin's tyranny. i'm here on the senate floor today to state my belief that ukraine will beat back vladimir putin's bloody invasion. they will throw the russian army out of their country, and they will declare victory over this lawless, criminal incursion. folks, ukraine can win this war when the shooting is over, the russian military will be broken and the russian economy will collapse. consequences brought about by putin's chosen isolation and rejection of the free world. he and his cronies, their

futures are not bright either. putin's propaganda media machine will break down. he will be marked by the international community as a war criminal, and i predict will be held accountable by his own people. his best days are behind him. freedom will win. most of us thought these outcomes were improbable just a few weeks ago. the president's policymakers circulated intelligence assessments in the first days of the invasion which concluded unequivocally that ukraine didn't stand a chance. they predicted putin would topple kiev within three to five days. tomorrow marks one month since the start of the war. the russian military is

disorganized and de moralized. four separate divisions are competing for logistics resupply. putin knows he is losing and is panicking. his military is burning the bodies of their russian casualties. russia's manpower and ammunition are tapping out, while on the other side ukraine's forces are hanging tough. the weapons the u.s., our allies, and partners provided are being deployed with lethal proficiency. the front lines have been frozen for over a week, and russian casualties are greater than 1,000 a day. ukrainians are intercepting

unclassified calls and eliminating russian field commanders. most crucially, the ukrainian people are ready to fight to the last man. the russian army is a force of teenage conscripts, subjects of an authoritarian war criminal whose dilutions of grandeur about the old soviet union drove this -- whose dell liewtions liewtions -- dilutions drove this invasion. putin's invasion doesn't change ukraine's choice, and they will not go quietly. given all of this, has the united states shifted its strategy? do we believe we can help make a ukrainian victory a near certainty? we all know why we must come to

ukraine's aid. this body's memory is not that short. the u.s. is in an agreement-bound partner with ukraine. we entered into an agreement. we are their partners. in 1994, ukraine dismannedled -- manhattanled its -- dismantled their disarmament for the agreement for protection from the greatest superpower. it made the world a much, much safer place. before vladimir putin attempted to snuff it out for good three weeks ago, the american people and the world benefited from the

breadbasket of the energy production. ukraine has been an invaluable economic and security partner for nearly 30 years. putin is not only testing that agreement today in the streets of kiev, mariupol and other places, he want to inflict this all around the globe. if it has not been made clear enough already, an unshakable commitment to allies and partners keeps americans prosperous and our families safe. authoritarians, whether it's the taliban, vladimir putin, xinjiang -- xi jinping, terrorist who ruled iran, they cannot dictate terms to our security and our economy. we still are the world's

superpower 38 years after we made a security agreement with ukraine. america cannot be pawrnd. we also know how we can come to ukraine's aid. congress just passed $14 billion of support for ukraine which included nearly $2 billion of lethal weaponry. that aid, those weapons, and that logistical support must flow right now. i fought for a provision in the aid package that allows the president to draw down on prepositioned military equipment, and i will be ensuring he follows through and gets these weapons into ukrainian hands. there is no excuse for american inaction. the commander in chief now has the authority to transfer

preposition weapons and logistical support, including as many as 40 soviet-styled helicopters purchased for afghan security forces to the ukrainians. america's commitment to ukraine and our nato allies demands we ex expedite the delivery of weapons and capabilities to ukraine. any delay due to the fears of escalation is reflective of a doctrine of appeasement that will only further embolden our adversaries. pentagon press secretary john kirby said recently that success for the u.s. mission in ukraine is, at the end of the conflict, a free and independent sovereign ukraine. and, folks, i wholeheartedly agree with this sentiment. but if that is our mission,

america has to provide more support to enable ukraine to win this war. we cannot hold back. the u.s. mission in ukraine must go beyond ensuring the country merely has the means to defeat itself and defend itself against russian aggression, defeat the russians. now is not the time to be risk avers. -- adverse. this did little to deter putin's march on kiev and the invasion. president biden lifted sanctions on nord stream 2, framed the u.s.-russia relationship as stable and predictable as late as june of last year and canceled european-command military exercises, calling them too productive.

public opinion, congress, and even european nations have hammered, begged, dragged and pushed the biden administration to action. the administration has led from behind and from a position of weakness. take the polish mig debacle. three sundays ago secretary blinken gave poland a green light to transfer migs to ukraine. the following tuesday the white house did a flip and rejected the transfer of planes out of fear putin would see the move as escalatory. 41 republicans joined my letter voicing displeasure to the president for his failure to act. letting an adversary define your military's rules of engagement,

letting the aggressor dictate the boundaries of our response is not just a folly, it's suicidal. the administration crossed their fingers and hoped putin would play nice. well, folks, we know putin. he didn't play nice and deterrence failed. but the failure of this administration's doctrine of appeasement doesn't mean ukraine will lose the war. i commend actions taken to shore up the nato alliance following the invasion, but our commander in chief must now lead and give ukraine the means to win. if he is to continue being the most powerful man in the free world, he must act as such. delaying the loss of ukraine to vladimir putin to not a

strategy. success is not a russian-occupied ukraine. success is not a protracted insurgency. success is a free, independent, and sovereign ukraine. defending freedom in ukraine is defending freedom everywhere. authorityism cannot fail in this conflict. with that, mr. president. i will yield the floor. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from west virginia. mrs. capito: thank you, mr. president. i'd like to thank my fellow senator, senator ernst, from iowa, for leading the delegation

trip that we took this past weekend, the bipartisan delegation. it was most informative and impactful and she did a wonderful job leading that and i was proud of the efforts. i'm here to join my colleagues today to discussion the unjust and immoral invasion of ukraine by vladimir putin in light of the trip we took. i'm hesitant to do so not because there isn't a lot to say or words to share, but of some of the words that some ukrainians implored us. enough talking, it's time to act. and i could not agree more. but out of deep respect for them, i'd like to take a moment to make sure we all understand why we have to act and why we must act now. as americans, and you realize this when you talk -- we did certainly when we were talking

to germans and other europeans, we don't have the same perspective sometimes that europeans have that faced world war ii. one of the most powerful comments conveyed when we were meeting with german officials is that their new generation, who heard for decades about the atrocities from their parents and their grandparents, and they were told this would never happen again, and, yet, what we see is that it is happening again. this is an unjust war and there seems to be no level of atrocity that vladimir putin isn't unwilling to commit. putin overestimated his ability, his army to conquer. this was supposed to be over in three days according to him. he overestimated his own abilities and he grossly underestimated the will of the ukrainian people and the will to not just live but to live

freely. on top of this, putin has also failed to understand the commitment of the free world, of nato to stand up for freedom and we certainly saw that over the last several days. we, in our nation and our history, know that freedom is worth fighting for and it's also worth defending. we have generations that have done this in the past and will do it in the future and we believe this to our core. but we also believe that bombing of hospitals and killing civilians are the actions of war criminals, but in the face of all of this evil, we see hope. we see hope from the kraib ukrainian people -- from the ukrainian people. we see hope from the ukrainian leadership. we see hope from the ukrainian military and we see hope in our own military forces as a part of nato, including -- including all

nations of nato as well as the generosity of people around the world. the nongovernmental organizations we saw helping at the refugee center and most especially the polish people. we saw them stepping in militarily and on the humanitarian side as -- as an incredible outpouring. we saw this first hand at the refugee center. poland has now taken in over two million people in their country which is more than the entire population of my state. during our trip, we visited the center where ukrainians are going. after this, they end up not at another refugee center but most likely at somebody's home or a friend. that is the level of care and support that they are receiving and that is the level of care

and support that they deserve as a tribute of their willingness to fight and defend their freedom. many of these women and children, mostly women and children leaving their husbands and their homes behind. ukraine is united, and as we were told, ukraine will fight to the last man. may it never come to the last man because the free world must help. make no mistake, the united states of america has chosen a side. we side with freedom. we side with the people of ukraine. just a few weeks ago, congress passed $14 billion in support for ukraine and central european allies amid putin's unprovoked war. it's critical to get these funds and equipment to them now because time is of the essence. as an example, congress took an extra week to pass this package.

when you're there on the ground talking to the leadership who are trying to push back on putin, a week is a lifetime. a week is a lifetime. so we cannot afford to hesitate or to cause inaction. in our efforts to get the funds lethal and to oppose sanctions on russia, we must act now and keep acting. so, madam president, as you know, you were on the trip as well, we met with diplomats and generals, representatives from many of our executive branch agencies, n.g.o.'s, brave soldiers, including many from our home states, but i will never forget the words of a woman we met named katarina that we met at the refugee processing center. she said in desperate tones, she didn't want to leave ukraine, she didn't want to leave her home. she wants to live in freedom and peace. she has a 6-year-old and

8-year-old who are constantly hearing the sirens of bomb alerts, the sounds of bombing, just the violence. she had no choice. she has to lead to protect her children. so let's do what we can as much as we can and as fast as we can and that last part is critical, to return freedom to ukraine and justice to those who do not respect the sovereignty of nations. this is really what we owe every child in ukraine, in germany, in poland and in the united states. thank you. i yield back. the presiding officer: the senator from maine. ms. collins: madam president, on february 24, approximately one month ago, vladimir putin launched an unprovoked and unjustified war against his neighbor, the free democratic

and sovereign nation of ukraine. the bipartisan senate delegation visit to europe, led by senator ernst, that i joined over this past weekend was truly extraordinary. it has reinforced my already strong belief that the united states must do all that it can to provide lethal aid to the courageous ukrainians fighting for their families and their freedoms, as well as to provide the humanitarian assistance necessary to ease the suffering of the ukrainian people. madam president, you were on this trip as well, and like the senator f